Ontario Review Board
Re: Roma Lynn Tessier
ORB File No: 8183
Hearing held on: Wednesday, May 14, 2025
Place of Hearing: Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. P. Capelle
Members: Dr. R. Kunjukrishnan Dr. G. Boulais Ms. M.L. Bridger Ms. N. Lemieux-McKinnon
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Roma Lynn Tessier Counsel: Ms. M. Munsterman
Person in charge of hospital: Hospital Representative: Dr. A Sandhu
Attorney-General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. M. Dufort
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated June 3, 2025)
Introduction
On November 4, 2022, the accused, Ms. Roma Tessier, was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on charges of mischief, mischief/obstruct property, and fail to comply with a release order, all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada. Ms. Tessier is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated May 8^th^, 2024 and an Order amending that Disposition dated August 19^th^, 2024 which detains her at the Secure Forensic Unit of the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre, Ottawa, Ontario with privileges up to and including to live in the community in accommodation approved by the person in charge.
On May 14^th^, 2025, the Ontario Review Board convened a hearing at the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre to conduct Ms. Tessier’s annual review hearing pursuant to section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Ms. Tessier attended her hearing and was represented by her counsel, Ms. Marni Munsterman. Also in attendance was Ms. Meaghan Hartley, Case Manager. A hospital report dated May 8^th^, 2025 was entered as Exhibit No. 1.
The issues for this hearing were whether Ms. Tessier represents a significant threat to the safety of the public, and, if so, what is the necessary and appropriate disposition to manage the risk.
Initial Position of the Parties
- Dr. Sandhu, on behalf of the hospital, recommended that the Board should find that Ms. Tessier continues to represent a significant risk to the community but that that risk can now be managed under a Conditional Discharge. Ms. Dufort, on behalf of the Attorney-General, wished to wait to hear the evidence before stating her position.
Index Offences
- The circumstances of the index offences are set out in last year’s Reasons for Disposition and can be summarized as follows:
“The first offence on which Ms. Tessier was found NCR comes from her actions during the period April 27, 2022 (shortly after she was released from hospital, where she had been admitted under the Mental Health Act) to June 2, 2022. The shouting and yelling that was the subject of this charge was directed at one of her neighbours in particular. The charge summary for the undertaking she was accused of violating on June 2 notes that since her release from hospital in March, her behaviour, which had already been disturbing the neighbors, escalated. The release order she got on these new charges included a further non-contact term involving her victim and two other neighbours.
The second offence on which Ms. Tessier was found NCR was for similar behaviour between July 7 and 14, 2022, again involving yelling, shouting, swearing and threatening of neighbours from her balcony. In addition to the mischief/obstruct property charge on which she was found NCR, she was also alleged to have created a disturbance and violated her release order by communicating with a new victim while on the balcony of her apartment.
The third offence on which Ms. Tessier was found NCR was a failure to comply with a release order. On July 11, 2022, she was found to not be residing at a shelter as directed by the release order. A charge summary included as part of the core package makes clear that Ms. Tessier was openly defying many of the terms of her release order, including informing an investigating officer that she was not at the shelter (which the shelter later confirmed) and was back at her own apartment. In addition to this fail to comply charge in which she was found NCR, she was also charged with failing to comply with the release order by attending her apartment on July 11, 14 and 20 and by communicating with the three named victims on July 14, and interfering with the use and enjoyment by one of those victims of the victim’s property.”
Background History
The hospital report contains various details regarding Ms. Tessier's personal history, which need not be repeated here at length. Ms. Tessier is presently 68 years of age. Her parents are deceased, her father having died in 1988 and her mother in 2014. She is not a wealthy person, but she receives Old Age benefits, survivors’ benefit from her late husband’s pension and funds from an inheritance from her mother that is managed by her youngest brother.
Ms. Tessier is widowed and has three adult children, two of whom she stays in touch with and receives support from. At the time of the index offences, she had been residing in her own apartment in Ottawa but there were proceedings to evict her.
