Re Carl J. Desjardins-Paquette, 2025 CanLII 81151

Re : Carl J. Desjardins-Paquette

ORB File No: 7319

Hearing held on: Thursday June 12, 2025

Place of hearing: Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre

Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code

Before:

Alternate Chairperson: Ms. M. Labrosse

Members: Dr. S. Prat Dr. R. Cormier Mr. D. Sandor Mr. R. Rainboth

Parties Appearing:

Accused: Carl J. Desjardins-Paquette Counsel: Ms. M. Munsterman

The Person in charge of Hospital: Representative: Dr. J. Gojer

Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. M. Dufort

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated August 11, 2025)

Introduction:

1. On March 16, 2018, Carl Desjardins-Paquette, who was 38 years old at the time of the hearing, was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on one charge of committing an indecent act contrary to the provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada. Mr. Desjardins-Paquette is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated June 26, 2024, detaining him at the Secure Forensic Unit of the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre, Ottawa (hereinafter referred to as “the Hospital”). That disposition grants Mr. Desjardins-Paquette certain privileges including that of living in the community in 24 hour a day supervised accommodation approved by the person in charge. It also imposes certain conditions on him, including that of abstaining absolutely from the non-medical use of alcohol, drugs, or any other intoxicants and that of submitting samples for the purpose of analyzing compliance with the abstention condition.

2. On June 12, 2025, a panel of the Ontario Review Board convened a hearing to review that disposition pursuant to section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Desjardins-Paquette was present for the hearing, represented by his lawyer Ms. M. Munsterman.

3. The record for the hearing included the Notice of Hearing, a copy of the Board’s Decision from a restriction of liberties hearing dated March 11, 2025, with the Reasons for that Decision dated April 2, 2025, and Mr. Desjardins-Paquette’s last Decision and Disposition as mentioned above, dated June 26, 2024, and the Reasons for that Decision and Disposition dated August 23, 2024. On the consent of all parties, a Hospital Report, dated May 28, 2025, was entered into evidence as an exhibit.

4. The parties were canvassed for initial positions. Dr. Gojer, Mr. Desjardins-Paquette’s treating psychiatrist spoke for the Hospital. He expressed the position that Mr. Desjardins-Paquette continued to represent a significant risk to the safety of the public as that term is defined in section 672.5041 of the Criminal Code and as it has been explained by the Supreme Court of Canada in Winko v. British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute), 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625. He also expressed the position that it was necessary and appropriate, having regard to the objectives set out in section 672.54 of the Criminal Code, for Mr. Desjardins-Paquette to continue to be the subject of a detention disposition.

5. Both the representative of the Attorney General and counsel for Mr. Desjardins-Paquette agreed with the Hospital’s position, subject to questions. That joint submission was maintained through to the end of the hearing.

6. For the following reasons, the Board accepts the joint submission and finds that Mr. Desjardins-Paquette continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. It has further concluded that the necessary and appropriate disposition, having regard to the primary objective of assuring the safety of the public, together with the other objectives set out in section 672.54 of the Criminal Code, and applying the principle of minimal intrusion, is that of a detention order as requested.

Evidence at the hearing

7. The evidence for the hearing came from the Hospital Report mentioned above and the live testimony offered by Dr. Gojer.

8. Turning first to the Hospital Report, it is cumulative in nature and includes several details regarding Mr. Desjardins-Paquette, his history of struggle with mental illness, his history of struggles with decompensating substance uses and his history of difficulties with the criminal justice system. Mr. Desjardins-Paquette has a considerable criminal record including a break and enter conviction as a young offender and more notably a conviction for sexual assault, forcible confinement and three counts of failure to comply from December 2008. At that time Mr. Desjardins-Paquette underwent an inpatient assessment for fitness to stand trial. Prior to that he had been charged with sexual assault in 2005. There appear to be two separate sets of charges, one of which was eventually withdrawn, and the other set of charges were resolved though this does not appear on the CPIC.

9. In relation to the 2008 charges, Mr. Desjardins-Paquette was convicted on April 7, 2017, and was sentenced to three months on each charge. He served a federal sentence at Archambault Institution in Laval and served his full sentence. Due to concerns about Mr. Desjardins-Paquette’s risk of committing a sexual offence in the community, he was placed on two-year order under s. 810.2 of the Criminal Code of Canada. He was also placed on the Sex Offender Registry. A second order was made under s. 810.2. This expired in February of 2018. There were subsequent charges for consuming alcohol, missing curfew, and not keeping the peace which occurred on April 9, 2017. He was convicted of all of these charges. A new order under s. 810.2 was made requiring him to provide receipts for his injectable medication.

