Re: Michel Joseph LeComte
ORB File No: 4061
Hearing held on: Friday, January 17, 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: Mr. P. Capelle Members: Dr. J. Watts Dr. P. Wright Ms. L. Banks Mr. J. Cyr
Parties Appearing: Accused: Michel Joseph LeComte Counsel: Mr. C. Bracken
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Mr. P. Trenker
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. M. Mazurski
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated March 20, 2025)
Introduction:
On October 13, 2004, Mr. Michel Joseph LeComte was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (“NCR”) on a charge of assault, contrary to the Criminal Code. He is currently subject to a Disposition dated January 25, 2024, discharging him subject to a variety of terms and conditions, including, among others, that he reside within the community of North Bay and that he report to the person in charge of the hospital not less than once per month.
On January 17, 2025, a panel of the ORB convened a hearing at the hospital to conduct an annual review of Mr. LeComte’s Disposition pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. LeComte was present at the hearing and was represented by his counsel, Mr. Bracken.
The Board had to decide whether Mr. LeComte continued to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public, and if so, the necessary and appropriate Disposition having regard to the criteria set out in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
For the reasons set out below, this Board finds the test for significant threat continues to be met and that the necessary and appropriate Disposition under the circumstances is that Mr. LeComte continue to be subject to the terms of his existing Conditional Discharge Disposition.
Position of the Parties:
The hospital recommended that Mr. LeComte remains a significant threat to public safety and that the necessary and appropriate Disposition is his existing Conditional Discharge.
Counsel for the Crown supported the hospital’s recommendation.
Mr. Bracken stated that his client was requesting an Absolute Discharge.
All parties maintained their initial recommendations to the Board in closing submissions.
Index Offences:
- A summary of the circumstances surrounding the index offences are extracted from last year’s ORB Reasons for Disposition, as follows:
“On January 6, 2004, at the entrance of The Bay, Mr. LeComte was observed sitting on a bench and possibly harassing people. He was then approached by the security staff who found him to be intoxicated and smelling of alcohol. He was advised to leave the place following which Mr. LeComte reportedly got up and stretched out his arms and legs in front of the security staff. He was reported to have stated, “You are going to die.” When asked by the security staff what he meant, Mr. LeComte reportedly said, “Step outside to die.” He then stepped outside and then ran back in through the doors swinging his arms and kicking in the air. He was again asked to leave at which time he proceeded to kick the security officer on the left side of his upper leg. He was then physically restrained and taken out of the store. He was physically restrained by the security staff before the arrival of the police. When the police arrived on the scene, he was reported to be verbally aggressive, yelling and screaming obscenities. He was also observed to be smelling of alcohol. An attempt was made to take him to the hospital, but Mr. LeComte was spitting and trying to bite the paramedics who were attempting to provide him with treatment. When informed by the police that he was under arrest, Mr. LeComte reportedly responded by using profanities. He was taken to the police station at which time he requested to go to the hospital. He was also found to have lost a tooth and complained of broken ribs. At the hospital it was confirmed that Mr. LeComte had three cracked ribs on the right side and that his right lung was punctured. He was subsequently admitted for about two days.”
Hospital records indicate that Mr. LeComte threatened and assaulted a security staff at The Bay. He reportedly smelled of alcohol and was intoxicated at the time.
Background Information:
Mr. LeComte’s personal, psychiatric and legal history are set forth in full in the Hospital Report to the ORB dated December 3, 2024 (the “Hospital Report”) and as that document was made an Exhibit at the hearing, it will not be repeated here but for the following material highlights.
Briefly stated, Mr. LeComte is a 64-year-old man who was born in Sturgeon Falls. He lives in his own apartment on Trout Lake Road where he has been residing for many years.
He experienced a tragic childhood having experienced violence early on and then was placed in the foster care system when he was 3-years-old. He lived with one foster family for six years and at age 9, he left to stay in a variety of different foster homes. From 1969 to 1973, he states he lived in at least 16 foster homes. His biological father has lived in the Thunder Bay area and apparently now lives in the North Bay area. Mr. LeComte is estranged from his family members. His mother resides in Toronto, and she is his substitute decision maker (“SDM”).