Criminal History
- A CPIC report indicated that there were no criminal convictions against Ms. Tessier at the time of the index offences. It is, however, noted that in March of 2020 she entered into a 12-month police bond on charges of mischief, assault, assault with a weapon, and uttering threats.
Psychiatric History
Ms. Tessier’s psychiatric history dates to 1982-83 with admissions to psychiatric units at three different hospitals in Ottawa. She has been aggressive and paranoid, frequently uttering threats and often involved with the police. Her behaviour is exacerbated by a history of alcohol abuse and to a lesser extent, cannabis use and a long history of psychotic illness, irregular compliance with medication, suboptimal management of her illness and substance abuse.
Although Ms. Tessier has lived all or most of her life in Ottawa, following her arrest and initial assessment in Ottawa (after which the court found her to be unfit), she was admitted to Brébeuf on a treatment order. At Brébeuf, she was quite opposed initially to the treatment that had been ordered but did take her medication. Relatively quickly, she became less irritable, pressured and guarded and in general terms the symptoms of her psychosis improved significantly.
Ms. Tessier’s diagnoses are.
Schizophrenia, in remission
Mild Neurocognitive Disorder
Alcohol Use Disorder, in sustained remission
Cannabis Use Disorder, in sustained remission
Evidence at the Hearing
The hospital’s evidence was presented through its report as well as through the oral testimony of Dr. Amanjot Sandhu. This evidence is summarized below.
The Doctor indicated it had been one year since Ms. Tessier had been transferred from Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care to the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre. Her detention at Waypoint was only because there was no room elsewhere for her and she would have had to stay in jail. It was not that she needed a maximum secure facility but there was nowhere else to send her.
She has now been living for most of the past year at Blackburn Senior Residence. She is cooperative and has had no aggressive incidents. Dr. Sandhu sees a big improvement in her. She is on a long-acting injectable. She has had changes in physical health and improvements. She engages. She has three children and two stepchildren. She has contact with some of the children daily either by text or by phone. She has had no positive symptoms of schizophrenia. Dr. Sandhu was advocating for a conditional discharge without the condition for medication compliance as prescribed by the hospital. Later on, he reversed that position and he explained the consequences of that.
In response to questions on behalf of the Attorney-General, Ms. Dufort asked about her gambling at a casino. She lost money and it was reported that she had lost $2000. Dr. Sandhu said it was out of character for her to do that. She has always been able to manage money. As a result of the gambling, there was a review of her finances at the hospital and her ability to manage them. It was determined that Ms. Tessier could understand and retain information around her income and expenses.
Dr. Sandhu stated that Ms. Tessier uses public transportation to get herself to the hospital for her medication which is twice per month. She prefers that to the Para Transpo as it is more timely and more reliable. She presents herself voluntarily. She is seen no less than once a month but in fact twice a month. She has a Canadian Mental Health Association (CMHA) case worker whom she sees. She sees other people. She interjected that she sometimes comes to the hospital on weekends.
Again, the Doctor was asked about whether Ms. Tessier takes her medications as prescribed and he advised that, yes, she takes it twice a month.
In response to questions by Ms. Munsterman, Dr. Sidhu stated that Ms. Tessier’s current diagnosis is schizophrenia. She does understand her illness. If she is having side effects she will ask to switch medications or have them modified rather than ask to go off the medications. At the residence she has formed relationships. She has the support of the staff there. She has the support of all of her children. Ms. Tessier indicated she also has grandchildren and great grandchildren by her stepchildren. Although she was pleasantly talkative and ebullient during the proceedings she did interrupt inappropriately even after she had been warned.
The Chair brought up the possibility of a section 672.55 with a condition that she reside as directed and take medication as directed. She had an opportunity to speak to her counsel outside the room and agreed to those conditions, although in Ms. Munsterman’s opinion she did not really need to agree to the medication provision but Ms. Tessier wanted to agree to it.
She lives at the Blackburn Senior Residence at 2412 Cleroux in Gloucester.
