Re Austin Lorondeau, 2025 CanLII 31431

Ontario Review Board

Re: Austin Lorondeau

ORB File No: 7231

Hearing held on: Monday, March 3, 2025

Place of hearing: Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care 401 Sunset Drive, St. Thomas

Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code

Before:

Alternate Chairperson: Mr. J. Weinstein

Members: Dr. R.D. Chandrasena Dr. B. Sheppard Ms. K. Tomaszewski Ms. C. Plyley

Parties Appearing:

Accused: Austin Lorondeau Counsel: Mr. W. Glover

The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. J. Zamprogna

Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. K. Dalrymple

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated April 10, 2025)

Introduction:

1. On September 27, 2017, Mr. Austin Lorondeau was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, on charges of attempt to commit murder and assault, both contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (“Criminal Code”).

2. Mr. Lorondeau is currently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the “Board”), dated March 27, 2024, which discharges him on certain terms and conditions, including a provision that he reside at 375 Merton Street and that, on his consent, he take treatment, pursuant to s. 672.55(1) of the Criminal Code.

3. On March 3, 2025, the Board convened a hearing at the Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care, St. Joseph's Health Care London (“Southwest”) to conduct the annual review of the current Disposition.

4. Mr. Lorondeau was present and was represented by his counsel, Mr. W. Glover.

5. A Hospital Report dated January 9, 2025 (the "Hospital Report"), was entered as Exhibit 1.

6. The issue at this hearing is whether Mr. Lorondeau 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.

7. For the reasons set out below and based on the expert evidence and opinions before it, the Board concluded that Mr. Lorondeau continues to present a significant threat to the safety of the public. The Board ordered that the necessary and appropriate Disposition in the circumstances is the continuation of the existing discharge order, with the removal of the clause requiring him to abstain absolutely from the non-medical use of alcohol or drugs or any other intoxicant.

Current Psychiatric Diagnoses:

8. Schizophrenia

Substance Use Disorder (in remission)

Background and Index Offences:

9. Mr. Lorondeau’s background and Index Offences are outlined in the Hospital Report and are extracted from last year’s Board Reasons, as follows:

“Mr. Lorondeau is single and has no dependents. He is diagnosed with schizophrenia and polysubstance abuse. Most recently, he had been living at the Steele Street Treatment and Rehabilitation Center in accordance with his detention order.

Details of Mr. Lorondeau’s childhood and education are contained in the hospital report. Briefly, he was six years of age when his father took his own life. Mr. Lorondeau’s mother could not cope and left him and his siblings' care to their grandparents. During his developmental years he was reportedly sexually abused by an older female. He displayed some behavior problems during his youth including fighting, truancy, challenging teachers, running away from home, vandalism, substance abuse and mistreating animals.

Mr. Lorondeau is dyslexic and always struggled with schoolwork. He quit school before the end of grade 10. Later he attempted, unsuccessfully, to complete his GED. Since leaving high school Mr. Lorondeau has held various jobs at factories and other places. The hospital report records that he would initially be happy and then become bored and leave the job. Prior to his arrest on charges stemming from the index offences, Mr. Lorondeau was living with his mother, her husband and one of his siblings. After the index offence, Mr. Lorondeau’s mother was diagnosed with cancer, and she subsequently died.

Mr. Lorondeau self-reported that he began using cannabis at the age of 14. As his use increased, he began to experience paranoia and auditory hallucinations. He reported trying magic mushrooms and ecstasy on one occasion. He also reported using crystal methamphetamine, including the day of his arrest, and experienced hallucinations involving scary clowns and hearing screaming. In addition, he reported drinking excessively for about a week leading up to the index offence. However, he denied having abused alcohol previously.

Mr. Lorondeau has no known criminal history prior to the index offences, which were committed in February 2017. At the time Mr. Lorondeau had been admitted to the psychiatric unit at the Windsor Regional Hospital as a result of exhibiting irrational and threatening behavior at a farm where he was working. He attacked a nurse, grabbing her throat with both hands and choking her. He later informed authorities that he was trying to kill her. The hospital report records that following his arrest he continued to display bizarre and unpredictable behavior and within a few days, while in custody, an attempted suicide. After being found not criminally responsible Mr. Lorondeau was initially placed at the Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care. In May 2018, it was determined that he no longer required the structured and secure setting at Waypoint resulting in his transfer to SWC.

Since coming under the jurisdiction of the Board, Mr. Lorondeau pleaded guilty and was convicted with assaulting a co-patient at the SWC in July 2018. He received a suspended sentence, along with 18 months' probation, and ordered not to associate with the victim except for incidental contact. A weapons prohibition was also imposed and a requirement that he provide a DNA sample.