In the foster homes, he was unruly and disruptive. This behaviour manifested itself throughout grade school.
Mr. LeComte reported that he has worked primarily in the areas of carpentry and auto mechanics. He is supported by ODSP with limited finances.
Criminal History:
- Mr. LeComte has an extensive criminal history dating back to 1978 which includes weapons offences, assaults, property offences, uttering threats, fail to comply. In addition, he has a number of impaired charges. His full criminal and legal history are set forth in detail on pages 2-3 of the Hospital Report.
Psychiatric History:
- According to the Hospital Report, Mr. LeComte was admitted to Brockville Psychiatric Hospital from June 16, 2004 to February 26, 2006. While under the ORB, he was transferred to Thunder Bay Health Sciences Centre from February 27, 2006 to June 10, 2014. Other than as stated above, there have been no known psychiatric hospitalizations prior to his admission to Brockville Psychiatric Hospital.
Current Diagnoses:
- Mr. LeComte’s current diagnoses are:
Schizophrenia, Paranoid Type;
Alcohol Use Disorder; and
Cannabis Use Disorder.
Evidence at the Hearing:
The evidence at this hearing consisted of the Hospital Report and the testimony of Dr. O. Kolawole, Mr. LeComte’s treating psychiatrist since for approximately the past eight years. He adopted the contents of the Hospital Report and advised that there were no material updates.
Mr. LeComte continues to be assessed as incapable to consent to psychiatric treatment and his mother acts as his Substitute Decision Maker (“SDM”). Under his SDM’s consent, Mr. LeComte is treated with a long-acting injection (“LAI”) of the antipsychotic medication, Invega Sustenna, which he receives every 28 days from the Assertive Community Treatment (“ACT”) team.
In terms of his mental state, Mr. LeComte has remained stable and his presentation over the past reporting year has been consistent with previous reporting years. However, despite adherence to his medication, Mr. LeComte continues to express delusional beliefs and grandiose delusional thoughts that, at times, inform his behaviours. For example, delusion has prevented Mr. LeComte from receiving cataract surgery. The Hospital Report indicates that his conversations with staff typically include delusional content. Dr. Kolawole reported that Mr. LeComte’s mood is generally stable; however, he often becomes belligerent towards staff during periods of heightened distress. His ongoing delusional thought process often exacerbates these feelings of agitation. Dr. Kolawole stated that he requires considerable staff supports at times to assist in settling him during periods of heightened stressors.
Dr. Kolawole stated that Mr. LeComte’s medications are sufficient to manage his risk in the context of the intensive case management services he currently receives.
He is supported in the community by the Forensic Outpatient Program (“FOP”) and the ACT team. Dr. Kolawole reported that he sees Mr. LeComte approximately every two to three months. Mr. LeComte is also under the care of an ACT team psychiatrist, Dr. Primeau. Mr. LeComte has contact with members of the ACT team at least weekly.
He is supported by the FOP’s recreational therapist who tries to identify recreational activities that Mr. LeComte might be interested in engaging in since Mr. LeComte complains of boredom. Other outreach staff also meet with Mr. LeComte twice weekly to accompany him to the YMCA.
Mr. LeComte continues to reside in his apartment located at 2154 Trout Lake Road in North Bay and has since March of 2015. He lives alone and has limited socialization with others beyond his support teams. There are no on-site professional supports at his residence.
Dr. Kolawole testified that Mr. LeComte receives a high level of support and monitoring in the community and it is precisely this oversight that is essential in mitigating the risk he poses. The doctor endorsed the Hospital Report’s conclusion that “… the treatment team acknowledges that the support he is receiving allows for timely intervention and ongoing assessment of his mental health. Without such intensive support, it would be difficult to monitor his mental state adequately, and any signs of deterioration might go unnoticed until it is too late to act effectively.”
