Re: Lynnea Hall
ORB File No: 8812
Hearing held on: Wednesday, August 6, 2025
Place of hearing: Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre
Pursuant to: Section 672.47(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Ms. C. Fromstein
Members: Dr. R. Kunjukrishnan Dr. S. Wiseman Hon. E. Kruzick Mr. A. Bouvier
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Lynnea Hall Counsel: Mr. D. W. Shannon
The Person in charge of Hospital: Representative: Ms. M. Davidson
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. T. Jukes
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated September 5, 2025)
Introduction
On June 3, 2025, Ms. Lynnea Hall was found not criminally responsible (“NCR”) on a charge of aggravated assault. The court did not make a disposition and referred her to the Ontario Review Board for that purpose.
Of note Ms. Hall was initially held in custody at the Thunder Bay Correctional Centre following arrest but was transferred to the Thunder Bay Regional Health Science Centre because she was refusing to take medication and was mentally ill. In hospital she continued to refuse medication and was declared incapable of making treatment decisions. She challenged both the involuntary admission and finding of incapacity made by the treating psychiatrist, but both were upheld by the Consent and Capacity Board (“CCB”). Ms. Hall’s mother became the SDM and Ms. Hall was treated and returned to the jail on October 23, 2024. She was then found Unfit by the court and was returned to the Secure Forensic Unit of TBRHSC on Oct 20, 2024. Ms. Hall had a fitness hearing before the Ontario Review Board on December 11, 2024, at which time she was found unfit and ordered to be detained on the Forensic Unit with privileges up to and including community living. She was subsequently found fit to stand trial at court and returned to the hospital for an assessment of Criminal Responsibility on April 11, 2025. She has remained in hospital since that time.
On August 6, 2025, Ms. Hall appeared before the Ontario Review Board for her initial hearing following the NCR verdict. The purpose of the hearing is to determine if she is at this time a significant threat to the safety of the public, and if so, to create a Disposition that is necessary and appropriate, and also the least onerous and least restrictive. Ms. Hall was present and represented by counsel, Mr. D. Shannon. Two members of the Board attended by Zoom teleconference, legal member Hon. Emile Kruzick, and the psychiatrist member, Dr. Kunjukrishnan. Mr. Trevor Jukes represented the Crown and Ms. Michelle Davidson represented the hospital. Ms. Hall’s mother attended the hearing in support of her daughter.
The evidence at the hearing included the notice of hearing and the following exhibits:
Warrant of committal
CPIC
Agreed statement of facts
Warrant of committal and transfer
Information
Assessment order – fitness
Treatment order
Fitness report March 14, 2025, of Dr. Leinonen
N.C.R. report May 7, 2025, of Dr. Sheppard
Hospital report July 28, 2025
The evidence at the hearing also included the testimony of Dr. Leinonen and Ms. Hall.
Initial Positions:
At the outset of the hearing, the parties were canvassed as to their initial positions.
The hospital maintained that Ms. Hall represents a significant threat to the safety of the public and the necessary and appropriate disposition is a Detention Order at the Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre (“TBRHSC”) with privileges up to and including community living in accommodation approved by the person in charge of the hospital or their delegate. The disposition recommended should include that Ms. Hall be required to abstain from the non-medical use of all substances including cannabis and alcohol as their use could rapidly destabilize her psychotic disorder. Any use of psychoactive substances should be approved by the person in charge of the hospital or their delegate. She should submit on a random basis samples of urine, breath, or saliva for the purpose of analyzing whether she has ingested alcohol, drugs, or other intoxicants. She should be prohibited from possessing firearms, ammunition, or other weapons. It was recommended that there be a no-contact order with Nathan Lecompte which could be reversed with the written and revocable consent from both Mr. Lecompte and the hospital. At such time as Ms. Hall is residing in the community, she should report not less than once per week.
Mr. Jukes, on behalf of the Crown, supported the hospital position.
Mr. Shannon proposed a Conditional Discharge disposition that provided for Ms. Hall residing in approved accommodation. He noted that Ms. Hall would consent to take medication. He supported the restrictions against the use of alcohol or drugs, that she not be permitted to possess weapons, and that she be prohibited from contact with Mr. Lecompte.
