Ontario Review Board
Re: Joachim Lessard
ORB File No: 7111
Hearing held on: Tuesday, June 17, 2025
Place of Hearing: Brockville Mental Health Centre
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. G. Beasley
Dr. G. Eayrs
Dr. Y. Alatishe
Mr. M. Segal
Ms. R. MacIntyre
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Joachim Lessard
Counsel: Mr. M.J. Davies
Person in charge of hospital: Representative: Dr. J. Gray
Attorney-General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. C. Breault
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated August 7, 2025)
Introduction
On February 24, 2017, the accused, Joachim Lessard was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on charges of resisting or obstructing police or peace officer, failure to comply with probation officer, uttering threats to cause death or bodily harm, assaulting a peace officer(x2), all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada. Mr. Lessard is currently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (ORB) dated July 2nd, 2024, and an Order amending that Disposition dated March 3rd, 2024. That disposition detains him at the Secure Forensic Unit of the Brockville Mental Health Centre with privileges up to and including to reside in the community within a 250km radius of the Brockville Mental Health Centre – Member of the Royal Ottawa Health Care Group, in accommodation approved by the person in charge.
On June 17th, 2025, the Ontario Review Board convened a hearing at the Brockville Mental Health Centre, hereinafter referred to as the Hospital, to review Mr. Lessard’s disposition. Mr. Lessard attended his hearing and was represented by his counsel, Mr. Michael Davies. Counsel for the Attorney General of Ontario was Ms. Breault, and Dr. Gray represented the Hospital.
The issues for this hearing are whether Mr. Lessard meets the threshold for significant threat to the safety of the public and, if so, to determine the Disposition that is necessary and appropriate in all the circumstances.
Index Offences
- The circumstances are found in last year’s Reasons as follows:
“On January 25, 2017, Mr. Lessard told his probation officer that he was going to move to Toronto and that he did not want to give her an address. She reminded him that he was on probation and that he had to provide an address of where he was residing. He replied that he was moving and that he wanted to kill a police officer. He told her that he was serious with his plan. She informed the Ottawa Police Service. They decided to lay a charge of uttering threats. When the police attended to arrest him, Mr. Lessard told one of the officers that he would take her gun and kill her. Mr. Lessard resisted arrest and assaulted two of the police officers. At the time, Mr. Lessard was on probation with one of the conditions providing that he was to keep the peace and be of good behaviour.”
Current Diagnosis
- The current diagnosis is taken from the hospital as follows:
Schizophrenia
Cocaine Use Disorder
Cannabis Use Disorder
Antisocial Personality Disorder by History
Criminal History
- Mr. Lessard’s criminal record includes convictions in 2016 on charges of failing to comply with a probation order, assault of a peace officer, possession of a weapon, possession of a Schedule I substance and possession of property obtained by crime.
Personal History
- Mr. Lessard was born in St. Augustine, Quebec, a small fishing village on the north shore of the St. Lawrence River. His mother was unmarried and was only 16 years old at the time. His father was never involved in his life. Mrs. Lessard moved to Montreal for work and her son was mostly raised by his maternal grandparents who lived in Sept-Îles, Quebec. She would regularly visit her parents and her son who, she said, was a good son who did well in school. Mr. Lessard finished high school and moved to Toronto to work in construction. His mother reported that he had started showing signs of a mental illness when he was 18. He then started to talk of his family having been involved in organized crime, a delusion he has since held. She indicated that this had never been the case. He subsequently would disappear for a couple of years at a time. He travelled to Western Canada for work. He was involved in a relationship which resulted in the birth of a child. Mrs. Lessard had last seen her son around Christmas 2014 when he went home to Sept-Îles for the holidays. During the visit, he threatened several family members who were afraid of him. She had been very happy to hear that he was in hospital and receiving treatment.
Position of the Parties
- At the outset of the hearing, Dr. Gray stated that his primary submission was that Mr. Lessard continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate disposition was a continuation of the current detention order without amendment. However, he also acknowledged that it would be reasonable for the panel to consider an absolute discharge. Ms. Breault deferred her position until the conclusion of the evidence. Mr. Davies stated that Mr. Lessard was seeking an absolute discharge.
