Ontario Review Board
Re: Rolland Charron
ORB File No: 8193
Hearing held on: Wednesday, April 2, 2025
Place of Hearing: Brockville Mental Health Centre
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Ms. T. Mann
Members: Dr. R. Kunjukrishnan
Dr. A. Gibas
Ms. M. den Haan
Mr. M. Hajek
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Rolland Charron
Counsel: Mr. M. Davies
Person in charge of hospital: Representative: Dr. J. Gray
Attorney-General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. C. Breault
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated May 26, 2025)
Introduction
On December 9, 2022, the accused, Rolland Charron, was found not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder (“NCR”) on charges of uttering threats to cause death or bodily harm, possession of a weapon for dangerous purpose (x2) and carrying a concealed weapon (x2), all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada.
Mr. Charron is currently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated March 27, 2024 which detains him at the secure forensic unit of the Brockville Mental Health Centre (the “Hospital”) with privileges up to and including to live in the community in accommodation approved by the person in charge.
On April 2, 2025, a panel of the Board convened a hearing at the Brockville Mental Health Centre to conduct Mr. Charron’s annual review hearing pursuant to s. 672.8(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Charron was present and represented by his counsel, Mr. M. Davies. A Hospital Report dated March 10, 2025 was entered as Exhibit No. 1 and a CPIC Report dated March 17, 2025 was entered as Exhibit No. 2.
The issues to be determined at this hearing are whether Mr. Charron continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public as defined in section 672.5401 of the Criminal Code and if so, the necessary and appropriate Disposition to manage his risk and his care, taking into account the factors set out in section 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
Positions of the Parties
At the outset of the hearing, the parties were canvassed as to their recommendations to the Board. On behalf of the Hospital, Dr. Gray advised that they were recommending an Absolute Discharge. Counsel for the Attorney General, Ms. C. Breault, reserved her position pending evidence from the Hospital. Mr. Davies advised that Mr. Charron supported the Hospital’s position.
At the conclusion of the hearing, in submissions the Hospital and counsel for Mr. Charron maintained their initial positions. In the alternative, if the Board were to find that Mr. Charron still meets the threshold for significant threat, a Conditional Discharge with minimal conditions as described below would be recommended. The Attorney General submitted that Mr. Charron still poses a significant threat to public safety and that the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a Conditional Discharge.
For the reasons set out below, the Board does find that Mr. Charron no longer meets the threshold test for significant threat and therefore is entitled to an Absolute Discharge.
Index Offences
- The circumstances giving rise to the index offences as summarized from the Hospital Report as follows:
August 29, 2022 - Uttering threats (x1), possession of weapon for dangerous purpose (x1), carry concealed weapon (x1)
At the group home where he resided, Mr. Charron was allegedly belligerent and appeared prepared to hit one of the female staff members when another resident of the home intervened. Mr. Charron pushed the resident, who punched him. Following this, Mr. Charron, intoxicated, walked by the victim and allegedly made a cutting gesture across his neck while pointing at the victim.
When searched at the police station, an exacto-style blade was found attached to an elastic band on his forearm. A similar blade was found in his sock.
November 4, 2022 - Possession of a weapon for dangerous purpose (x1), carrying concealed weapon (x1)
- Mr. Charron was searched after transport from the Ottawa Carleton Detention Centre to the Cornwall courthouse by OPP. An exacto-style blade was found between the sole and insole of his shoe.
Mr. Charron provided his version of the events of the index offences to Dr. Wood during the NCR assessment. He stated that he was the victim of criminal organizations who targeted him by letting the air out of his bike tires and stealing parts, emptying his toothpaste tube, damaging all of his door locks, breaking into his closet, and tampering with his food.
When asked about threatening staff on August 29, 2022, Mr. Charron stated that he was arguing with the co-resident about damaging his bike and said “I ought to kill them, they are all part of the terrorist organization from Montreal, the Gambino family.” He stated that the concealed razor blades were for fixing the pedals of his bike. He later stated that they were for security since people were planning to attack him.