Index Offence
- The details of the index offence are set out in the agreed statement of facts as follows:
On August 22, 2024, at 1821 hours, Constable Peter Ritchie #4005, along with Constable Brooke Finnegan #4125, were dispatched to attend 94J Limbrick Street, Thunder Bay after several 911 calls were received for a male who had just been stabbed by his girlfriend. Reports indicated that the female was still present, and the victim was outside.
At 1824 hours, Constables Ritchie and Finnegan arrived at 94J Limbrick Street. Officers were quickly pointed to the victim, Nathan Lecompte, who was laying on the ground with bystanders providing first aid. Constable Ritchie did observe at that time that Lecompte had one stab wound approximately two inches wide in the center of his back.
Constables Ritchie and Finnegan were advised that the accused, Lynnea Hall, was inside the residence at 93J Limbrick Street. Officers cleared the residence, not locating anyone inside. Constable Ritchie obtained a description of Hall, describing her to be 5 feet and 6 inches tall, heavy set, having shoulder length brown hair, wearing a red jersey with yellow/white writing and blue jeans. That information was given out over the police radio.
At 1834 hours, Constable Ritchie overheard other units had located Hall at Redwood Avenue and Edward Street.
At 1839 hours, Hall was arrested and read her Rights to Counsel and Caution by Constable Miika Himanen #4139. Hall was transported to the Thunder Bay Police Service station, 1200 Balmoral Street, where she was searched and lodged into cell 18. ". Upon her arrest and transport to the police station, the body worn and in-car cameras recorded that she made several references to Jesus and can be seen whispering to herself in the back of the police cruiser.
Lecompte was transported to the Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre by emergency medical services (EMS), where he was treated for his injuries. He was found to have a collapsed lung but was in stable condition.
Constable Ritchie spoke to several witnesses at the scene, who observed Hall yelling at Lecompte as she shoved him out the front door.
Constable Ritchie spoke to Carrie McCooeye , who observed Hall outside the residence, drinking her coffee while Lecompte was being tended to by neighbours. McCooeye overheard Hall yell “I just killed the devil” at which point she casually went back inside of 93J Limbrick Street. Police and EMS then arrived.
Constable Ritchie also spoke to Cheyenne Cormier, who witnessed and described the same interaction as McCoeye.
Lynnea Hall was found unfit to stand trial on October 16, 2024 and remanded to the jurisdiction of the Ontario Review Board.
Background Information
Ms. Hall is presently 32 years of age. She, as noted in the agreed statement of facts, was in a common-law spousal relationship with Mr. Nathan Lecompte, the victim of the index offence. Ms. Hall has several children. Two are children of that relationship, presently ages two and four. She also has an 11-year-old son from her prior relationship. All of the children are living with Mr. Lecompte.
Ms. Hall’s brother died of leukemia when she was nine years of age. Her parents divorced. It is reported her father suffered from addictions and that her mother could be emotionally volatile. She completed her high school education and one year at a college program in social services.
Psychiatric History
- It is noted in the Hospital Report that:
“Ms. Hall received her first mental health counselling at age 10, when she was struggling to cope with the death of her brother. There is a reported history of continuing mental health struggles into her adolescence, with a history of suicidality and self-harm behaviour. At the age of 20, Ms. Hall was first admitted to the Psychiatric Unit at TBRHSC, where she had presented to the Emergency Department with possible psychosis, including hallucinations, delusions, and suicidal ideation. No definitive psychiatric diagnosis was made at that time, however, and she was discharged on no psychiatric medications.
She did not come to psychiatric attention again, it appears, until September 2019, where she presented again at hospital with a history of bizarre beliefs, delusions, perceptual abnormalities, and disorganized behaviour. She was admitted to the Psychiatric Unit on a Mental Health Act Form 1... She did improve with psychiatric treatment and was discharged with a diagnosis of Psychosis Not Otherwise Specified, and Borderline Personality Disorder.
Ms. Hall’s psychiatric condition has become progressively unstable in more recent years. Between August 2022 and March 2023 she has been admitted to hospital on six separate occasions, generally involuntarily under the Mental Health Act, and often subject to multiple psychotic symptoms, agitation, and behavioural aggression. She has sometimes required detention in the Psychiatric Intensive Care Unit in order to control the risk which she was presenting to the safety of herself and others.