10. As to psychiatric history, Mr. Desjardins-Paquette was diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder – Bipolar Type while in his late teens. The Hospital Report recounts several attempts to commit suicide including attempting to jump off a water tower at the age of 14, attempting to commit suicide by hanging and by injecting air into his veins with a needle and a syringe at age 21. The Hospital Report sets out several admissions to psychiatric hospitals going back to 2005. His current diagnoses are as follows:

• Schizophrenia

• Stimulant Use Disorder

• Cannabis Use Disorder.

11. The Hospital Report indicates that Mr. Desjardins-Paquette has had a difficult time since coming under the jurisdiction of the Ontario Review Board. At the time of his last hearing, he was the subject of a restriction of liberty driven by his efforts to sabotage approved housing in the community, his persistent difficulties with decompensating substance use and his risk of elopement. As was stated in my Reasons for Decision and Disposition at that time:

…turning to the restriction of Mr. Desjardins-Paquette’s liberties, the Board is also convinced that this was justified and necessary, minimally intrusive and continues to be so. As to necessity, the evidence was clear that Mr. Desjardins-Paquette had little insight, was engaged in active, deceptive use of stimulant drugs of the kind that have given rise to decompensations, disordered thought, and criminal activity, including sexual aggression in the past. He was being supported in his drug use by his girlfriend and had largely given up hope of working towards control of his addictions. He has no insight into the index offences and posed an elevating risk to the safety of the public. He has little insight into the risk his substance use poses to the public, and that insight was increasingly compromised with his ongoing use and continuing elopements. There is no other option that adequately provides for the safety of the public than to restrict his liberties as the Hospital did. The lack of insight shown by Mr. Desjardins-Paquette’s exclamations over the course of the hearing, as noted, and including his statement at the end of the hearing that “I can’t get off the drugs. It sucks. I could go to Shepherd” supports the rest of the evidence received by the panel, enabling it to arrive at its conclusion that the ongoing restriction is also justified, necessary and minimally intrusive. The panel notes that the Shepherd is a harm reduction model group home, enunciated by Mr. Desjardins-Paquette in a context where he has clearly indicated both his intention to continue to use stimulant drugs and where he has engaged more in elopement and evasion than in engagement and commitment.

12. Mr. Desjardins-Paquette then experienced a further restriction of his liberty for a period of 6 weeks associated with a rapid resurgence of psychotic symptoms in February 2025. This too was driven by his persistent struggles with substances in the context of major mental illness. At that time, I summarized:

The significant increase in the restriction of Mr. Desjardins-Paquette’s liberties was occasioned following a decompensating period of noncompliance with medication and use of substances including opiates. Mr. Desjardins-Paquette’s state of deterioration was described in concerning terms by group home staff with whom he shared a good therapeutic alliance. He was becoming a threat to other residents, was aggressive and was showing increasing symptoms of his major mental illness. He was at risk of losing his place of supervised accommodations. The evidence clearly established that Mr. Desjardins-Paquette had experienced a significant restriction of his liberties for a period of 4-6 weeks and that his return to the Hospital was necessary and justified.

The evidence also supported the conclusion that this course of conduct was the least onerous and least restrictive course available to the Hospital at the time. Mr. Desjardins-Paquette’s noncompliance with his medication was aggravated by his use of substances. He required a Form 49 to bring him to the Hospital. Once he was treated with Invega in that setting he began to settle and was able to engage in programs and counseling. As he stabilized, the Hospital engaged in active steps to minimize the intrusion upon his liberties such that he was able to promptly return to the group home where he was residing at the time of the hearing.

13. The Hospital Report’s update for the purposes of this hearing begins at page 75. It describes several positives that are worth noting. Following the last restriction of his liberty, Mr. Desjardins-Paquette engaged more positively with staff at Kimberlane and with his groups and individual meetings. He participated in the formation of a “contract” that he put together with Dr. Gojer that set the stage for meaningful goals and commitment to treatment and recovery. He attended a concurrent disorders group, as well as Risk & Resilience. He began attending regularly for his urine drug screenings and injections and engaged in sports and pro-social activities. His mood has been positive, his speech clearer and more coherent than ever before and he has been seeking to stay away from social influences that undermine his goals with sobriety. He renewed his relationship with his mother and sister. He has demonstrated an increased desire to cease panhandling and to work instead. While he did experience lapses in sobriety, such as when he sold his television in April to buy cocaine, he was open with his relapse and was able to maintain appropriate behaviours in his residence, to meet curfew and take his medications.

