Ontario Review Board
Re: Richard Fortin
ORB File No: 7830
Hearing held on: Tuesday, April 22, 2025
Place of Hearing: Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code
Before: Alternate Chairperson: Ms. M. Labrosse Members: Dr. S. Lessard Dr. R. Cormier Ms. M.L. Bridger Ms. B. Naegele
Parties Appearing: Accused: Richard Fortin Counsel: Ms. M. Lord Person in charge of hospital: Representative: Dr. M. Strike Attorney-General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. M. Dufort
REASONS FOR DECISION
(Dated June 18, 2025)
Introduction
[1]. On December 18, 2020, the accused, Richard Fortin, was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on a charge of first-degree murder, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada.
[2]. Mr. Fortin is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated February 4, 2025, detaining him at the Secure Forensic Unit of the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre, with privileges up to and including to live in a 24-hour supervised accommodation approved by the person in charge.
[3]. By letter dated March 7, 2025, the Ontario Review Board (“ORB”) was notified by the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre that Mr. Fortin had been readmitted to hospital on February 28, 2025, thereby constituting a significant increase in the restriction of his liberty.
[4]. On April 22, 2025, the Board convened a hearing at the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre, hereinafter referred to as the hospital, to review the restriction of liberty pursuant to s. 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Fortin was present and represented by his counsel, Ms. M. Lord.
[5]. The only issue for this hearing is whether the restriction of Mr. Fortin’s liberty by admission to hospital was reasonable and warranted in the circumstances, and whether it continues to be so.
[6]. For the reasons set out below, the Board finds that the decision of the hospital to significantly increase the restriction of Mr. Fortin’s liberty by admitting him to hospital was and remains reasonable and warranted and represents the least onerous and least restrictive decision available to the hospital in the circumstances.
[7]. As the only issue before the Board is the restriction of Mr. Fortin’s liberty by readmission to hospital, there is no need to repeat the details of the index offences, nor Mr. Fortin’s personal, legal, and psychiatric history, as these are set out in full in the Reasons for Disposition dated March 25, 2025.
Evidence at the Hearing
[8]. The hospital’s evidence was presented through its report and through the oral testimony of Dr. Melanie Strike, Mr. Fortin’s attending psychiatrist. This evidence is summarized below.
[9]. Dr. Strike confirmed that Mr. Fortin was readmitted to the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre on February 28, 2025. He had been at the Montfort Hospital since January 6, 2025, under a Form 1 Mental Health Act admission, as there were no beds available at the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre. He remained at the Montfort Hospital as a voluntary patient after the Form 1 expired and was transferred to the Forensic Assessment Unit (FAU) on February 28, 2025, when a bed became available.
[10]. Dr. Strike confirmed that Mr. Fortin is on the transfer list for the Forensic Rehabilitation Unit (FRU) but that it is not known when a bed might become available as there is a long wait list of patients awaiting transfer from the FAU to the FRU.
[11]. Dr. Strike also confirmed that an application for a new long-term care residence has been made but that they are not yet at the stage of selecting prospective residences. Mr. Fortin appears willing to go to a new residence, provided that it is close to where his spouse Denise resides.
[12]. In the meantime, Mr. Fortin appears to be very comfortable in the hospital, though he tends to keep to himself and stay in his room despite efforts to activate him in a variety of ways, including offering accompanied walks in the hospital, which he has so far refused. Dr. Strike believes that it is an important part of Mr. Fortin’s rehabilitation and progress to activate and engage him and efforts will contain to be made in that regard.
[13]. In response to questions posed to her by counsel for the Attorney General, Ms. Dufort, Dr. Strike responded as follows:
a. Dr. Strike does not believe that Mr. Fortin is refusing to go on walks on the hospital and grounds because of his delusional thinking.
b. Mr. Fortin is enjoying frequent visits with his spouse, to whom he speaks to frequently. He has also had frequent contacts with his sister and brother-in-law. In-person visits are taking place in the visiting room under supervision.
c. Mr. Fortin’s refusal to use his CPAP machine continues to be problematic both from a mental and physical health perspective. The hospital is awaiting a service call from a CPAP machine technician so that adjustments can be made to Mr. Fortin’s machine. He claims that there is too much air coming through and that it disrupts his sleep. Dr. Strike also indicated that it might be possible to look at getting a new CPAP machine. She believes that it is an important part of Mr. Fortin’s risk management and physical health management to ensure that his sleep apnoea is treated as there are otherwise increasing risks of stroke and increased psychotic symptoms.
d. Dr. Strike confirmed that the attendance of the CPAP technician and the process of application to long-term care residences can all be done while Mr. Fortin remains on the FAU, such that the delays in transferring Mr. Fortin to the FRU will not stall that progress.
e. Dr. Strike believes that Mr. Fortin is open to considering a new long term care residence but not to return to the Marochel Residence where he believes that the “gang” has infiltrated that home.
f. Dr. Strike acknowledges that it will be challenging to find a residence where there is no transference of Mr. Fortin’s delusional thinking.