She has previously been found to be incapable of consenting to psychiatric treatment… and she has been treated at times with substitute consent, provided, on different occasions, by both her ex-partner and her mother. Severe disorganization of thinking and behaviour, religious and paranoid delusions, severe instability of mood, and severe behavioural dyscontrol have been consistent features of Ms. Hall’s presentation when she has been acutely unwell. Her psychiatric illness has however responded favourably to treatment with antipsychotic medication while in hospital.
In previous years she would appear to have retained some level of stability following her discharge into the community although, more recently as can be seen by the multiple hospitalizations in a short period of time, ongoing stability has been elusive. It seems likely that Ms. Hall’s habit of not taking her psychiatric medications consistently after a while, and perhaps the destabilizing effect of substance use on occasion and interpersonal stress, have contributed to this rather stormy clinical course over approximately the last three years. (
The psychiatric diagnosis, based on all available information and confirmed more recently by mental status examinations of Ms. Hall in hospital, is Schizophrenia…. She may also suffer from Borderline Personality Traits, which could be contributing to the prominent dysregulation of mood and behaviour which is a feature of Ms. Hall’s history.”
Ms. Hall’s most recent discharge from the Psychiatric Unit at TBRHSC, prior to the alleged offences, was on May 3, 2023. She was discharged on a combination of long-acting injectable and oral antipsychotic medication…and she was engaged with the Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) Team, for psychiatric follow-up and the provision of intensive mental health supports. She was the subject of a Community Treatment Order (CTO) at the time of her discharge from hospital, having previously been found incapable of consenting to psychiatric treatment.
Clinically, she was doing well, and she regained her capacity to consent. Unfortunately, she eventually disengaged from follow-up; she requested discharge from the ACT program in October 2023. Around this time she appears to have stopped taking her antipsychotic medication, which by then had been switched from Haloperidol to Quetiapine. Pharmacy records indicate that the most recent prescription for Quetiapine was filled on November 6, 2023.
Predictably, without treatment, Ms. Hall’s clinical condition deteriorated. The exact chronology of this is difficult to determine in retrospect. Reports indicate, however, that she again become preoccupied with religious delusions regarding spirits and the devil. She stated that she believed in mental telepathy, and believed that she was receiving signs from her children. She reportedly experienced auditory hallucinations that animals were talking to her. She was reportedly restless, agitated, aggressive, and had difficulties sleeping.”
Course Since NCR Verdict
Ms. Hall’s mother is Ms. Hall’s substitute decision-maker (“SDM”). Ms. Hall improved following the administration of Invega medication. She began to respond to the increase in medication in June and the medication Brexpiprazole had been increased, but Ms. Hall requested that the medication be stopped. Her SDM instructed the doctor to decrease the medication and Ms. Hall’s symptoms became worse, including increased agitation. Ms. Hall was reportedly distressed by the court verdict in June 2025.
The Hospital Report indicates Ms. Hall has limited insight into her mental health. She suffers from ongoing symptoms of schizophrenia despite being presently on two medications, which leads the treating psychiatrist to think that she may be treatment resistant.
Testimony of Dr. Leinonen
Dr. Leinonen testified that there has been an improvement in Ms. Hall’s clinical status over the last couple of months. She continues to have episodes of mood lability with anger and agitation, in response to psychosocial stressors. These have decreased modestly in frequency in the past six months but still occur quite regularly. She has engaged, however, in no physical violence or threats. Ms. Hall is able to participate in programming to the degree that has been allowed by her current restrictive privilege level while awaiting her initial disposition.
Ms. Hall has been maintained on the highly structured Secure Forensic Unit to date, where there is a lot of nursing staff. She has been taking two antipsychotic medications, notably Seroquel at a high dose. Despite this, she still has symptoms of psychosis and religious preoccupations. She is at times observed to be talking to herself, which might indicate hallucinations. Her mood lability and anger have been, at times, a challenge to manage.