Mr. Charron refused to respond to questions about his thought process regarding the razor blade found in his shoe on November 4, 2022.
Background History
Mr. Charron’s psychosocial history, as well as his progress under the jurisdiction of the Board, is amply set out in the Hospital Report dated March 10, 2025, which was filed as an exhibit at the hearing. As such, the contents need not be repeated in detail here, save a few points to provide context.
The NCR assessment notes that Mr. Charron was a poor historian, and information was gathered from collateral sources. Briefly, Mr. Charron is 62 years of age, the youngest of six children. Mr. Charron said that he was very close to his parents when he was growing up and did not have any issues with running away or any involvement as a youth with the criminal justice system. He stated that he was bullied when he was four years old. He refused to discuss his educational background.
During high school he worked at a car wash and later as a labourer and for a short period in a technical support position. He did not remember how long he has been supported by the Ontario Disability Support Program (“ODSP”). Records show that he has received ODSP since 1990.
Mr. Charron lived with his mother in an apartment until she passed away in 2017. He stated that the neighbors “interfered” and called the “cops on him” and that he was “forcibly removed” from the apartment and “made to live” at the group home where the index offences occurred. Cornwall Community Hospital records state that after his mother’s death, Mr. Charron continued to live in the apartment but was evicted in November 2020 following behaviours stemming from paranoid delusions about his neighbours. After a short period of homelessness, Mr. Charron was arrested for consuming alcohol in public and brought to hospital. He then went to live at Riverview Manor, the group home where the first index offences occurred.
Mr. Charron stated that he smoked cigarettes, used to smoke cannabis, and would sometimes drink a few “mickeys” of alcohol at a time. He was seen in Emergency in March 2021 after falling while intoxicated in public.
Mr. Charron was convicted of break and enter and commit in 1981, where he received a suspected sentence and one year of probation. He was subsequently convicted of an assault in 1985, where he received a suspended sentence and six months of probation. In 2015, he was convicted of two counts of uttering threats, one count of possession of a schedule II substance, and two counts of failure to comply with probation order, for which he served 55 days in pre-sentence custody and received probation.
Psychiatric History
Mr. Charron had short admissions to the Cornwall Community Hospital in 2005, 2010, and 2015, brought in by police pursuant to a Form 1 under the Mental Health Act. The details of the admissions are set out in the Hospital Report (pp. 4-5) and need not be repeated here. In June 2005 Mr. Charron was noted to have “a longstanding history of chronic paranoid schizophrenia.” Each time he was hospitalized he was given antipsychotic medications and then left hospital a few days later against medical advice after stabilizing. He consistently refused medications when discharged from hospital.
In January 2021, the Mental Health Crisis Team was called to Riverview Manor following reports that Mr. Charron had been verbally aggressive, swearing at staff, and smoking in his room. He had ongoing paranoid thoughts, then refused to eat due to delusional beliefs that his food was tampered with. He was assessed and stated that he did not have Schizophrenia and that it was a “big mistake” from the past. Although his Schizophrenia was untreated, no acute safety concerns were noted, and he was discharged back to Riverview Manor.
Mr. Charron’s current diagnoses are:
Schizophrenia
Query Alcohol Use Disorder in remission in a controlled environment
After Mr. Charron was found NCR, he remained at the Ottawa-Carleton Detention Centre until April 2023 when a forensic bed became available. He was assessed as incapable to make treatment decisions in January 2023, but because he was still in detention, an application to the Consent and Capacity Board was difficult and correctional officers were unable to provide injectable antipsychotics on an involuntary basis. This resulted in Mr. Charron’s illness remaining essentially untreated until he was admitted to hospital.
Approximately one month after admission, on May 29, 2023 Mr. Charron was found incapable of consent to treatment. He did not appeal the finding, and the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee became his Substitute Decision Maker. Mr. Charron began to receive the injectable antipsychotic Sustenna, which did not make a marked impact on his symptoms, and it was discontinued due to side effects in October 2023. Mr. Charron himself then requested another antipsychotic, Olanzapine, which he had taken during a prior hospitalization and he felt helped him to sleep. He was uninterested in participating in programming. Following the initiation of Olanzapine, Mr. Charron’s symptoms started to improve.
