Re: Matthew Lucas, 2025 CanLII 84095

Re: Matthew Lucas

ORB File No: 8434

Hearing held on: Thursday, July 31, 2025

Place of Hearing: Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences

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

Before:

Alternate Chairperson: Mr. R. Bigelow

Members: Dr. A. Park Dr. A. Kerry Mr. J. Goldenberg Mr. J. Cyr

Parties Appearing:

Accused: Matthew Lucas Counsel: Ms. L. Konorowski

The Person in Charge of hospital Representative: Dr. K. DeFreitas

Attorney-General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. N. MacDonald

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated August 21, 2025)

Introduction

1. On November 22, 2023, Matthew Lucas was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCR) on a charge of careless storage of a firearm contrary to section 86(1) of the Criminal Code. He is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the Board) dated June 26, 2024, ordering his detention at the Forensic Service of the Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences (the Hospital) with privileges as set out in the disposition.

2. On Thursday, July 31, 2025, the Board convened a hearing to review Ms. Lucas’ disposition pursuant to section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Lucas was present at the hearing and represented by counsel, Ms. Konorowski. The issues to be determined at the hearing were whether Mr. Lucas continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public as defined in section 672.5401 of the Criminal Code and, if so, to determine what was the necessary and appropriate disposition that was also the least onerous and least restrictive taking into account the factors set out in section 672.54 of the Criminal Code.

Initial Positions of the Parties

3. At the commencement of the hearing, the parties were requested to provide their initial without prejudice positions with respect to the issues before the Board. Dr. DeFreitas advised that it was the position of the Hospital that Mr. Lucas continued represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate disposition was a continuation of the current detention with the privileges and restrictions as set out in the Hospital Report at pages 15-16. Dr. DeFreitas also noted that she was aware that counsel for Mr. Lucas would be suggesting a number of changes to the current disposition, and she would indicate her position hearing the specifics of those requests and the evidence.

4. Counsel for the Attorney General supported the Hospital position and also indicated she would respond to the request by counsel for Mr. Lucas for changes to the disposition after hearing the specifics and the evidence.

5. Counsel for Mr. Lucas indicated that she was not contesting the issue of significant threat nor was she contesting that the necessary and appropriate disposition was a detention order, but she did submit that there should be a number of changes to the terms of the disposition. Those changes were:

• The deletion of term 6(b) requiring the submission of samples for the purpose of analysing whether her client has ingested alcohol, drugs or any other intoxicant;
• The deletion of terms 7(c) & 7(d) prohibiting contact for being within 100 metres of Brianna Townsend; and
• The amendment of terms 5(e-h) by replacing the community specified in each of those terms with the Province of Ontario.

Evidence at the hearing

6. The evidence at the hearing consisted of the Hospital Report dated June 20, 2025, an Empirically Based Risk Assessment dated June 18, 2025, and the oral evidence of Dr. DeFreitas, Mr. Lucas’ treating physician.

Findings:

7. For the Reasons that follow, the Board finds that Mr. Lucas 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 with the changes set out in the final disposition and listed at the conclusion of these Reasons.

Index Offences:

8. The allegations surrounding the index charges as summarized in last year’s Reasons for Disposition are as follows:

December 16, 2022:

Leeds OPP were dispatched to the Ivy Lea border crossing to assist Canadian Border Services. Mr. Lucas had been rejected from entering the United States for reasons of serious mental health concerns. He was on his way to New York with a semi-automatic rifle and magazines, an axe, sledgehammer, 2 hunting knives, and other weapons and ammunition. He had a notebook which included tactical shooting positions and concerning ideologies and thoughts

Mr. Lucas spoke too quietly to hear and was staring in a way described as a “gaze right through you.” He informed police that he was going to New York to sightsee and was staying at a hotel. He was apprehended under section 17 of the Mental Health Act. When asked if he was a risk to the public or his ex-girlfriend, he was evasive and did not answer “no”.

Background Information Regarding the Accused:

9. Mr. Lucas is currently 31 years of age and was born in Toronto and raised in Scarborough, Ontario, where he spent his whole life. His parents separated when he was an infant, and he was raised by his mother. He had limited contact with his father growing up. He describes a “good childhood.” His mother worked as a Personal Support Worker over the years.

10. Mr. Lucas reported doing quite well in school, graduating high school and then taking a few years off before starting at York University. He completed three years at York University in an “undecided” major. He did well there but had difficulty making friends. He attributed this challenge to the size of York University, although he said he was able to establish relationships with some professors. He then transferred to Trent University where he majored in Marketing. Mr. Lucas indicated his time at Trent University was spent entirely online due to the COVID-19 Pandemic. He did well and had an average of 89% in the two years he completed.