Mr. LeComte suffers from chronic back pain, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and dyspepsia. Dr. Seguin of the ACT team provides general medical follow-up. Mr. LeComte reports that he uses both cannabis and alcohol to cope with the pain, in addition to prescribed medications. Of note, Mr. LeComte’s Disposition does not prohibit his use of cannabis or alcohol. Dr. Kolawole stated that Mr. LeComte’s use of these substances is likely inhibited by his finances. As well, his use of alcohol and cannabis is tempered by the parameters put in place by the FOP and ACT teams. Specifically, Mr. LeComte is aware that if he presents as intoxicated, his support team members will not accompany him on community outings and activities. Dr. Kolawole commented that this approach has served to mitigate the extent of his cannabis and alcohol use. The doctor acknowledged that Mr. LeComte has managed his use well to date but the doctor testified that unfettered use of these substances would clearly be risk enhancing.
Over the past reporting year, Mr. LeComte did not engage in any physically aggressive incidents nor did he require re-hospitalization.
Dr. Kolawole testified that Mr. LeComte’s insight across all relevant domains is severely underdeveloped. He denies having a major mental illness. He denies receiving any benefit from his antipsychotic medication and does not acknowledge the importance of adhering to his prescribed medication. Essentially, he does not believe that he is ill or that he requires the medication. He would not be able to recognize early warning signs or symptoms indicative of the fact that his mental health may be deteriorating, which significantly complicates efforts to manage his condition effectively. Further, Mr. LeComte does not have any appreciation of the likely negative impact on his mental state if he were to use cannabis, alcohol or other intoxicants. He does not have any appreciation of the risk he poses.
Mr. LeComte has infrequent contact with his mother and they do not visit often. He has no contact with other family members. His only social supports are through his FOP and ACT teams.
Dr. Kolawole endorsed the Clinical Assessment of Risk contained in the Hospital Report, and agreed that the following factors aggravate Mr. LeComte’s risk profile:
“Mr. LeComte has a longstanding history of Paranoid Schizophrenia with outstanding features of grandiose and paranoid delusions, themselves regularly associated with irritability, agitation and aggression. He has prominent delusions that persist despite antipsychotic treatment;
Mr. LeComte has no apparent insight into the symptoms of his mental illness and need for ongoing treatment with antipsychotic medication. It is unlikely that he would recognize symptoms of a relapse;
Mr. LeComte has been unable to abstain from the use of cannabis and alcohol during this reporting period;
Mr. LeComte has a history of unreliable medication compliance while residing in the community;
Mr. LeComte has an extensive and varied criminal history; and
Due to decompensation in his mental health, Mr. LeComte required readmission to hospital in 2022 with an optimization of his medications.”
Dr. Kolawole stated that although Mr. LeComte has a civil team in place at the present time, he has been clear that he will dis-engage from follow-up services and contact with the ACT team if he receives an Absolute Discharge. Of note, Dr. Kolawole testified that at the pre-Board conference between the FOP and the ACT team, the ACT team members were unanimous in their opinion that Mr. LeComte continues to meet the threshold of posing a significant threat to public safety.
Dr. Kolawole advised that the finding of significant threat was unanimously endorsed by Mr. LeComte’s treatment team. If granted an Absolute Discharge, Dr. Kolawole expected that there would be a highly likelihood that Mr. LeComte would stop his LAI medication over time, and experience a flare-up of his chronic active psychotic symptoms, which in turn, would lead to an acute decompensation in his mental state. This, in turn, would be highly likely to result in his return to criminal reoffending in a manner similar to the time of the index offences. His risk is being managed externally by the legal and forensic framework afforded under his ORB Disposition. Dr. Kolawole stated that the Mental Health Act alone would not be sufficient to manage Mr. LeComte’s risk to others.
When asked why Dr. Kolawole stated that Mr. LeComte would be likely to stop his medication in the context of an Absolute Discharge, Dr. Kolawole stated that Mr. LeComte’s serious lack of insight regarding his mental illness, his need for treatment in perpetuity, and his lack of appreciation of the risk he poses absent medication, as well as his history of non-compliance, all inform the doctor’s opinion in this regard. In addition, Mr. LeComte has expressly stated that he would stop his medication if not under the Board’s jurisdiction.