Evidence at the Hearing
The Board had available to it the information in the documents forming the Record and oral evidence from Mr. Charron’s attending forensic psychiatrist, Dr. J. Gray. Dr. Gray adopted the contents of the Hospital Report and then provided the Board with a brief summary of Mr. Charron’s progress during the review period.
Dr. Gray testified that there were no incidents of aggression and no issues with the treatment team. Historically, Mr. Charron had refused medication. After being found incapable of consent to treatment, he was fully compliant with medication. With the assistance of a nurse on the treatment team, Mr. Charron’s hygiene and self-care improved markedly. Dr. Gray noted a “huge” physical change; Mr. Charron now takes pride in his appearance, his motivation has improved, and he shows a sense of humour.
The difficulty with his release from hospital into the community was that Mr. Charron initially only wanted to move back to Cornwall to the apartment he believed had been “taken away.” Recently, Mr. Charron agreed to allow the treatment team to explore other areas.
A new supervised residence recently opened in St. Isadore, a small town approximately an hour and a half from Brockville. Mr. Charron moved to the Caledonia Residence for a one-month trial beginning December 7, 2024. He was then discharged as an outpatient to the residence. Dr. Gray stated that he has been doing very well and there have been no problems.
Mr. Charron has continued to take Olanzapine with no issue. He shows few symptoms except after longer conversations he tends to revert to discussion of conspiracies. Dr. Gray stated that he does not push Mr. Charron with respect to insight into his mental illness. Mr. Charron takes Olanzapine because he believes it helps him to sleep, not because he believes he has a mental illness. In Dr. Gray’s view, it is not beneficial to bring up Mr. Charron’s mental illness to him in conversation and “rock the boat,” as Mr. Charron is happy to take the medication and it improves his symptoms. Mr. Charron is “barely aware” that he is under the ORB. He was under the impression that the annual hearing was a case conference. It is not because of the Board’s order that Mr. Charron takes his medication.
Dr. Gray stated that the manager at the Caledonia Residence is very good, attends treatment team meetings, and states that Mr. Charron is a model resident and likes living there. The residence is aware of the Hospital’s recommendation to the Board for an Absolute Discharge and has no concerns. In January 2025, the treatment team offered Mr. Charron the opportunity to look into residences in Cornwall, which had previously been his wish, but he declined because he was happy in St. Isadore.
While there were historical concerns with alcohol and drug use, Mr. Charron has not used either, even though he has had the opportunity to do so. The Caledonia Residence is somewhat remote, distant from an LCBO store, and if he were to leave the residence to try to obtain alcohol, the staff would notice.
It is Dr. Gray’s opinion that absent the oversight of the ORB, Mr. Charron will continue as he is, remain at the residence, take his medication, go out into the community in groups when encouraged, and cause no problems.
In response to questions from the Crown Attorney, Dr. Gray stated that Mr. Charron does not explicitly connect his medication with having a mental illness. Despite longstanding refusal to take medication, Mr. Charron has continued to take medication without issue for more than a year. Staff at the residence dispense the medication, Mr. Charron likes the residence, and he likes the medication, and experiences no negative side effects. In Dr. Gray’s opinion, all of this is unlikely to change.
When asked about Mr. Charron’s criminal charges for uttering threats and assault in 2015, Dr. Gray noted that they were immediately after his release from the Cornwall Hospital after a very short involuntary stay. There was insufficient time for the medications he was given in hospital to provide any protective effects for his illness. He has now been hospitalized and successfully taking medication for an extended period of time.
Mr. Charron has been residing in the community for four months without incident in a 24-hour supervised residence. He meets with staff every two weeks and meets with Dr. Gray by Zoom. He is not resistant to, nor does he attempt to avoid, meetings. A 24-hour residence is preferred because Mr. Charron refused an assessment of his kitchen skills, and the treatment team is unsure of his ability to cook and of his banking skills. An 8-hour supervised residence would likely be sufficient to support him, but Mr. Charron enjoys the meals provided. While the index offences occurred at a 24-hour supervised residence, in Dr. Gray’s opinion the current situation is different as Mr. Charron likes the residence, is now taking medications, and has had a longer history of compliance with medication, which has built-up protective effects which assist with remission of symptoms. While he is not now symptomatic, a longer period without medication could increase his symptoms. Dr. Gray stated that it is possible that Mr. Charron would decide to discontinue medications if given an Absolute Discharge, but this is speculative.
