Ontario Review Board
Re: Christopher M. LeBlanc
ORB File No: 7515
Hearing held on: Wednesday, March 5, 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: Christopher M. LeBlanc Counsel: Ms. N.C. Circelli
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. J. Zamprogna
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. D. Rows
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated April 11, 2025)
Introduction:
On March 5, 2019, Mr. Christopher M. LeBlanc was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on a charge of assault, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (“Criminal Code”).
Mr. LeBlanc is subject to a Decision and Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the “Board”), dated March 25, 2024. Pursuant to this Disposition it was ordered that he be detained at the Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care, St. Joseph's Health Care London (“Southwest”).
On March 5, 2025, the Board convened a hearing at Southwest to conduct the annual review of the current Disposition.
Mr. LeBlanc was present at the hearing and was represented by his counsel, Ms. N. Circelli.
A Hospital Report, dated January 17, 2025 (the "Hospital Report"), was entered as Exhibit 1.
The issue at this hearing is whether Mr. LeBlanc 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 us, the Board concluded that Mr. LeBlanc continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. The Board ordered that the necessary and appropriate Disposition in the circumstances is a Detention Order.
Current Psychiatric Diagnoses:
- Schizophrenia Substance Use Disorder – Methamphetamine, Cannabis Antisocial Personality Disorder
Index Offence:
- The circumstances giving rise to the Index Offence are extracted from last year’s Board Reasons, as follows:
“On June 16, 2018 the victim attended at the downtown core in the city of Guelph to meet with friends. He was approached by the accused who asked for a cigarette. When the victim told the accused he did not have any cigarettes, the accused said, ‘you have to die today’ and proceeded to hit the victim with a closed fist three times on the left side of his face.”
Background:
- Mr. LeBlanc’s history and background are outlined in the Hospital Report, and they are accurately summarized in last year’s Reasons:
“It is noted that Mr. LeBlanc had a very difficult and very abusive childhood. Prior to his arrest on the charges involving the index offences, he had been living in Guelph, Ontario and had no fixed address. Typically, he would camp in wooded areas along with his mother. According to Mr. LeBlanc's self-report, he lived in poverty. During his early years child protective services were involved in Mr. LeBlanc's life and there are a number of reports of Mr. LeBlanc's involvement with drugs and admissions to hospital for psychiatric reasons, both as a voluntary and involuntary patient.”
Position of the Parties:
- Counsel for the hospital, the Attorney General and Mr. LeBlanc advised that this was a joint submission: all were adopting the hospital’s recommendation of the continuation of a Detention Order Disposition, with a change to paragraph 2(i): He is no longer required to live in 24-hour, seven-day supervised accommodation. Rather, he may live in Elgin or Middlesex County, in supervised accommodation, approved by the person in charge.
Course Since Last Disposition:
- Mr. LeBlanc’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. Leblanc remained on the Rehabilitation Readiness Unit A1 following his annual ORB hearing until March 20, 2024, when he left on 30 day Leave of Absence (LOA) to Southwick group home in St Thomas, Ontario. He was readmitted on April 3, 2024, following a positive drug screen for amphetamine on March 30, 2024. Upon admission, he presented with underlying irritability, elevated mood, thought disorder, suspiciousness, and grandiose religious beliefs. He displayed a lack of insight into his mental illness and his need for treatment.
Mr. Leblanc started to volunteer at the Mission Thrift store on October 11 /2024 and reports that he enjoys sorting the donations.
Mr. Leblanc is required to submit weekly urine toxicology screens, and the last positive result was on March 30, 2024, which coincided with his relapse into methamphetamine use in the community.
Mr. LeBlanc has been referred to housing with Community Homes for Opportunity (CHO) through the Canadian Mental Health Association (CMHA). He has been offered an opportunity to move into a private bed at the Port Bruce group home. He attended a tour of the site and expressed his willingness to move into the home. He will begin a 30-day LOA to Port Bruce on February 3, 2025.