In or about December 2018, Mr. Lorondeau was started on a trial of clozapine. He experienced an improvement in his symptomology and presentation with respect to both his positive and negative symptoms. He also showed improvement in his day-to-day functioning and concentration. Once stabilized he no longer exhibited any aggressive tendencies. He has shown a willingness to become more involved in rehabilitation programs.”

Course Since Last Disposition:

10. Mr. Lorondeau’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. Lorondeau moved into a group home located at 76 Wellington Street in St. Thomas, Ontario on March 12, 2023, and remained at this address throughout the entire reporting period.

Throughout the reporting period Mr. Lorondeau had not experienced any positive symptoms related to his mental illness. However, he demonstrated signs of negative symptoms which remained persistent throughout the year and impacted his treatment progress.

During this reporting period there have been more noted periods of mood instability, typically related to situational or environmental stressors. For instance, Mr. Lorondeau ended a relationship with a previous girlfriend and was reportedly upset following the breakup. He was able to identify that this relationship was not healthy but required significant prompting to engage in ongoing activities and structured programming during this time. He is currently in another relationship with a co-resident, and it appears to be going well.

Mr. Lorondeau’s days are mostly unstructured. He remained unemployed over the reporting period. He was also not interested in volunteer work and remained ambivalent to finding new vocational opportunities.

With the support of and recommendation from his treatment team, he also agreed to initiate relapse prevention programming with a community addiction organization in the coming month.”

Position of the Parties:

11. At the conclusion of the hearing counsel for the hospital, the Attorney General and for Mr. Lorondeau advised this was a joint submission: all were adopting the hospital’s recommendation of a continuation of the existing discharge disposition, with the removal of the current provision that he abstain absolutely from the non-medical use of alcohol or drugs or any other intoxicant.

12. For the purposes of this hearing, counsel for Mr. Lorondeau advised that significant threat was not in dispute.

13. Counsel for Mr. Lorondeau also advised that his client continues to agree to the consent to treatment clause, pursuant to s. 672.55(1) of the Criminal Code.

Evidence at the Hearing:

14. The Board had available to it the evidence and documents forming the Record, the Exhibits, and oral evidence from Dr. Arun Prakash. Dr. Prakash co-authored the Hospital Report, and he testified as follows:

a) He is Mr. Lorondeau’s attending psychiatrist. He adopts the contents of the Hospital Report.

b) Mr. Lorondeau has been living at his current residence since March of 2023.

c) Mr. Lorondeau still suffers from the negative symptoms of his major mental illness and presents as depressed.

d) The plan is to add an antidepressant to Mr. Lorondeau’s medication regimen. The hospital intends to proceed cautiously, as Mr. Lorondeau is subject to seizures.

e) Mr. Lorondeau tends to cope with stress by withdrawing and playing more video games. The treatment team is encouraging him to either look for a part-time job or add other structure to his day, such as by volunteering.

f) The treatment team is hoping that the addition of an antidepressant to his medication regimen will address Mr. Lorondeau’s negative symptoms, enabling him to be more proactive in seeking activities that would provide him more structure.

g) If they are able to manage Mr. Lorondeau’s negative symptoms with the introduction of antidepressant medication, the treatment team hopes to refer him to an assertive community team in the coming reporting year.

h) Mr. Lorondeau’s current residence is considered transitional, and he will only be allowed to remain for one more year. In order to afford a new residence, he will have to supplement his income, either through part-time employment or DSO funding. He has applied for DSO funding.

i) Mr. Lorondeau has very good insight into the effects of substances on his major mental illness. His girlfriend does use cannabis and it is available at his current residence; however, to Mr. Lorondeau’s credit, he has not used cannabis in at least the last six years.

j) Mr. Lorondeau has a very positive relationship with his outreach team; he is open with them and reports any symptoms that he may be experiencing.

k) Mr. Lorondeau is progressing towards an Absolute Discharge. Removal of the abstain clause from his current Disposition would be beneficial, allowing the team to assess whether he is able to remain abstinent from substances when it is no longer required by his Disposition, and while he is still under the Board’s auspices.

l) Should the treatment team find appropriate independent accommodation for Mr. Lorondeau in the current reporting year, they would call an early hearing to update the required residence clause.

m) It is very important for Mr. Lorondeau to remain on a Conditional Discharge pending the optimization of his medication regimen and his move to new housing.

15. In response to questions from counsel for the Attorney General, Dr. Prakash testified:

a) Mr. Lorondeau denies having any cravings for substances and has been able to remain abstinent while living in the community. He is internally motivated to remain abstinent.

b) Mr. Lorondeau has attended relapse prevention programs previously.

c) Mr. Lorondeau’s tendency to isolate and play video games is concerning. The treatment team is hoping that the addition of antidepressants to his medication regimen will help with his isolative behaviour.