In response to questions from counsel for Mr. Charron, Dr. Gray stated that in the worst-case scenario, Mr. Charron could refuse to take medication and leave the residence, then commit a criminal offence. However, Mr. Charron has a quiet, passive personality generally, he needed encouragement to leave the Hospital, and even with limited insight into his mental illness, he has not discontinued medication. Unlike 2015, he has now had a prolonged period of hospitalization and medication to stabilize his illness.
A family doctor can prescribe Mr. Charron’s medications in the case of an Absolute Discharge, and the treatment team would remain involved for several months to ensure that there was no change to his stability after release from the supervision of the ORB. The most likely scenario in Dr. Gray’s opinion is that Mr. Charron will continue his medication, will stay quietly at the residence, and continue as he has successfully over the last year. A family doctor is available to Mr. Charron at the residence.
In response to questions from the panel, Dr. Gray stated that he has not considered a Community Treatment Order because Mr. Charron has never resisted medication. He could do so if there were concerns after an Absolute Discharge, but this is generally done for patients on injectable medication. Mr. Charron is not on injectable medication due to side effects.
Dr. Gray confirmed that the last time Mr. Charron lived independently was with his mother prior to her death in 2017. St. Isadore is approximately one hour from Cornwall. In theory Mr. Charron could go there, but St. Isadore is quite isolated, and Mr. Charron goes into the community in escorted or accompanied groups when he goes out at all. He did not want to go into the community alone even while in hospital because he did not see a need to do so and prefers not to, and Dr. Gray does not see this changing.
Dr. Gray agreed that the risk of reoffence is never zero for anyone, and that all ORB patients necessarily have a history of offences which have caused harm. Mr. Charron’s presentation is now different than it was at the time of the index offences, and while in the past he did commit offences, the hypothetical scenario that he “could” commit offences is not the standard by which the panel must make its determination of the appropriate Disposition.
If the Board were to consider a Conditional Discharge rather than an Absolute Discharge, he would recommend very few conditions other than a weapons prohibition and a requirement to report once per month. In his opinion, it is highly unlikely that Mr. Charron would use substances and a prohibition would not be required. Because Mr. Charron is incapable of consent to treatment, the provisions of the Mental Health Act would be sufficient to return him to hospital if required. His recent interest in seeking out family members also shows symptom resolution, as previously he was paranoid about both staff and family.
No further evidence was presented.
Submissions of the Parties
In closing submissions, Dr. Gray stated that the Hospital’s position remains unchanged that because there is no longer any strong evidence of significant risk to the public, the necessary and appropriate Disposition is an Absolute Discharge. In the alternative, if the Board were to find significant risk, a Conditional Discharge with a weapons prohibition and requirement to reside at the Caledonia Residence would be sufficient.
Counsel for the Attorney General submitted that Mr. Charron continues to present a threat to public safety. He does not believe that he has a mental illness, it is problematic that Dr. Gray has not explored Mr. Charron’s insight into his illness, Mr. Charron does not connect his medication to a mental illness, and he has a history of discontinuing medication. Ms. Breault submitted that all of the risk factors identified at page 26 of the Hospital Report last year remain present. Although Mr. Charron told Dr. Gray that he does not wish to return to Cornwall, during the hearing Mr. Charron interjected that some day he may wish to do so as he has property there. He has no community supports with the exception of the 24-hour supervised residence, he has a history of alcohol and drug use, and historically he has discontinued medication, his mental state has decompensated, he has become delusional, and this has led him to fashion weapons which pose more than a theoretical risk to the safety of the public.