Mr. Leblanc attained level 7 privileges, which correspond to indirectly supervised passes into the community. He used these passes to attend programming through the CMHA at their Talbot House site, to attend the library, the YMCA, and for walks. He volunteers at the Mission Thrift store and reports from his manager indicated that he actively participated and fulfilled his responsibilities without issue. There have been no reported concerns regarding Mr. Leblanc’s use of indirectly supervised passes.”
Evidence at the Hearing:
- The Board had available to it the evidence and documents forming the Record, the Exhibits, and oral evidence from Dr. Robertson. Dr. Robertson testified as follows:
a) He is a PGY-5 Resident, working under the supervision of Dr. Quinn.
b) Mr. LeBlanc remained an inpatient at the hospital until February 3, 2025, as he had experienced two relapses while living in the community.
c) Mr. LeBlanc had a successful leave of absence on February 3, 2025, to the Port Bruce group home.
d) After this hearing, the inpatient treatment team will meet with the outreach team to arrange transfer to their care, upon Mr. LeBlanc’s return to the Port Bruce group home.
e) Mr. LeBlanc does not necessarily need to be in a 24/7 supervised group home, but he does need to be monitored for medication adherence and to monitor and support his abstinence from substance use.
f) Mr. LeBlanc has returned to his baseline. Even at his baseline, Mr. LeBlanc still has some chronic delusions, but they do not appear to affect his day-to-day life. He still suffers from some negative symptoms of his psychotic illness, which results in some residual disorganization, such as missing appointments.
g) Mr. LeBlanc has been adherent to his medication regimen while in the community, but he does require the supervision of the group home staff to maintain this adherence.
h) When Mr. LeBlanc uses methamphetamine, he quickly presents with florid psychotic symptoms, including auditory hallucinations and religious delusions.
i) Mr. LeBlanc completed a 19-day inpatient programming at Westover and a Concurrent Disorders Program in hospital, and he also attended an aftercare program at Westover.
j) The reason the treatment team has found Mr. LeBlanc a significant risk is outlined on pages 135 to 136 of the Hospital Report, and it is still true today.
k) Mr. LeBlanc has limited professional supports in the community.
l) The group home in Port Bruce can be permanent housing.
- In response to questions from counsel for Mr. LeBlanc, Dr. Robertson testified:
a) Mr. LeBlanc visited his mother on July 31, 2024, and that visit went well.
b) Mr. LeBlanc has engaged with his brother and speaks to him on a regular basis, by phone.
c) Mr. LeBlanc’s transition to Port Bruce group home went well.
d) Mr. LeBlanc’s insight into his need for medication could be described as partial or developing.
e) Mr. LeBlanc’s insight into his need to abstain from substances is improving, but there is still room for improvement. His insight into the fact that he suffers from schizophrenia is limited.
- In response to questions from the panel, Dr. Robertson testified:
a) He agreed that Mr. LeBlanc does not need 24/7 supervision, but he does need some form of supervision during the day, to ensure medication adherence and to detect any mental status changes, in case he uses substances.
b) The following paragraph from last year’s Reasons for Disposition are still true today:
“Dr. Prakash stated that Mr. LeBlanc does not have insight into his mental illness and his need for treatment. Mr. LeBlanc is in denial about his mental illness. He rejects the diagnosis of Schizophrenia but accepts a partial diagnosis of bipolar disorder. According to Dr. Prakash, Mr. LeBlanc has not been diagnosed with bipolar disorder.”
c) He agreed that the following sentences from paragraph 21 of last year’s Reasons for Disposition are still true today:
“Mr. LeBlanc accepts that substance use can be a problem but has minimal insight into the impact of substance use on his mental health. Mr. LeBlanc likes to smoke cannabis and use crystal methamphetamine.”
Mr. LeBlanc has indicated to him that he still has cravings.
- No other evidence was called
Analysis and Conclusions:
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. LeBlanc 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. Robertson, in addition to the documentary evidence before us.