16. In response to questions from the panel, Dr. Prakash testified:

a) Mr. Lorondeau’s medication is currently supervised from Monday to Friday, and he takes it independently on the weekends.

b) The treatment team believes that the Mental Health Act is sufficient to protect the safety of the public and that Mr. Lorondeau would return voluntarily to the hospital, if requested to do so.

c) After conferring with Mr. Lorondeau’s case manager, the following sentences from the Hospital Report are inaccurate and should not have been included:

“On January 9, 2025, during a preboard conference meeting with his treatment team it was suggested that he seek additional community support for addiction for preventative purposes to which he agreed. His team will look into supporting him with a referral in the coming month.”

d) Before the treatment team would be prepared to recommend an Absolute Discharge for Mr. Lorondeau, they would need the following to happen:

i) a successful transition to new housing

ii) continued abstinence from substances

iii) inclusion of more structure and support in Mr. Lorondeau’s day, either through part-time employment or volunteer opportunities.

e) It is not necessary for Mr. Lorondeau to engage in any further relapse prevention programming for the treatment team to recommend an Absolute Discharge.

17. No other evidence was called.

Analysis and Conclusions:

18. Having heard and considered the entirety of the evidence as well as the submissions from the parties, the Board agrees with the joint submission: Mr. Lorondeau remains a significant threat to the safety of the public.

19. 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. Arun Prakash, in addition to the documentary evidence before us.

20. Even though he has been compliant with his medication regimen, and voiced his intentions to remain on it indefinitely, he has not yet been assessed in an independent setting, without ongoing staff support.

21. Mr. Lorondeau still needs to add structure to his day.

22. Mr. Lorondeau’s medication regimen still needs to be optimized, particularly the addition of an antidepressant to deal with his negative symptoms.

23. In particular, the Board relies on the Re-Offence Scenario and the Current Clinical Assessment of Significant Risk set out in the Hospital Report:

“Re-Offence Scenario:

Absent his current level of supervision and any lesser disposition, it is unknown how Mr. Lorondeau would manage himself independently, and he has never been tested outside of a structured and supportive environment. As he is still developing appropriate coping strategies, he would likely relapse back into substance and would have difficulty managing stress and anxiety. He would experience a rapid decline in his mental status and would fall away from his current treatment regime. All of the above-mentioned would lead to similar behaviours that were present at the time of the index offence.

Current Clinical Assessment of Significant Risk

It is the opinion of the treatment team that Mr. Lorondeau continues to pose a risk of serious physical or psychological harm to members of the public. The following evidence supports this opinion:

1. Mr. Lorondeau has a severe mental illness, namely schizophrenia. He continues to display negative symptoms of his illness which hold him back from reaching his full potential (e.g., obtaining employment and sustained programming). Absent staff supervision, support, and encouragement, he would likely engage in isolative behaviours;

2. The treatment team has considered trialing Mr. Lorondeau on new medication to address his negative symptoms. His medication is not fully optimized, and his current treatment team will need to oversee these changes and provide further assessment in the coming year;

3. Mr. Lorondeau has a significant substance use history and poor coping. He relies on his Forensic outreach team for continued support and adherence. He has yet to be tested in an independent environment;

4. Mr. Lorondeau’s insight and treatment adherence will need to be tested in a less supervised environment;

5. Mr. Lorondeau has no professional community mental health supports outside of the forensic system. Transferring his supports to a community health team will need be done carefully and gradually;

6. Mr. Lorondeau’s housing plan will be a strain in the coming year and will need to look at other options for living as his duration of tenancy with the group home is coming to an end. This transition could elevate his stress, and it is recommended that his current treatment team oversee and support this transition;

7. Mr. Lorondeau’s personal supports appeared strained, at times, throughout the review year. With that said, they would not be considered risk-reducing, and some level of supervision will be required; and

8. Mr. Lorondeau requires DSO supports to maintain his stability and reduce his overall risk. These supports will take time to integrate into future and current treatment plans.”

9. The Board agrees with the hospital’s recommendation to remove the abstain clause from Mr. Lorondeau’s current Disposition. He is internally motivated to remain abstinent from substances, and he has good insight into the connections between using substances, his mental illness, and his risk to public safety. Mr. Lorondeau has been able to remain abstinent from substances despite their availability at both the group home and with his current girlfriend. The removal of this clause represents the least onerous and least restrictive provision at this time.

10. In consideration of all the evidence, submissions of the parties and criteria set forth in s. 672.54, the paramount consideration being the safety of the public, in addition to the mental condition of Mr. Lorondeau, his reintegration into society and his other needs, the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a continuation of the Conditional Discharge, with the removal of the abstention clause.

DATED this 10^th^ day of April 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.

Mr. J. Weinstein Alternate Chairperson Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board