14. Mr. Desjardins-Paquette has continued to comply with his prescribed anti-psychotic medication and has agreed to further programming that will take place over the course of the next review period. He has maintained focus on obtaining part-time employment. The Hospital Report states that “this is a hopeful period for Carl with increasingly positive changes over time.” The panel entirely agrees. Mr. Desjardins-Paquette attended twelve of thirteen concurrent disorder group sessions (one being excused for illness), has graduated from the Risk and Reliance Group, and has demonstrated excellent commitment to his goals. His appearance and demeanor over the course of this hearing was notably different from previous hearings where he expressed a heartbreaking lack of hope. The Hospital Report confirms that Mr. Desjardins-Paquette’s drug use has decreased substantially. His thoughts have been organized; he has improved ability to express himself and he is polite and cooperative. The expectation is that he will continue to work with the treatment team over the next year both in weekly group and one-on-one settings.

15. The Hospital Report places this progress in the context of the index offence, which is summarized as follows:

On 07 Jun 17, 2017, Cst. Peach observed a male in front of 1311 Cumberland Street, walking in circles on the sidewalk and driveway portion of the residence. Upon getting closer to the male, Cst. Peach observed him to have no shirt on with black baggy jogging pants. The pans were down slightly, exposing the male’s pubic hair and penis. The male looked at police as the cruiser passed him and made no effort to pull up his pants, until he saw the cruiser turn around in a next-door neighbour’s driveway. Upon driving back to the male’s residence and exiting the cruiser, the male, whom police recognized from previous dealings as Carl Desjardins-Paquette began talking and his pants again, fell down, exposing his pubic hair and entire penis.

16. The Hospital Report also includes a Risk Assessment, beginning at page 77. It expresses that Mr. Desjardins-Paquette continues to pose a significant risk to the public if not managed under the strict conditions of a Review Board disposition. While it acknowledges the recent progress he has made, it asserts that prognosis for Mr. Desjardins-Paquette is still guarded. He is still at risk of rapid decompensation driven by any use of substances. It emphasized the importance of maintaining close monitoring by a case manager, continued compliance with a long-acting drug, Abilify, and supervision at a group home where ethe operator takes special interest in his wellbeing. It concludes that nothing short of a detention disposition would satisfy either the objective of assuring the safety of the public or the objective of ensuring that Mr. Desjardins-Paquette’s mental health and other needs are met.

17. Dr. Gojer’s live evidence aligned with the contents of the Hospital Report in every particular. He confirmed the difficulties that led to restrictions of Mr. Desjardins-Paquette’s liberty, as they are detailed in the two sets of Reasons found in the Record for this hearing. He confirmed that Mr. Desjardins-Paquette has not experienced any further psychotic episodes since his discharge from the Hospital in April 2025. He explained that Mr. Desjardins-Paquette is agreeable to attending a program of rehabilitation but that he is haunted still by his struggles with abstaining from substances, particularly when considering that his relapses have been with extremely high quantities of drugs and have resulted in situations where he has been a risk of harm to himself and to others. In this regard, Dr. Gojer referenced an occasion in 2024 when Mr. Desjardins-Paquette relapsed, passed out on a dose of fentanyl, and punched someone. While charges related to that incident were ultimately withdrawn, they warrant the exercise of some supportive prudence over the course of the next review period.

18. Dr. Gojer explained that sober as he currently is, Mr. Desjardins-Paquette is helpful and pleasant. He did cast doubt on whether Mr. Desjardins-Paquette will follow through with seeking part-time employment in light of how successful he is with panhandling. He explained that Mr. Desjardins-Paquette’s primary psychosis is being managed well on the long-acting injectable antipsychotics that he takes assiduously, and that this medication does provide some level of protection in the event of drug use. Even so, Dr. Gojer was very clear that use of substances posed a clear risk of rapid decompensation and undermines what Dr. Gojer describes as sincere desire on the part of Mr. Desjardins-Paquette. Dr. Gojer explained that Mr. Desjardins-Paquette does not want to flout the Board’s dispositions. He wants to abstain from substances, and he wants treatment and supports that will help him abstain. He realizes that his use poses a risk to himself, his mother, his sister, and to the public. This realization however has not yet met with the supported resolve needed to move Mr. Desjardins-Paquette to next stages on the path towards the ultimate objective of reintegration into the community. He expressed a concern shared by members of the panel – namely that chronic cocaine and substance use can cause brain damage and is cardio-toxic. Mr. Desjardins-Paquette’s back and forth on and off of drugs is a growing acute concern in terms of his health and functioning. Furthermore, inasmuch as the substance use risks a resurgence of primary psychotic symptoms even in the face of the protective properties of a long-acting injectable antipsychotic medication, there is a concern that Mr. Desjardins-Paquette will experience decreasing brain functions should he stray from his current course or return to patterns of substance use. Dr. Gojer confirmed that, in this regard, time is increasingly of the essence.