The hospital’s risk assessment is set out at pages 35 and 36 of the hospital report and is summarized as follows:
“I used the HCR-20 version 3 to assess Ms. Tessier’s risk of violence over the following year. This is a structured clinical judgment tool with strong validity that is used widely in the assessment of violence risk. My assessment was informed by Ms. Tessier’s psychiatric and criminal records, the psychosocial history and course in treatment provided in the first annual ORB report prepared by Waypoint Mental Health Centre, and ongoing serial assessments by a multidisciplinary team over the reporting year.
My evaluation using the HCR-20 version 3 indicates that Ms. Tessier presents a moderate risk of future violence.
Ms. Tessier has 9 out of the 10 historical (static) risk factors for violence. I do not support the presence of a history of personality disorders. Her historical risk factors are as follows:
H1 History of problems with violence o Ms. Tessier has a history of violence including assault with a weapon. She has been verbally aggressive in the past and has charges associated with involving uttering threats.
H2 History of problems with other antisocial behaviour
o Ms. Tessier has self-reported a history of stealing money from her mother. She has been historically brought home by police for public intoxication in her youth, though not formally charged.
- H3 History of problems with relationships
o Though Ms. Tessier is social and interested in relationships, she has difficulty maintaining long-term friendships.
- H4 History of problems with employment (partial)
o Ms. Tessier does not have a history of long-term, consistent employment. She explains that she was a stay at home mother after having children.
H5 History of problems with substance use Ms. Tessier has a history of problematic alcohol use.
H6 History of major mental disorder
o Ms. Tessier has a diagnosis of schizophrenia and has been admitted to hospital for mental health reasons on multiple occasions.
- H8 History of traumatic experiences (low relevance)
o Ms. Tessier has a history of being sexual assaulted in her teenage years.
H9 History of violent attitudes of Ms. Tessier has a history of uttering threats to harm others and has a history of assault with a weapon.
H10 History of problems with treatment and supervision response
o Ms. Tessier’s community mental health supports indicated that she has previously had strained relationships with her psychiatry care providers and has opted to stop oral medication in the past. Ms. Tessier also has history of breaching probation conditions and failing to appear in court. Ms. Tessier presents with one of five clinical (current or recent) risk factors, for issues occurring while living in the community over the past six months. I do not have information supporting recent problems with violent ideation, recent problems with insight, recent problems with symptoms of major mental disorder, or recently problems with treatment or supervision response.
Her clinical risk factors are:
C4 Recent problems with instability of thinking, emotional expression or behaviour
Ms. Tessier has all two of five risk management (future) factors for violence, which are:
R2 Future problems with living situation
R5 Future problems with stress or coping
I do not have evidence for future problems with professional services and plans, future problems with personal support, or future problems with treatment or supervision compliance.”
- No other evidence was presented.
Submissions
The Doctor at that point did say he would like a conditional discharge with treatment and housing provisions. The Crown agreed. The defence indicated it was not necessary to include the condition regarding medication but pointed out that her client did not object to it.
The parties maintained their initial position recommending that the Board should find that Ms. Tessier continues to represent a significant risk to the community and that a conditional discharge disposition, should be ordered.
Conclusion and Disposition
Based on the evidence presented, the Board had no difficulty arriving at the unanimous decision that Ms. Tessier continues to represent a significant risk to the community. The parties agreed with this and this is well supported by the evidence.
Ms. Tessier suffers from serious mental disorders. She continues to present symptoms of her mental illness. She had presented with aggressive behaviour including charges of assault and assault with a weapon in 2020. As noted above, Ms. Tessier presents most of the HCR-20 risk factors.
The Board agreed with the joint submission of the parties and ordered a conditional discharge with the conditions that she take medication as prescribed and that she live at the Blackburn Senior Residence at the address indicated above.
Accordingly, taking into consideration the four factors set out in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code of Canada, which is the need to protect the public from dangerous persons, the mental condition of the accused, her reintegration into society and her other needs, the Board is of the unanimous view that the least onerous and least restrictive disposition is a conditional discharge with conditions as indicated in the Board disposition.
DATED this 3^rd^ day of June 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Ms. M.L. Bridger Legal Member
____________________________________
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board