[14]. In response to questions posed to her by counsel for Mr. Fortin, Ms. Lord, Dr. Strike responded as follows:
a. The Geriatric Unit of the hospital refused to take Mr. Fortin for two reasons, firstly because he is a forensic patient and therefore has access to forensic beds, and secondly, because there is heightened risk associated to Mr. Fortin’s index offence of first-degree murder.
b. Dr. Strike confirmed that the admission to the Montfort was initially required because of the increase in delusional symptoms. Once the Montfort hospital had determined that Mr. Fortin was ready for discharge, this created more pressure to admit him to the Royal Ottawa.
c. Dr. Strike confirmed that there are suitable residences available that are not too far from where his spouse resides.
[15]. In response to questions posed to her by members of the Board panel, Dr. Strike responded as follows:
a. Mr. Fortin is incapable of making treatment decisions in relation to his psychotic disorder but has so far maintained capacity for other medical treatments. Dr. Strike is not aware how often this is re-evaluated.
b. Mr. Fortin is very comfortable within the hospital environment. If a LTC placement becomes available and he refuses it, he could be responsible to pay for the cost of his continued admission to hospital. Dr. Strike acknowledged that it is not at all clear how Mr. Fortin would be able to pay for that.
[16]. No other evidence was presented.
Submissions of the Parties
[17]. The Board was presented with a joint submission of all parties that the decision to readmit Mr. Fortin to hospital, thereby significantly increasing the restriction of his liberty, was reasonable and warranted in the circumstances and continues to be so at this time.
Analysis and Conclusion
[18]. Having considered all of the evidence presented at the hearing, and the joint submission of the parties, the Board finds that the hospital’s decision to readmit Mr. Fortin to hospital constituted a significant increase in the restriction of his liberty which was reasonable and warranted and represented the least onerous and least restrictive course of action available to the hospital to manage the increased risk posed by Mr. Fortin’s increase in delusional symptoms which mirrored those at the time of the index offences. We also find the continued restriction remains so.
[19]. Regarding the law applicable to restriction of liberty hearings, the analytical framework established by Campbell (Re), 2018 ONCA 140, requires the Board to consider the liberty norm and the liberty status of an accused on a restriction. The liberty norm and liberty status for each restriction must be examined to determine the significance of the increase (if any) on the restriction of an accused’s liberty caused by the restriction. In determining the liberty norm of an accused at the outset of each period of restriction, the Board must “take a contextual approach – one that considers the individual’s pattern of liberty in the recent past.” ((Re) Campbell, para. 66). The liberty she/he was actually experiencing (rather than what she/he was entitled to) at the time of the increase is what the Board is to consider, and that “liberty must be of sufficient duration to have become, objectively speaking, the NCR accused’s norm” ((Re) Campbell, para 65).
[20]. It is clear that Mr. Fortin’s liberty norm was and continues to be restricted with the admission to hospital. The necessity of the restriction arose from Mr. Fortin’s increased delusional thinking which mirrored the delusions that he was expressing at the time of the index offence, which was of the most serious and lethal nature.
[21]. There was, accordingly, a significant restriction of his liberties that was undertaken out of necessity, having regard to both the hospital’s obligation to ensure the safety of the public (as the primary objective) and its duty to ensure that Mr. Fortin’s mental health and other needs are being met. The restriction of Mr. Fortin’s liberties was the least onerous and least restrictive course available to the hospital.
[22]. Mr. Fortin is considered ready for transfer to the FRU which will be delayed due to the current long wait list. In the meantime, the hospital is working on discharge planning which requires finding a new long-term care residence placement. The hospital is also attempting to activate Mr. Fortin in order to prepare him to transfer to FRU and ultimately to be discharged to a new residence.
[23]. We find that the hospital plan is reasonable and appropriate to manage the situation caused by the increase in Mr. Fortin’s delusional thinking and as well the fact that he no longer had a suitable residence in the community. We encourage the hospital to ensure that all reasonable efforts are being deployed to move forward with the long-term care application’s process.
DATED this 18th day of June 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Ms. M. Labrosse Alternate Chairperson
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board