Dr. Kolawole commented that any escalation in Mr. LeComte’s use of alcohol and cannabis, particularly in the context of cessation of his LAI medication, would be highly likely to result in an acute heightening of his risk profile.
Of note, Mr. LeComte has stated that if he received an Absolute Discharge, he would terminate all mental health supports and follow-up. Dr. Kolawole stated that Mr. LeComte would not be an appropriate candidate for a Community Treatment Order, which, in any event, would be insufficient to manage his risk to public safety. Dr. Kolawole stated that it is precisely because of the high level of support, monitoring, and oversight Mr. LeComte receives by his two treatment teams in the community, that his risk to public safety is mitigated.
No further evidence was called by the parties.
Analysis and Conclusions:
The Board has carefully considered the expert evidence of Dr. Kolawole, as supplemented by the Hospital Report, and has come to its finding that Mr. LeComte continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public.
Mr. LeComte suffers from a major mental illness, being Paranoid Schizophrenia. He continues to experience residual symptoms in the form of grandiose and paranoid delusions, which are often associated with irritability, agitation and aggression. His illness is treatment-refractory. When unwell, Mr. LeComte has presented with impulsive aggression, emotional dysregulation, irrational anger, and intimidating behaviour. He has a history of medication non-compliance and falling away from psychiatric follow-up.
Further, Mr. LeComte has severely underdeveloped insight across all relevant domains and has stated that when no longer under an ORB Disposition, he will stop taking his prescribed medication and terminate engagement with psychiatric follow-up and supports. In that context, the evidence indicates that Mr. LeComte would be likely to suffer a significant decompensation in his mental state and would be likely to present with belligerent, threatening, and aggressive behaviours. In that scenario, the Hospital Report indicates that “… Mr. LeComte’s risk of violent reoffending will increase to the moderate-to-high level.” We concur with the conclusion of Dr. Kolawole that it is precisely because of the high level of support, monitoring, and oversight that Mr. LeComte receives by his two community treatment teams, that his risk to public safety is mitigated. For all of the above reasons, this panel is satisfied that Mr. LeComte continues to meet the threshold of posing a significant threat to public safety as defined by the Supreme Court of Canada in Winko.
Having found that Mr. LeComte continues to meet the threshold for significant threat, the panel must craft a Disposition which is necessary and appropriate, as well as the least onerous and least restrictive.
The panel is mindful that Mr. LeComte has continued to do well in the community; however, we find that this is, to a very large extent, a result of the intensive professional supports and services he receives in the community. It is this high degree of supervision, support and structure that allows Mr. LeComte’s risk to be managed safely.
Mr. LeComte should be credited for the fact that he has not engaged in any incidents of violence or aggression over the past year. In fact, Mr. LeComte has not exhibited signs of physical aggression for many years. As well, Mr. LeComte has engaged well with the treatment team and has not breached any of the terms of his Disposition. He has remained compliant with his prescribed medication.
The Board is mindful that Mr. LeComte has been subject to a Conditional Discharge since January 2022 and he has been living successfully in the community since 2015. We concur with the hospital that Mr. LeComte’s success is in large part attributable to the level of intensive supports that he receives in the community where his risk of recidivism is safely managed. We note that Mr. LeComte’s risk is being managed externally by the legal and forensic framework afforded under his existing ORB Disposition. We concur that the Mental Health Act alone would not be sufficient to manage Mr. LeComte’s risk to others. In conclusion, this panel finds that the necessary and appropriate Disposition to manage Mr. LeComte’s risk to public safety is his existing Conditional Discharge Disposition, without amendment.
In coming to this determination, the Board has considered the criteria set out in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code, the paramount consideration being the safety of the public, the mental condition of Mr. LeComte, his reintegration into society and his other needs.
DATED this 20^th^ day of March 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.
Ms. L. Banks Legal Member
__________________________ Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board