Evidence at Hearing:
The evidence at the hearing was presented by Dr. Gray who is Mr. Lessard’s treating psychiatrist and the co-author of the hospital report which was filed as an Exhibit. Dr. Gray stated that the treatment team has been exploring different housing options for Mr. Lessard. In their opinion, he is ready to transition to residing in the community but there have been a number of obstacles. The team had considered applying for SALUS supported housing in Ottawa but that would require Mr. Lessard to be transferred to the Royal Ottawa Hospital. Mr. Lessard, in consultation with the treatment team, decided that this was not a viable option given the potential exposure to former associates connected with substance abuse.
Next the treatment considered the Murray Street Home which offers 8-hour observation per day. That residence refused to accept Mr. Lessard because they stated that he should transition through a 24-hour a day supervised accommodation before going to Murray Street. Dr. Gray stated that he thought an underlying reason for the refusal was that in the event that Mr. Lessard’s appeal of his NCR finding is successful, they did not want to have a non-forensic patient occupying one of their limited beds. Finally, Dr. Gray stated that the team rejected the option of sending Mr. Lessard to the FITT House because he did not need the level of support if offered and any bed there would be put to better use with a different patient. The team have been encouraging Mr. Lessard to find independent accommodation in the community. His ability to do this is limited by his finances. Dr. Gray stated that there may be FSH funding available which would allow the hospital to subsidize Mr. Lessard’s rent in the community up to a maximum of $800 per month.
Mr. Lessard has found full-time work in the community with a landscaping and lawncare business. His employer is aware that he is residing in a “treatment facility” and also knows of Mr. Lessard’s past issues with substances. He is considered to be a valued worker at the company. Mr. Lessard offered that he has also now obtained employment for the winter with a construction company doing framing. When on the unit, Mr. Lessard tends to read a lot and keeps to himself. Dr. Gray stated that Mr. Lessard was sentenced to a non-custodial disposition arising out of the threats in August 2023 when he used crystal methamphetamine. He is currently on a probation order which expires in 2027. Dr. Gray stated that Mr. Lessard’s risk arises from his use of substances, particularly stimulants which result in manic behaviour and violent or aggressive outbursts as took place in August 2023. Dr. Gray said that staff involved in the August 2023 incident are still fearful of Mr. Lessard. Mr. Lessard continues to meet with an addictions therapist in the hospital and this would be offered to him if he were to transition to the community.
Dr. Gray candidly submitted that the outpatient team would continue to work with Mr. Lessard were he to receive an absolute discharge. However, and notwithstanding his earlier stated opinion, Dr. Gray stated that Mr. Lessard has not yet transitioned back to the community and has not been tested with respect to his ability to succeed outside of the supportive environment of the hospital. This is particularly important given his most recent use of crystal methamphetamine and the ensuing threats and criminal charges. Dr. Gray acknowledged that Mr. Lessard has been abstinent for almost two years since that incident.
In response to questions from Ms. Breault, Dr. Gray agreed that in March of 2022, shortly after being discharged to reside in the community, Mr. Lessard went AWOL and apparently made his way to Toronto. He was missing until July of 2022 when he was ultimately apprehended and returned to the hospital. Mr. Lessard had previously gone AWOL in 2020. In August 2023, an incident occurred in the hospital when Mr. Lessard obtained and consumed crystal methamphetamine. This led to police being called to assist in putting Mr. Lessard into seclusion and ultimately to criminal charges against him. Dr. Gray agreed that this was a result of the consumption of substances triggering a psychotic outbreak. He stated that substances such as crystal methamphetamine make Mr. Lessard more aggressive. Dr. Gray reiterated that staff involved in that particular incident are still fearful of Mr. Lessard. Dr. Gray said that there are difficulties in placing Mr. Lessard in the community in order to test his ability to abstain from substances when not under supervision of the hospital. He conceded that Mr. Lessard is off the unit for most of the day and away from supervision but that staff are there to assess him on his return. There had been consideration of one supported housing, but on inspection it was discovered that the apartment was infested with insects and that there was a proliferation of drugs in the immediate surroundings so it was refused. Dr. Gray agreed with Mr. Breault’s comment that Mr. Lessard’s risk to the safety of the public arises out of substance use and he reaches a level of significant threat. He agreed that as occurred in the August 2023 incident where multiple police officers had to employ a taser to subdue Mr. Lessard, these psychotic outbreaks are not resolved quickly.
