Ontario Review Board
Re: Michael Larmour
ORB File No: 3893
Hearing held on: Thursday, May 8, 2025
Place of hearing: Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care 500 Church Street, Penetanguishene
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before: Alternate Chairperson: Ms. C. Finley Members: Dr. K. Hand Dr. L.O. Lightfoot Ms. M. Chamberlain Mr. J. Cyr
Parties Appearing: Accused: Michael Larmour Counsel: Mr. D. Northcott
The person in charge of hospital: Representative: Ms. T. Newman
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. J. Armenise
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated August 6, 2025)
On December 10, 2003, Michael Larmour was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on charges of break and enter and escape lawful custody, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (the "Criminal Code").
Mr. Larmour is currently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated May 29, 2024, detaining him at the Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care – Brébeuf Program for Regional Forensics, Penetanguishene, (“Waypoint” or “the Hospital”) with privileges up to living in the community anywhere in Ontario in supervised accommodation approved by the person in charge.
On Thursday, May 8, 2025, the Ontario Review Board (“the Board”) convened a hearing at Waypoint pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Larmour was in attendance and was represented by his counsel, Mr. Northcott.
Position of the Parties
- Ms. Newman, on behalf of the Hospital, recommended no change to Mr. Larmour’s current Disposition. This position was supported by Ms. Armenise, on behalf of the Ministry of the Attorney General. Mr. Northcott conceded the issue of significant threat but requested that indirect Hospital grounds privileges be added to his current detention order.
Index Offences:
- The circumstances of the index offences are taken from the most recent Reasons for Disposition, as follows:
“On August 9, 2003, police received an alarm at Western Star, located at the intersection of Highways 11 and 17 in Northwestern Ontario. Mr. Larmour had dialed 911 from within the business, claiming he had to get away from the twister that was coming. On arrival, police found a south side main door unlocked and opened and found the accused walking toward the rear of the shop area in the garage. He was arrested and investigation indicated entry was gained via the front ground level window next to the main entrance. The alarm panel had been pulled off the wall and rendered useless.
The escape lawful custody charge arose on August 31, 2003, when Mr. Larmour left the Lakehead Psychiatric Hospital in Thunder Bay without authorization while subject to a court-ordered thirty-day assessment.
It may be apparent from the foregoing circumstances of the index offences that they do not contribute much by way of explanation for a finding of significant threat to the safety of the public. The evidentiary support for such a finding appears elsewhere in the Hospital Report.”
Evidence at Hearing:
The evidence at the hearing consisted of the Hospital Report dated April 10, 2025, as well as the testimony of Dr. Jones. Mr. Larmour also addressed the Board.
Dr. Jones testified that she was Mr. Larmour’s most responsible physician. She stated that she had reviewed the Hospital Report and was in agreement with its contents.
Dr. Jones informed the Board that Mr. Larmour has been disappointed by the amount of time he is able to spend in the community as he is only able to leave the Hospital grounds with persons approved by the person in charge. His mother is an approved person, but she is only able to visit the Hospital once per week. Mr. Larmour has recently had a Passport worker appointed for him. This is another approved person who can leave the Hospital and enter the community with Mr. Larmour on a weekly basis.
The doctor stated that the clinical team did not support Mr. Larmour’s request for indirectly supervised community privileges at this time. She noted that when he was in Hamilton, prior to coming back to Brébeuf, Mr. Larmour was in a group home that was supervised most of the time. Even with this level of supervision, he left the group home and engaged in substance use. This led to a worsening of his mental status. Mr. Larmour is quite impulsive and has difficulty with judgement and decision making. He continues to be at high risk for substance abuse if he were to be in the community without supervision.
The Hospital also had concerns that if he were granted indirectly supervised privileges, Mr. Larmour would constantly be making requests to leave the Hospital grounds. It would create conflict. Dr. Jones stated that Mr. Larmour has a tendency to try to bargain with his treatment team. In the past year, he has stated that he would not take his medication or would have negative behaviour if he was not granted indirectly supervised privileges. The doctor worried that it may be destabilizing for him to have this option available to him.
Dr. Jones stated that when he goes into the community with his mother, Mr. Larmour engages in cigarette smoking. He has also made poor nutritional choices when shopping with staff despite repeated health teaching. To his credit, there have not been any issues with Mr. Larmour absconding or engaging in violence while in the community with supervision.
The Hospital Report includes a description of an incident in March 2025 where Mr. Larmour made a gesture slicing his throat to a co-patient. He required staff intervention to de-escalate the situation. Dr. Jones stated that this sort of thing could occur in the community and could be problematic without the assistance of and intervention by staff.
Ms. Armenise asked Dr. Jones if there was anything that Mr. Larmour could do to earn the indirectly supervised community privilege. The doctor stated that the treatment team does not think that he would be suitable for this privilege anytime in the next 12 months. Dr. Jones noted that Mr. Larmour has a mental illness as well as a brain injury, both of which contribute to his impulsivity and poor judgement. He has a long history of making poor decisions that harms his mental status. Dr, Jones stated that it is difficult for an impulsive person to manage his impulsivity.