It is the view of the treatment team that a Detention Order is required to manage her risk, but it is hoped that at some point she will be able to be discharged to the community. The Violence Risk Assessment indicates that Ms. Hall meets the threshold of significant threat to the community. Her violence risk is not only related to her psychotic disorder but also to her borderline personality structure, including mood, impulsivity and anger. She has a dated history of substance use.
Dr. Leinonen testified that it is necessary that, if Ms. Hall is residing in the community, the hospital be in a position to readmit her quickly if there was a deterioration in her mental state and be able to maintain her in hospital for long enough to manage her violence risk. He testified that this cannot be achieved on a discharge disposition relying on the Mental Health Act. He noted that it will be important for the hospital to allow Ms. Hall to progress with gradual and cautious increases of privileges.
Ms. Hall at this stage of the hearing spoke out, but after meeting with her counsel in the hall, returned to the hearing.
Dr. Leinonen testified that Ms. Hall partially acknowledges her mental disorder. She acknowledges that she has had a history of psychosis but tends to minimize the recent or current symptoms of her mental illness. She did not want to take the medication recommended, the oral Brexpiprazole, as she felt that her psychosis was under control, despite the doctor expressing his view that she was still suffering symptoms of psychosis. She improved with that medication but she disagreed and felt she did not require it.
In response to questions, Dr. Leinonen indicated that what the team would want to see before Ms. Hall could achieve community living would be her slow progress through the privilege levels, initially supervised hospital grounds followed by supervised community privileges, indirect hospital privileges, and community privileges, all in accordance with her mental state, the safety of the public, and the assessment of risk. At such time as community housing is considered, Dr. Leinonen indicated that, initially, Andras Court that is staffed 24 hours a day with a high degree of support and which is often transitional housing, would likely be a consideration.
Dr. Leinonen confirmed that Ms. Hall wants contact with her children. The hospital has tried to facilitate and support that as much as possible. There was one virtual visit scheduled with her children that had to be converted to a phone visit, and that took place approximately one month ago.
Ms. Hall is currently on both Brexpiprazole and long-acting Seroquel, as well as Naproxen for pain and anti-inflammatory medication. To her credit, she has been agreeable to taking the medication orally. In May, she refused to do mouth checks, but that was just for an isolated period of time. It has been a bit of a challenge at times to engage her in discussion regarding medications. Sometimes these discussions go well, and at other times they escalate and Ms. Hall will indicate that she is going to call her mother and have the consent withdrawn.
The treatment plan has had a fluctuating course for the past 10 months. Ms. Hall was doing quite well on the Invega and Seroquel medications but wanted them stopped. There may have been side effects. Things got worse, but then improved and plateaued. There has been a moderate improvement since Brexpiprazole was added. The treatment plan going forward will be that they will continue to assess the symptoms, and if there are ongoing signs of psychosis, may consider a switch to different medications.
Ms. Hall engages in programming at the hospital. She works with the occupational therapist and is engaged in recreational therapy to the extent she has been able to with her current restrictive privileges. She has just begun individual sessions with a psychologist. She engages in Indigenous wellness programming and smudging. It is the expectation that following this initial hearing and disposition that Ms. Hall will quickly be able to access increased privileges beginning with supervised passes onto hospital grounds. Dr. Leinonen noted that being held on the Secure Unit for the last number of months may have increased some of the conflict Ms. Hall has had with co-patients. Her mother is a good support for her.
Dr. Leinonen indicated that there has been a small improvement in terms of Ms. Hall’s insight into medication. She recently expressed that the medications were helpful, even the Brexpiprazole at the lower dose. The development of her insight is a “work in progress.”. In response to questions, Dr. Leinonen indicated that Ms. Hall’s relationship with the treatment team correlates with her clinical stability. Recently, it has improved somewhat, but the issue of medication is often a point of conflict.
Dr. Leinonen was asked if he had information about Mr. Nathan Lecompte’s position regarding communication. He indicated that Mr. Lecompte has recently indicated that he does not want any contact. The recommendation for the contact ‘with revocable consent’ was made to permit the hospital to manage the contact between Ms. Hall and her children as best as possible, but consideration will be given to the potential for psychological harm to the victim. The hospital has hoped to allow virtual visits between Ms. Hall and her children but to date this has been a challenge to manage. The hospital indicates they will do everything they can to support her ongoing contact.