Substance Use History

11. Mr. Lucas denies any history of alcohol or drug problems. Mr. Lucas denied ever using cannabis or any illicit drugs.

Legal History:

12. Mr. Lucas had no criminal history prior to the index offence although an ex-girlfriend contacted police in 2021 expressing concerns about his mental stability and harassing conduct. Police spoke to Mr. Lucas and warned him not to have any further contact with the complainant.

Psychiatric History

13. Although Mr. Lucas does not have a history of admissions to hospital with respect to mental health concerns, his mother took him to the family doctor after she noticed her son became more withdrawn, stopped taking courses at Trent University, stopped communicating with her, would often stand or sit and stare off for lengthy periods, and was no longer sharing his thoughts and keeping to himself more. The doctor diagnosed Mr. Lucas with depression and prescribed duloxetine 30 mg for 30 days. Mr. Lucas reported that he did not take the medication.

Current Diagnosis

14. Mr. Lucas’ current diagnosis is schizophrenia.

Evidence of Dr. Defreitas

15. Dr. DeFreitas indicated in general terms that Mr. Lucas had a very good year. There was no aggressive behaviour and no substance use. However, there was significant lack of openness and minimization of the circumstances surrounding the index offence. He provides a rational explanation for the circumstances surrounding the offence but frequently contradicts himself. He does not acknowledge that the writings in the notebook seized by the police suggested a potential for violence. The hospital has a significant lack of information with respect to Mr. Lucas’ background and history due to his refusal to allow contact with collateral sources including his mother. The process to his mother becoming an approved person was commenced but discontinued after Mr. Lucas became aware that the Hospital would have to interview his mother prior to considering her as an approved person.

16. However, Dr. DeFreitas indicated that given his adherence to recommended medications and lack of aggression, the Hospital was of the view that discharge into the community within the upcoming year was a realistic possibility, although a functional assessment would have to be performed first with the main concern being the need for supervision with respect to medications. She also indicated that due to the issues with respect to trust, and the reliability of the information provided by Mr. Lucas as well as the lack of collateral background information, any discharge into the community would be closely monitored.

17. In response to questions from counsel for Mr. Lucas, Dr. DeFreitas agreed that:

• Upon his arrival at the hospital in February 2025, Mr. Lucas was placed on a general forensic unit where he has remained.
• He has not shown any physical or verbal aggression, nor has he voiced any violent thoughts.
• Mr. Lucas has indicated that he has no desire to contact Ms. Townsend. He was angry with her for some slight which he would not discuss but states that he no longer has any anger towards her. However, he refuses to discuss anything with respect to their relationship.
• She was aware that Mr. Lucas had completed a number of online courses throughout Algonquin College and done well.
• She was not aware of a number of volunteer activities that counsel suggested Mr. Lucas participated in and noted that this was consistent with his refusal to share information.
• A program that she believed would be of assistance to Mr. Lucas was CBT for psychosis.

Final Submissions of the Parties.

18. Dr. DeFreitas, on behalf of the Hospital, indicated that the Hospital was not opposed to the deletion of the “submit samples” requirement in that there was little evidence to suggest that intoxicants had been involved in the development of his illness. However, she indicated that it was the Hospital’s view that in all the circumstances, the prohibition from contact with Ms. Townsend continued to be appropriate. Ms. Townsend had reported to the police concerns with respect to harassment and Mr. Lucas’ mental state in 2021 and a notebook seized by the police at the time of Mr. Lucas’ arrest suggested some level of perseveration with respect to Ms. Townsend. She was not opposed to the amendment of conditions 5(g) and (h) to expand the geographical area to the Province of Ontario.

19. Counsel for the Attorney General echoed Dr. DeFreitas’ position with respect to both the removal of the “submit samples” provision and contact with Ms. Townsend but suggested that on the evidence, there was no basis to extend the travel authorizations to the entire province. She took no issue with extending the area to include Ottawa so that Mr. Lucas could attend his college graduation, but she was reluctant to support extending the area farther than that, although she placed great trust in the Hospital to exercise its discretion appropriately taking into account the responsibility to protect the public.

20. Counsel for Mr. Lucas maintained her initial position. She submitted that there was no evidence to support the requirement that Mr. Lucas “submit samples” nor was there sufficient evidence to justify the prohibition from contact with Ms. Townsend. She also suggested that there was no real evidence to suggest that increasing the area permitting travel to the entire Province of Ontario would increase risk to the safety of the public and that Mr. Lucas had a legitimate interest in being able to travel to Ottawa for a graduation upon his completion of the remaining courses in his college program.

