Re Damian Langman, 2025 CanLII 21215

Ontario Review Board

Re: Mr. Damian Langman

ORB File No. 7415

Hearing held on: January 16, 2025

Place of hearing: Brockville Mental Health Centre

Pursuant to: ss. 672.81(1) Criminal Code of Canada;

Before:

Alternate Chairperson: Mr. R. Bigelow

Members: Dr. Y. Alatishe Dr. G. Kerry Ms. K. Brisson Mr. K. McKenna

Parties Appearing:

Accused: Damian Langman Counsel: Unrepresented Amicus Curiae: Mr. M. Davies

The Person in charge of Hospital: Representative: Dr. S. Gulati

Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. K. Schultz

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated March 7, 2025)

Introduction

1Mr. Langman was found not criminally responsible (NCR) for the Criminal Code offences of failure to comply with probation (x4), and utter threats to cause bodily harm or death on August 31, 2018.

2He is currently subject to a detention order under a Disposition dated January 24, 2024, with privileges that extend to living in the community in accommodation approved by the person in charge.

3A panel of the Ontario Review Board convened this annual hearing on January 16, 2025, at the Brockville Mental Health Centre (BMHC) to review the current Disposition and make any other Disposition that is appropriate in the circumstances, pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

4At the commencement of the hearing, the Hospital recommended a continuation of the current detention order with the same terms and conditions. Counsel for the Attorney-General supported this recommendation. Mr. Langman submitted that an absolute discharge or a conditional discharge would be appropriate.

5After hearing the evidence, the panel concluded that Mr. Langman was a significant threat to the safety of the public, and that a continuation of the existing detention order is necessary and appropriate.

Index Offences

6The following is a synopsis of the facts pertaining to the Index Offences.

"On Thursday August 2, 2018, Damian Langman attended the Salvation Army on George St. in the City of Ottawa. That afternoon, he was observed on the property while trying to verbally communicate with Taylor McCormick. Salvation Army security staff then detained him. They were aware he had conditions to not be on the property, and to not communicate with Taylor McCormick.

At the time, Mr. Langman was bound by a probation order for criminal harassment requiring he keep the peace and be of good behavior. Further, he was not to contact or communicate in any way, directly or indirectly, by any physical, electronic, or other means with Taylor McCormick. The order further prohibited him from being within 100 meters of her place of residence, work, or school. He was also prohibited from attending at the Salvation Army address, 171 George St, Ottawa.

Before the incident, Mr. Langman had been warned, with a report submitted on April 21. On May 10, he was charged with criminal harassment. Subsequently, he was found breaching conditions on four separate occasions: May 20, July 5, July 15, and August 2, 2018. Every incident involved the same victim.

At about 3:00 pm on August 2, 2018, Constable Sinclair arrived at 171 George St. Mr. Langman matched the description of the male being detained by Shield Security officers. Mr. Langman continued to gesture and shout in the direction of the victim as police arrived on scene. He was arrested for breach of probation and read his rights.

A police officer attended 171 George St to speak with the victim. She provided a statement, explaining how Mr. Langman had recently been trying to communicate with her, both by phone and in person. He had left two voicemail messages with her. Officers then transported Mr. Langman to police cells for a bail hearing."

Hospital Report

7The Hospital Report (the Report) dated January 2, 2025, was prepared for this hearing, and contains a detailed review of Mr. Langman's personal and mental health history.

8Mr. Langman's criminal record consists of a conviction in 2018 for criminal harassment of the same victim as in the index offence for which he received a period of probation. He was then later convicted of failing to comply with the terms of that probation order by contacting the victim.

9Mr. Langman was born in Alberta, and at the age of 4 was adopted along with his sister by Paul and Renee Langman. He reported that he completed grade 12, and enrolled in a Police Foundations program, which he did not complete. Mr. Langman was married for approximately six months.

10Mr. Langman's mother reported that her son moved out of the family home at the age of 17. He was assessed by the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario (CHEO) for 6 weeks and was diagnosed with ODD and ADHD. After completing the CHEO program, he was allowed to move into the family home of a friend from the program on the condition that he completed high school.

11Mr. Langman also attended a 12-week psychiatric evaluation program at the Royal Ottawa Hospital.

12According to his mother, Mr. Langman lived on his own in an apartment for a few years before he was evicted. He was in the armed forces for a short period of time before he was discharged. He held numerous jobs for very short periods of time.

13Ms. Langman further indicated that her son was physically violent with his father, and on one occasion pulled a knife on her. She and her husband were fearful of their son, and slept with their bedroom door locked.

14In the four to five years prior to the index offences, Mr. Langman was unemployed and supported by ODSP. He lived in the shelter system in the Ottawa area.

15He has used a variety of substances including, cannabis, weed, speed, mushrooms. crack cocaine, and cocktails with various substances. He also reported using copious amounts of drugs for five to six years prior to the index offences.