Mr. Davies asked about the nature of the therapeutic relationship between Mr. Lessard and the treatment team. Dr. Gray confirmed that it was a good relationship and he looked forward to meeting with Mr. Lessard. He follows direction of the treatment team and has certainly been responsive over the last 18 months since the August 2023 events. When asked why he thought that Mr. Lessard was remaining abstinent from drugs, Dr. Gray stated that he thought it showed some insight on Mr. Lessard’s behalf. He also attributed his behaviour to the ongoing appeal to the Ontario Court of appeal and the prohibitions found in his current probation order. Dr. Gray agreed that the treatment team would continue to see Mr. Lessard if he was granted an absolute discharge, or in the alternative, if his appeal was successful and resulted in the removal of his NCR finding. He agreed that Mr. Lessard has lots of access to the community and really is only sleeping at the hospital. He stated that Mr. Lessard is not keen to leave the hospital, possibly because he is not paying any rent and receives his meals so he is making significant savings from his employment. Mr. Davies asked if there was anything further for Mr. Lessard to do in order to obtain an absolute discharge. Dr. Gray stated only to demonstrate his ability to live successfully in the community and remain abstinent from substances. With respect to the possibility of subsidized housing, Dr. Gray stated that if Mr. Lessard received FSH Housing, but either received an absolute discharge or was successful on his appeal, then it could transition to community-based subsidies.
In response to questions from the panel, Dr. Gray stated that if Mr. Lessard received an absolute discharge, he would be welcome to stay voluntarily in the hospital to start as they would not discharge him without a place for him to reside. The FSH funding would continue post-absolute discharge or successful appeal. Dr. Gray stated that the advantages of maintaining a detention order over a conditional discharge are that if Mr. Lessard were residing in the community and returned a positive UDS, then he could be admitted directly back to the hospital on a detention order. If he were on a conditional discharge the Mental Health Act would be more difficult to implement his return.
A panel member asked Dr. Gray if Mr. Lessard was on a conditional discharge if he would return voluntarily to the hospital if there was a positive UDS. Dr. Gray stated that if Mr. Lessard was actively using substances, then he would not, but if he were the way he is at the present time then he would. Dr. Gray stated that he does give some weight in his risk analysis to Mr. Lessard’s diagnosis of suffering from an antisocial personality disorder. He agreed that in the event of an absolute discharge there would be nothing to compel Mr. Lessard to provide UDS samples to monitor his substance use in the community.
Neither Ms. Breault nor Mr. Davies called evidence at the hearing.
Submissions of the Parties
Dr. Gray reiterated his initial submission that the necessary and appropriate disposition was a continuation of the current detention order without amendment. Once again, he candidly acknowledged that he would “not be upset” by an Absolute Discharge.
Ms. Breault supported the continuation of the current detention order without amendment but opposed an absolute discharge. She submitted that Mr. Lessard continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. Ms. Breault stated that the Hospital Report indicates that the risks remain as they were last year in the 2024 annual hearing. Mr. Lessard has limited supports in the community and apparently no family to help him. She stated that the necessary and appropriate disposition was a detention order.
Mr. Davies submitted that Mr. Lessard no longer represents a significant risk to the safety of the public and was therefore entitled to an absolute discharge. He stated that Mr. Lessard has increased insight into substance use and has been abstinent since August 2023. He has a good relationship with the treatment team which could continue if he were in the community. Mr. Davies acknowledged that Mr. Lessard has not been tested fully in the community but pointed out that he has virtually unlimited access to the community at the present time. He follows the directions of the treatment team and is also under the terms of a probation order until 2027. Mr. Davies submitted that in the event that the panel concludes that Mr. Lessard continues to represent a significant threat then the necessary and appropriate disposition would be a conditional discharge and that it is unnecessary to continue to the current detention order.