Counsel for the Attorney General submitted that Mr. Charron has made inroads to recovery but there are longstanding issues which lead to the Crown’s position that a Conditional Discharge is the appropriate Disposition at this time. In her view, a condition requiring random urine drug screens should be in place as well as a weapons prohibition. Although there is recent case law that questions whether it is appropriate to specify a residence address with a Conditional Discharge, she was not opposed to the condition.
Counsel for Mr. Charron maintained the position that an Absolute Discharge is the necessary and appropriate Disposition, noting that Mr. Charron’s mental state has been stable for approximately a year and a half. His life at the Caledonia Residence appears to be the same as in hospital, where he is quiet, non-aggressive, polite, enters the community only with encouragement, and takes his medication. Mr. Davies submitted that ideal insight is not a pre-condition for suitability for an Absolute Discharge, but is one of the factors to consider. Unlike the risk considerations in the previous assessment at page 26 of the Hospital Report, Mr. Charron has stable housing which he enjoys and does not resist medication.
Counsel for Mr. Charron restated the doctor’s evidence that it is always “possible” for a patient to reoffend, but there are scenarios under which it is less likely. Even in the worst-case scenario where Mr. Charron was unhoused and unmedicated, between 1985 and the index offences in 2022, he did not commit any violent offences. It is possible that with an Absolute Discharge Mr. Charron “could commit an offence soon,” but also “could go 10 years and not bother anyone.”
If the Board were to find that Mr. Charron continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public, a condition to report to the Hospital would be appropriate, and any others would be superfluous and an unnecessary intrusion into his liberties.
Conclusion and Disposition
The Board has considered all of the evidence presented and the expert opinion of Dr. Gray and is of the unanimous opinion that Mr. Charron no longer represents a significant threat to the safety of the public.
The new Risk Assessment is found at page 31 of the Hospital Report, and it notes that the only Clinical item of relevance is Mr. Charron’s partial insight into his mental illness, which does not affect his functioning or medication compliance. Mr. Charron’s lack of insight into his illness and the connection to medication is not determinative of whether or not an Absolute Discharge is appropriate and is only one of the factors to consider in determining significant threat. The risk factors identified on page 26 of the Hospital Report represent a past opinion of the Hospital, and in Dr. Gray’s expert opinion, there are currently no Risk Management items of significance. Because there are no identifiable significant risk factors, the treatment team is of the opinion that Mr. Charron no longer meets the threshold of significant threat.
The Board accepts the expert opinion of Dr. Gray and the treatment team that Mr. Charron no longer meets the threshold of significant threat.
In coming to this decision, the panel carefully considered the decision of the Supreme Court in Winko v. British Columbia. In that case, the Court identified a significant risk as a "real risk of physical or psychological harm to members of the public that is serious in the sense of going beyond the merely trivial or annoying. The conduct giving rise to the harm must be criminal in nature". There must be a positive finding by the Board of a significant risk to the safety of the public to engage the provisions of the Code and to support restrictions on an NCR accused’s liberty. Something else, for example uncertainty, cannot suffice.
In Winko, the Supreme Court also outlined that in coming to a 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 and the NCR accused's own plans for the future, the support services existing for the NCR accused in the community and, perhaps most importantly, the recommendations provided by experts who have examined the NCR accused and therefore must be absolutely discharged.
The Board accepts the opinion of Dr. Gray that Mr. Charron will remain medication compliant and will remain at the residence where he is happy, which will manage any remaining risk factors. Mr. Charron is residing in a 24-hour supervised residence in a somewhat isolated location. The residence dispenses his medication and has a family doctor. The negative symptoms of his major mental illness (he is passive and quiet) act as a protective factor, as he does not wish to go out into the community and requires encouragement to do so. Because Mr. Charron is incapable of consent to treatment, the provisions of the Mental Health Act would be sufficient to return him to hospital in case of a decompensation in his mental state.
As Mr. Charron no longer meets the threshold test for significant threat to the safety of the public, Mr. Charron is entitled to an Absolute Discharge.
The Board wishes Mr. Charron well for the future.
DATED this 26th day of May, 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Ms. M. den Haan
Legal Member
__________________
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board