16Following the August 2018 index offences, Mr. Langman was assessed for criminal responsibility at the North Bay Regional Health Centre. He was transferred to the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre (ROMHC) and lived in a group home in Ottawa beginning July 31, 2019. He received a conditional discharge from the Ontario Review Board in November 2020. In March 2022, he was readmitted to ROMHC. An annual hearing in November 2022, determined that a detention order was necessary, and Mr. Langman was transferred to BMHC in December 2022.

17The readmission was precipitated by a significant decline in his mental health and behaviour. In early September 2021, he stopped taking his medication, and expressed that he did not have a mental illness. He became irritable and religiously pre-occupied. He became confrontational and verbally aggressive. He would admonish his treating psychiatrist. When confronted with his behaviour, Mr. Langman stated that it was his religious duty to correct others. In March 2022, his religious preoccupation intensified and he became delusional. Staff at the residence no longer felt safe with Mr. Langman in the residence. At a meeting with his doctor on March 25, 2022, his behaviour was extremely bizarre, and his thought process disorganized.

18Mr. Langman is currently diagnosed as follows:

(i) Schizophrenia;

(ii) Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, combined presentation;

(iii) Amphetamine-type substance abuse disorder;

(iv) Cannabis use disorder;

(v) Antisocial Personality disorder.

19Dr. Gulati testified at the annual hearing last year. He stated that Mr. Langman has been unhappy with the care of all the psychiatrists who have been treating him since the NCR finding, and has filed complaints with the College of Physicians and Surgeons. Dr. Gulati indicated that Mr. Langman exhibits challenging behaviour that can be oppositional, condescending, and confrontational. He does not believe he is ill and requires medication. On December 18, 2023, Mr. Langman tested positive for Wellbutrin, a medication that was not prescribed for him, and which has the potential for abuse.

20The Report for this year indicates that Mr. Langman continues to have grandiose religious preoccupations. He has experienced difficulty with co-patients when giving unwanted advice.

21Mr. Langman has had 9 aggressive incidents documented since October 1, 2023. As well, he has been found with medication in his system that wasn't prescribed for him, and he tested positive for THC. There were also occasions of medication diversion and periods of medication non-compliance. He demonstrates a belligerence and tries to impose his values on others.

22Mr. Langman has requested that any doctor involved with the Royal Ottawa Hospital, which includes BMHC, be excluded from his care in the future. He only co-operates with staff on his terms, and he remains challenging for staff, fixated on being wrongly persecuted. He would like to be transferred to a different hospital.

23The Report indicates that symptoms of his illness continue. He exhibits pressured speech, becomes easily irritable and distracted, flight of ideas, grandiosity, and poor insight into his illness. He refuses to take Olanzapine, which is recommended, but remains on a long-acting injectable.

24At his CCB pre-hearing conference in August 2024, he remained argumentative and uncooperative, and demonstrated a lack of insight into his illness and treatment.

25The Report does indicate that the medications are having a positive effect, as he appears less tangential and disorganized. He is incapable to consent to treatment, and the Hospital anticipates improvement from the medications, such as Lamotrigine and Invega, being optimized.

26There was a meeting on August 28, 2024 with Mr. Langman, who had the previous weekend been placed in seclusion. He became irritable, speaking in a loud voice, and at one point during the meeting made the threat that, "you will regret it for your life if you do not listen to me or medicate me."

27Following this meeting, Mr. Langman called the OPP to press charges against Dr. Gulati and a colleague.

28The Report at page 69 details the risk considerations. It refers to Mr. Langman's limited insight into his illness, noncompliance with medication, irritability, confrontational and verbal aggression, symptoms of major mental disorder in the form of thought disorder, disorganized behaviour, recent problems with instability of thinking, emotional expression or behaviour, and recent problems with treatment or supervision response. He is belligerent towards staff, and intrusive.

Testimony

29Dr. Gulati and Mr. Langman testified at this hearing.

30Dr. Gulati stated that Mr. Langman was doing well at the beginning of the year, but remained adamant he wanted to stop his medication. The Hospital initially reduced his dosage of Olanzapine, and then stopped his medication entirely. By July, he had decompensated, became more intrusive and belligerent, and had to be moved to a different unit. He believes that "he has the power", and wants nothing to do with the Hospital.

31Dr. Gulati would like to see him in various programs, but this cannot be done until his condition is stabilized. Dr. Gulati indicated that he is not compliant with his medication and he recently became very angry. He has not been physically violent this past year, but he remains a significant threat to the public.

32Dr. Gulati confirmed with the Crown that Mr. Langman continues to refuse Lamotrigine, which is a mood stabilizer. This contributes to his irritability.

33Dr. Gulati confirmed with the Crown that the combination of no medication and illicit substances would have a profound detrimental effect on his mental condition.

34Dr. Gulati does not believe that Mr. Langman would take his medication or comply with treatment if granted a conditional discharge. Mr. Langman does not have a place to live at the current time.