Analysis and Disposition
The threshold decision for the panel is whether or not Mr. Lessard continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public as defined in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code. The Supreme Court decision in Winko remains instructive as to how to interpret this section. A risk must be real and objectively supportable, not remote, theoretical or exist only due to one person’s fears. (See: Winko v. British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute), 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] S.C.J. No. 31, at paras. 57, 62). The Court of Appeal has also emphasized that the test to be applied is stringent, and there must be both a likelihood of risk materializing and the likelihood of serious harm occurring. Speculation as to the level of risk is not sufficient, and the risk of a mental health relapse is not congruent with the standard to be applied and cannot justify detention. It is recognized that the absence of violent behaviour in itself does not eliminate the risk of significant harm to the public. Similarly, lack of insight into the index offences, the discontinuation of medication and substance abuse are all factors to consider (See: Re: Sheikh, 2019 ONCA 692; Re: Krist, 2019 ONCA 802; Re: Abdulle, 2019 ONCA 812)
That Court re-emphasized the onerous test in Re: Gibson 2022 ONCA 527, per Lauwers J.A. at para. 9:
Huscroft J.A. said in Carrick (Re), 2015 ONCA 866, 128 O.R. (3d) 209, at para. 17, that “the ‘significant threat’ standard is an onerous one”. He added that “[t]he board must be satisfied as to both the existence and gravity of the risk of physical or psychological harm posed by the appellant in order to deny him an absolute discharge”. Mere speculation is insufficient. See also, Sim (Re), 2020 ONCA 563, at paras. 63-65, per Strathy C.J.O., Marmolejo (Re), 2021 ONCA 130, 155 O.R. (3d) 185, per Tulloch J.A., at paras. 33-37.
The panel is unanimous in accepting the primary submission of Dr. Gray that Mr. Lessard continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate disposition is a continuation of the current detention order without amendment. This position was supported by Ms. Breault on behalf of the Attorney-General. Mr. Lessard presents a unique circumstance in his current situation. He has commenced an appeal of his NCR finding to the Ontario Court of Appeal. This appeal is supported by his current treating psychiatrist who has removed the diagnosis of Schizophrenia from Mr. Lessard’s hospital record. Notwithstanding that opinion by Dr. Gray, the panel is still obliged to consider whether or not Mr. Lessard continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public in his current circumstances. Mr. Lessard has a history of violent and aggressive behaviour and substance abuse while residing in the community. He has a history of being AWOL, the most recent occurrence in 2022, when he was missing from the hospital for an extended period of time shortly after transitioning to community living.
Significantly and most recently, in August 2023, while residing in the hospital, Mr. Lessard used crystal methamphetamine which resulted in a substance induced psychotic episode. As a result, it was necessary for the hospital to call the Ontario Provincial Police to assist in putting Mr. Lessard into seclusion and this was ultimately accomplished with the use of a Taser. During the incident, Mr. Lessard uttered a number of threats which resulted in criminal convictions. Dr. Gray testified that these threats have had a lasting psychological effect upon the staff involved at the time. To his credit, Mr. Lessard has not presented a management problem since that incident. He has tested negative on all UDS screens since and sought and maintained full-time employment in the community. As a result of his employment, he is effectively only sleeping at the Hospital. However, as Dr. Gray submitted, he is under the supervision of staff, when in the hospital, and assessed for his mental status on a daily basis. In addition, he has the full support of the hospital in that he is provided a place to live with meals at no cost to him. This enables him to save funds earned from his employment and effectively prevent financial stressors. The risk relied upon by Dr. Gray in support of a continuation of the detention order is that Mr. Lessard has not been tested in the community for a number of years. Although the treatment team have been attempting to transition Mr. Lessard to community living for some time, they have not been successful in finding appropriate accommodation. As a result, Mr. Lessard has not had the opportunity to demonstrate abstinence and stability in his own residence. The panel is unanimous in finding that, given both past and recent history, Mr. Lessard continues to represent a significant threat to the possibility of serious harm, either physical or psychological, were he to use substances while living without structure or supervision in the community. The panel agrees with Dr. Gray that the risk is such that the most important factor would be the ability of the treatment team to return Mr. Lessard to the hospital quickly in the event of substance use and subsequent decompensation in his mental status. It is this crucial difference between the detention order and the use of the Mental Health Act under the terms of a conditional discharge which renders a conditional discharge inappropriate.
For all of the above reasons and taking into account the provisions of s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code and the definition of significant threat found in s.672.5401 of the Criminal Code, the panel is unanimous in finding that the paramount consideration of the protection of the safety of the public requires a continuation of the current detention order without amendment.
DATED this 7th day of August, 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Mr. G. Beasley
Alternate Chairperson
__________________
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board