In response to questions from his counsel, Dr. Jones stated that Mr. Larmour usually goes out with his mother once each week for four hours at a time. Mr. Larmour is limited in how long he can be away from the Hospital as he needs his blood sugar levels monitored four times each day and his medication needs to be adjusted accordingly. The doctor agreed with counsel that other than his diet and cigarette smoking, there have not been incidents of concern during these outings. Mr. Larmour also goes out with his Passport worker, who currently works on one of the secure forensic units at the Hospital.
The Board noted that Mr. Larmour was on a waitlist for 24-hour supervised DSO housing and asked how long this could take. The doctor expected that it would be quite awhile before he reached the top of the list. Mr. Larmour did not want to be on the waitlist for housing in Hamilton as he would not be close to his family. His chances of obtaining housing would be faster in Hamilton as they have accommodation for individuals with brain injuries.
At the conclusion of the hearing, Mr. Larmour addressed the Board. He stated that he had done well when he was in Hamilton and had not had any positive urine screens. He stated that although he has struggled with substances in the past, he had been clean for about 3 or 4 years. Mr. Larmour felt that he had learned a lot from substance use programming. He felt that he was ready to demonstrate to the Hospital his ability to remain abstinent. He asked how he could prove this to the Hospital if he did not have the ability to go into the community on his own. He wanted to start out slowly and see how he did. He stated that he is a very smart man and felt he deserved this privilege.
Mr. Larmour stated that he had problems with his lungs and wanted to be able to spend more time walking around nature and getting good air into his lungs. He stated that other patients were able to go out more often than he was and that he found it frustrating and unfair that he could not be given the same privileges. Mr. Larmour said that he would like to get a mountain bike and get some exercise.
Dr. Jones commented that the Hospital was in agreement with the goal to get a mountain bike for Mr. Larmour and his Passport worker could go riding with him. She stated that Mr. Lamour currently did have access to the stationary bike on the unit, but he had not wanted to use that one.
Final Submissions:
At the conclusion of the hearing, counsel for the Hospital stated that Mr. Larmour generally got along well with staff and other patients on his unit. With minor exceptions, there had been no issues in the community when Mr. Larmour had been supervised. Ms. Newman commended Mr. Larmour for all that he has accomplished. She noted that the Hospital remained concerned about the risk to Mr. Larmour and the community if he were to be granted indirectly supervised privileges. She also expressed concern that if this privilege were available to Mr. Larmour, it would result in a worsening relationship between Mr. Larmour and his treatment team as he would be constantly pushing for time out of the Hospital. Ms. Newman stated that in the next year, Mr. Larmour would hopefully be able to get a bike and spend more time in the community with his Passport worker. He could work on his impulsivity and demonstrate that he is able to make better choices around his nutrition. The Hospital may then be in a position to recommend indirectly supervised community privileges.
Counsel for Mr. Larmour stated that his client had had a good year and feels he is ready for a change in his privileges so that he can see if he is ready for more independence.
Findings of the Board:
- The Board unanimously finds that Mr. Larmour continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public. In arriving at this determination, the Board considered the position of the parties and accepted the uncontroverted evidence of Dr. Jones as well as the testimony of Mr. Larmour. The Board also relies on the Hospital Report, which notes the following:
“Mr. Larmour has a major mental illness, a history of traumatic brain injury, and a substance use disorder. Even with stability in his mental disorder, Mr. Larmour is impulsive, leading to poor decision-making. His risk is further heightened by his limited insight into the connection between his impulsivity and substance misuse. Mr. Larmour’s risk is currently managed with compliance to medication, abstinence from substances, and a highly supervised environment. “
Further, the Board unanimously determines that the necessary and appropriate Disposition required to manage the threat to the safety of the public is a continuation of the existing detention Disposition. Mr. Larmour has done well in the controlled environment at Waypoint and can build on this success in the coming year.
The Board carefully considered Mr. Larmour’s request for indirectly supervised community privileges and agreed with the Hospital that granting this request was premature and would cause more conflict in his relationship with his treatment team. Mr. Larmour already has opportunity to go into the community with his mother as well as his Passport worker. The Board encourages Mr. Larmour to use these outings in the coming year to demonstrate his ability to manage in the community and be less impulsive.
In making this Disposition, the Board carefully considered the positions and submissions of the parties, the evidence of Dr. Jones and Mr. Larmour’s submissions, and is satisfied that this determination is both necessary and appropriate. The Board reviewed the provisions of s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code and carefully considered the need to protect the public from dangerous persons, Mr. Larmour’s mental condition, their reintegration into society and their other needs.
DATED this 6th day of August 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Ms. M. Chamberlain Legal Member Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board