Mr. LeBlanc continues to demonstrate a lack of insight into the Index Offence, as well as into his mental illness.
As set out on page 128 of the Hospital Report, Mr. LeBlanc has expressed that he takes medication only because the doctor prescribes it and he is instructed to do so, rather than understanding the need for treatment to manage his illness. There is a concern that he would not independently adhere to his medication regimen if he were discharged into the community.
Mr. LeBlanc also has a long history of substance misuse, including methamphetamines, which led to a recent readmission to hospital.
In particular, the Board relies on Re-Offence Scenario and the Overall Clinical Assessment of Risk the Hospital Report:
“Re-Offence Scenario
Absent forensic supervision, Mr. Leblanc would likely relapse into substance use, which would exacerbate his major mental illness, leading to significant decompensation. In this context, Mr. Leblanc would likely develop grandiose and persecutory delusions, as well as command hallucinations, as he has in the past when unwell. He would become irritable and disorganized. The combination of the effects of acute or prolonged substance use, coupled with significant psychotic symptoms, would result in Mr. Leblanc acting violently, as has been demonstrated by his history of violent offending in these circumstances.
Overall Clinical Assessment of Risk
It is the opinion of the treatment team that Mr. LeBlanc continues to pose a risk of serious physical or psychological harm to members of the public. The following evidence supports this opinion:
Mr. LeBlanc continued to exhibit both positive and negative symptoms of his illness throughout the reporting period, despite treatment.
Although Mr. LeBlanc has been medication compliant in the supervised setting of the hospital, the A1 treatment team believes that without supervision, he would fall away from his current medication regime.
Mr. LeBlanc continued to demonstrate poor insight into his mental illness, his ongoing need for treatment and his violence risk, and he requires further psychotherapeutic programming to help develop greater insight across all domains.
Mr. LeBlanc has a long history of substance use and tested positive for substances during the year, resulting in hospital readmission. While he successfully completed the Westover program, it is difficult to know if he will be able to successfully use the skills learned there.
Mr. LeBlanc’s supports remain unchanged. He has minimal personal support, as his primary personal support is his mother. His professional supports are limited to his current in-patient clinical team.
The following recommendations, of which Mr. LeBlanc is aware, are based on the opinion of the treatment team. It constitutes a necessary and appropriate disposition in the circumstances, having considered the safety of the public, which is the paramount consideration, the mental condition of the accused, the reintegration of the accused into society and other needs of the accused.”
- In light of the Board’s finding of significant threat, it is charged with shaping a Disposition for the coming year. In particular, the Board relies on the following extract from the Hospital Report as to why a Conditional Discharge is not appropriate:
“Mr. LeBlanc presents a low risk of violence on a detention disposition while residing in the hospital, which would increase modestly on a detention disposition if he were residing in the community. His risk would increase to moderate to high on a less restrictive disposition, such as a conditional discharge.
Mr. LeBlanc requires a detention disposition to provide him with the necessary supervision, structure, and support to maintain adherence to his current medication regime. A conditional discharge is considered unrealistic as the treatment team would need prompt intervention in the context of relapsing into substances and a deterioration of his mental status; therefore, the Mental Health Act alone would be insufficient to bring him into hospital. The hospital also requires the ability to approve an address with the appropriate levels of supervision and support. If Mr. LeBlanc were to be managed under a less restrictive disposition, it is likely that he would seek out substance, which would result in risk-related behaviours similar to the ones that were present during the time of the index offence, which would ultimately lead to violent reoffending.”
Lastly, the Board agrees that it is not necessary that Mr. LeBlanc reside in 24/7 supervised accommodation, as he does not need overnight supervision. Rather, he needs monitoring for medication adherence and continued substance abstention. Therefore, we agree with the recommendation of the parties that he be permitted to live in supervised accommodation, approved by the person in charge.
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. LeBlanc, his reintegration into society and his other needs, the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a Detention Order Disposition.
DATED this 11th 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