35According to Dr. Gulati, a positive year for Mr. Langman would be engagement in treatment and psychotherapy, and a few months of uneventful community living.

36Mr. Langman testified. He was somewhat confrontational with Dr. Gulati, questioning his honesty and integrity. He referred to his minimal criminal record, and the fact he has not been violent this past year as evidence that he is not a threat to the public. He stated that he has not attempted to run away, and that he has not been the subject of a code white within the Hospital.

37Mr. Langman testified that he has participated in a number of programs, but that he no longer wants to engage group programs because they are repetitive. He refutes the suggestion that he has been confrontational, and states that he simply trying to make a point.

38He further testified that he has received help for his addictions, and that his use of cannabis was therapeutic. He felt frustrated that he has been under the jurisdiction of the Review Board for 8 years, and there is nothing more he can do to prove himself.

39He emphasized to the panel that medical malpractice does occur. He would like to be transferred to the Kingston Hospital, and wants nothing more to do with doctors from the Royal Ottawa system. He would like to try different doctors and staff at Kingston, but he is willing to give his new doctor a chance.

40He also expressed frustration with not being able to use the kitchen in B4N, which would help develop some life skills.

41The panel asked Dr. Gulati if he thought the argumentative and confrontational behaviour was related to the schizophrenia or the personality disorder. Dr. Gulati believes it is likely from a combination of both.

42Mr. Langman exercises grounds privileges for up to 8 hours, reporting every hour.

43Dr. Gulati advised that Dr. Alabi has recently assumed responsibility for Mr. Langman's care.

Submissions

44The Crown suggested that Mr. Langman's positive presentation at this hearing speaks to a strong potential for rehabilitation. If he develops insight into his condition and need for treatment, and is more compliant with his medication regimen, it may be a short journey. The Crown further submitted that the Mental Health Act is not an appropriate means to safely monitor Mr. Langman's behaviour. Mr. Langman would not voluntarily return to the hospital if requested by his physician. The Crown also alluded to Mr. Langman lacking any supports in the community.

45Mr. Davies, as amicus, simply suggested that a conditional discharge requires use of the Mental Health Act to readmit Mr. Langman to the hospital, and although this is not as convenient as a detention order, it could still work appropriately.

46Mr. Langman submitted that he represented himself so the panel could see that he is intelligent, and he expressed his sincere desire to move to Kingston.

Analysis

47The panel accepts the evidence provided by the Report and the testimony of Dr. Gulati. The panel also appreciates the testimony of Mr. Langman.

48Mr. Langman continues to be a significant threat to the safety of the public. He does not accept that he has a mental illness or that medication is required to stabilize his condition. To appease Mr. Langman, the Hospital discontinued his medication last spring which resulted in a rapid decline of his mental health. He became more intrusive and belligerent.

49The panel accepts the risk factors as set out in the Report; a history of non-compliance with medication, irritability, verbal aggression, thought disorder and disorganized behaviour. He also exhibits emotional instability, and generally has a belligerent attitude towards staff and co-patients.

50Mr. Langman requires the support and supervision of the Hospital staff to improve his symptoms and his behaviour. This needs to be done with medication and therapy.

51It is evident that Mr. Langman doesn't appreciate the nature of his condition and the risks his behaviour could have on the public. If he were to be granted a conditional or absolute discharge, he would undoubtedly stop his medication, and his condition would deteriorate. His psychotic symptoms would intensify, and his behaviour would become more disorganized.

52His argumentative and confrontational behaviour, with repeated episodes of verbal aggression, exist quite extensively while he is in the hospital being monitored and supervised. Without this supervision his behaviour in the community would put the safety of the public at considerable risk of harm.

53It was very apparent from Mr. Langman's testimony that he is intelligent, and has the ability to progress through the forensic system. It is necessary for him, however, to gain an appreciation of his mental illness, and co-operate with the treatment and his psychiatrists. The persistent attack on his psychiatrists for providing inappropriate care is not helping his situation.

54The panel was advised that a new psychiatrist has assumed responsibility for Mr. Langman's care. We are hopeful that a good relationship will develop. In the event that it does not, the Hospital may want to consider a transfer to Kingston. Mr. Langman has a fixed notion that he is receiving poor care from everyone associated with the Royal Ottawa Health Centre, and he would like to be transferred to Kingston. If he maintains this belief, a transfer to Kingston may be appropriate.

55With respect to Mr. Langman being placed in seclusion in August 2024, it appears from the evidence that the increase in the restrictions on Mr. Langman's liberty exceeded 7 days. It was incumbent on the Hospital to provide notice to the Board of this increase on the restrictions to his liberty pursuant to s. 672.56(2) of the Criminal Code.

56In coming to the conclusion that a continuation of the current detention order represents the least onerous and restrictive Disposition that is necessary and appropriate in the circumstances the panel has applied the principles provided in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code.