Analysis and Conclusion, significant threat:

21. Although the issue of significant threat was not contested at the hearing, the Board nevertheless makes an independent finding that the evidence clearly supports a finding of significant threat. The Board accepts and adopts the clinical assessment of risk contained in the Hospital Report where it states:

It is the unanimous opinion of the treatment team that Mr. Lucas remains a significant threat to the safety of the public. He has been diagnosed with schizophrenia, and when unwell, was apprehended at the border in possession of a firearm and various other weapons, together with writings that contained psychotic and possibly violent content. It remains unknown what his intentions were at the time.

Mr. Lucas does not believe that he has a mental illness. When it was pointed out to him that the staff at the Brockville hospital observed signs of psychotic decompensation when he stopped his antipsychotic medication, he indicated that they had misinterpreted his actions. He gave an example of him talking to himself, and the staff assuming that he was hearing voices. He also indicated that he does not believe that the antipsychotic medication helps him. To his credit, he has been compliant with antipsychotic treatment in hospital but has stated that he does so because he believes that stopping his medication would "delay [his] progress" through the system and would subject him to increased scrutiny. When asked if he would continue to take antipsychotic medication if he were to get an Absolute Discharge, he indicated that he could not make a decision about that at this time. It is highly likely that, absent the supervision and support of the Ontario Review Board, Mr. Lucas would stop his antipsychotic medication. This would lead to psychotic decompensation and increase his risk to the public.

Another significant area of concern is Mr. Lucas’ guardedness with the treatment team. He acknowledged that he was guarded with Dr. Corona, the physician who did his criminal responsibility assessment, because he did not trust him. He indicated that he did not elaborate on some of the questions asked because he did not want to "get into more trouble". We have observed something similar at Ontario Shores. Mr. Lucas has significantly minimized the index offense, attributing it simply to carelessness on his part. He indicated that the writings found in his notebook, which included psychotic and perhaps violent content, were simply "stories" that he was writing, and had no real relation to his mental state at the time.

Analysis and Conclusion, Necessary and Appropriate Disposition:

22. The Board also finds that the evidence supports the joint submission that the necessary and appropriate disposition is a detention order. Mr. Lucas currently has no viable discharge plan and given his risk factors, the Hospital requires the ability to approve accommodation to ensure adequate support and supervision. Due to his belief that he does not suffer from a mental illness and does not require any form of treatment, it is unlikely that he would be cooperative with a request to return to hospital in the event of early signs of decompensation and it is unlikely that the Mental Health Act would be sufficient to return him to hospital in a timely manner. Therefore, a conditional discharge would not be sufficient to manage his risk.

23. With respect to the requested amendments to the terms of the disposition, the Board finds:

• With respect to the request that the term in the current disposition requiring that Mr. Lucas “submit samples”, the Board agrees with the evidence of Dr. DeFreitas that there is no evidence to support that substance use has been related to Mr. Lucas’ illness or his risk and therefore the inclusion of that term cannot be justified.
• With respect to the request that the prohibition from contact with Ms. Townsend be deleted, the Board finds that the continued restriction from contact with Ms. Townsend is justified. Ms. Townsend was sufficiently concerned with respect to harassment by Mr. Lucas and his mental state to contact police due to concerns for her safety. At the time of Mr. Lucas’ arrest with respect to the index offences, Ms. Townsend was contacted by police, and she indicated a continuing concern with respect to any contact from Mr. Lucas. Mr. Lucas has indicated that he has no intentions to contact Ms. Townsend and accordingly the restriction of his liberty by the imposition of the no contact provision is minimal and justified given the history.
• With respect to the request to amend the approved area for travel, the Board finds that there is no evidence before it to justify the expansion of the area to the entire province and that the expansion to such an area would create difficulties for management by the Hospital given the size of the province. With respect to the terms 5(e)-(g), the only amendment necessary is a change in specifying the area from the community of the Greater Toronto Area to an area within a 150 km radius of the Hospital in order to address any ambiguity which may arise from defining what is included in the Greater Toronto Area. With respect to term 5(h), the Board finds that amending it to replace the community of the Greater Toronto Area with the area within 150 km radius of the Hospital and also to include the area of Eastern Ontario in order to allow for the possibility of his attendance at his graduation from college is reasonable.

DATED this 21^st^ day of August 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.

Robert Bigelow

Alternate Chairperson

____________________________

Office of the Registrar

Ontario Review Board