Submissions

19. As stated, at the end of the hearing, the parties renewed their joint submission that Mr. Desjardins-Paquette continued to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and that a detention disposition was necessary and appropriate to manage his risk.

Analysis and conclusion

20. As also stated, the Board agrees with the joint submission. Focusing firstly on the threshold issue of significant threat to the safety of the public, the evidence was very clear that the standard expressed by the Supreme Court of Canada in Winko had been met. Mr. Desjardins-Paquette suffers from a major mental illness that figured prominently in the commission of an index offence that was, in the context of his criminal record, serious in nature. Symptoms of his primary psychotic illness are exacerbated by his use of substances, which trigger rapid decompensation in spite of the protective properties found in his long-acting injectable antipsychotic medication. While Mr. Desjardins-Paquette has some insight into his mental illness, need for medication and the deleterious effect substances have upon his symptoms, he struggles with abstaining as needed to alleviate the nature and level of risk posed to the public by virtue of substance-driven decompensation of his psychotic symptoms. The strength of his addictions has driven him to elope from the Hospital, to use significant levels of substances, including fentanyl, and has led to violent acts as a result. The dangers of substance use in Mr. Desjardins-Paquette’s case are distinct. If not subject to a Board disposition there is a real likelihood that he will return to rampant abuse of substances, become non-compliant with treatment recommendations, and will go on to commit serious offences that pose significant threats to the physical and psychological safety of the public. In our view, the facts attain to the high threshold required to establish significant threat, even in the context of a joint submission.

21. The Board is also satisfied that a detention disposition is necessary and appropriate having regard to the objectives set out in section 672.54 of the Criminal Code. The Board comes to this conclusion in spite of the significant progress Mr. Desjardins-Paquette has made over the course of the last few months since his most recent restriction of liberty hearing. Admittedly Mr. Desjardins-Paquette is doing better at this stage than he has in some time. He is engaging meaningfully with his treatment team. He is not just transparent with this team when he is struggling with his desire to use substances but when he has engaged in its use, such as when he admitted to selling his television for cocaine. While this transparency is positive in and of itself, the fact that it is coupled with real goal setting and actions that are reflective of increased resolve is a marked improvement for which Mr. Desjardins-Paquette and all those working with him should be congratulated. Mr. Desjardins-Paquette has completed important forms of group therapy and is committed to further therapy in both group and one-on-one settings. This hard work on his part has preserved his ability to live in supervised accommodations in the community and has ensured that the Board is able to look forward to next year’s annual review without the need for any changes to the conditions and privileges set out in the reigning disposition. The disposition, because of Mr. Desjardins-Paquette’s hard work and progress over the last few months, remains sufficient to ensure the safety of the public. It also provides the structure within which Mr. Desjardins-Paquette’s progress can continue to be supported.

22. The Board asked itself whether any lesser form of disposition than that of a detention order would adequately satisfy the primary objective of assuring the safety of the public, or the other objectives set out in section 672.54 of the Criminal Code. In our view, a lesser disposition could not. Even in the context of treatment compliance with his long-acting injectable antipsychotic medication, Mr. Desjardins-Paquette struggles enormously with substance use that can cause his mental wellness to rapidly deteriorate. He has a history of absconding to use substances and then engaging in acts that expose the public to serious risk of physical or psychological harm. The need to be able to respond quickly to Mr. Desjardins-Paquette’s needs are also essential at this stage if his own mental health and other needs are to be met. Mr. Desjardins-Paquette is at a crucial stage where his own cognitive and physical health can be seriously jeopardized if the treatment team is not empowered to rapidly respond to his struggles with substances. It is clear that the provisions of the Mental Health Act simply could not suffice to assure either the safety of the public nor to ensure that Mr. Desjardins-Paquette’s mental health and other needs are met.

23. As a result, the Board has concluded that Mr. Desjardins-Paquette continues to represent as significant threat to the safety of the public as that term is defined in section 672.5401 of the Criminal Code and as explained in Winko. We have further determined that a continued detention disposition, with privileges and conditions as set out in the reigning disposition remain necessary and appropriate having regard to both the primary and the other objectives set out in section 672.54 of the Criminal Code.

24. The Board does however wish to congratulate and offer its strong encouragement to Mr. Desjardins-Paquette for his progress and presentation at this hearing. We encourage him in his transparency and constant engagement with the treatment team. We also strongly encourage his persistent efforts to abstain from the use of substances, whatever the circumstances. We wish him, his family and all working with him continued good courage over the course of the next reporting period.

25. An order will issue accordingly.

DATED this 11th day of August 2025 at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.

D. Sandor

Legal Member

Office of the Registrar

Ontario Review Board