Dr. Leinonen indicated the Mental Health Act is insufficient to manage Ms. Hall’s risk. Even if she met the criteria for admission to hospital, this would be to the general psychiatric unit. Particularly if the issues of instability were based on her personality disorder, or possibly substance use, these are not often sufficient to maintain admission in hospital for long enough for the risk to be addressed. Ms. Hall might in those circumstances be discharged while the risk was still elevated. Dr. Leinonen agreed with Mr. Shannon that section 20 of the Mental Health Act seeks to address this, but the practicality is that using a Form 3 to keep a patient in hospital is often unsuccessful and can be challenged and possibly overturned at a Consent and Capacity Board (CCB) hearing.
Testimony of Lynnea Hall
Ms. Hall testified before the Board. When asked where she would reside if she were to leave the hospital, she indicated she “wasn’t sure”. She wants to have her own place but didn't feel comfortable disclosing her money situation. She said she would continue to take medication as she doesn’t want trouble on a mental ward again. She complained about the actions of the ACT Team in the past and how she was treated by them.
Ms. Hall stated that she feels she is presently not psychotic but said that she has begun to cry more often and to feel things differently. She indicated she feels she can let out her anger in the hospital because it is safe to do so here. She stated that she barely hears voices and that she has learned to cope with them for the past 7 to 11 years.
In response to a direct question from Dr. Kunjukrishnan, Ms. Hall indicated that she agrees that she has a psychiatric illness and is willing to take medication.
Submissions
Ms. Davidson, on behalf of the hospital, submitted that Ms. Hall is a significant threat to the safety of the public and a Detention Order is the necessary and appropriate disposition. The evidence does not support a Conditional Discharge. Admissions under the Mental Health Act would not be enough to mitigate Ms. Hall’s risk, though a future Conditional Discharge is not ruled out.
Mr. Jukes, on behalf of the Crown, indicated his support for the hospital. He noted Dr. Leinonen’s comment that Ms. Hall’s treatment is “a work in progress”. To her credit, Ms. Hall is doing some good things, but there is a possibility that she suffers from a treatment-resistant illness. There is still some psychosis. Her level of insight is improving but remains a concern. He also noted the severity of the index offence. He submitted on this basis that Ms. Hall represents a significant threat to the safety of the public, and the least onerous and least restrictive disposition is the Detention Order recommended. This will allow Ms. Hall greater privileges and allow the hospital to view how she manages those. There is optimism that Ms. Hall could be discharged into the community within the next year. In consideration of the risk factors, Mr. Jukes supports all of the conditions recommended by the hospital.
Mr. Shannon submitted that a Conditional Discharge disposition is that which is necessary and appropriate. He indicated that his client has done great work to mitigate public safety concerns and is complaint with medication. He said this points to a person who is no longer a threat to public safety, and he submitted that in the community, she would follow up with the need for medication. Mr. Shannon submitted that she has the insight to continue with her proposed treatment plan. He submitted that, despite the evidence of Dr. Leinonen, the Mental Health Act is a sufficient safety net and noted that if there were concerns in the community, Ms. Hall’s mother, the SDM, would call the authorities.
Analysis and Conclusion
The Board is unanimous in finding that Ms. Hall represents a significant threat to the safety of the public. This was not apparently challenged by counsel for Ms. Hall based on his position for disposition and despite his comments in submissions. We make this finding in reliance on the evidence as set out in the Hospital Report with respect to her Violence Risk Assessment and on the uncontroverted evidence of Dr. Leinonen. Dr. Leinonen’s evidence is that Ms. Hall is showing some progress, but still suffers from some psychotic symptoms and some mood lability. The index offence was of a very serious nature. On these bases, we find that Ms. Hall meets the threshold for significant threat.
It is the unanimous opinion of the Board that a Detention Order disposition is the least onerous and least restrictive disposition to manage Ms. Hall’s current risk. She has been to date held in the Secure Forensic Unit. Upon the imposition of the disposition order, Ms. Hall will have the ability to be granted greater privileges, allowing her to leave the Secure Forensic Unit. The hospital will be able to assess Ms. Hall’s progress and her ability to manage greater privileges.
A Conditional Discharge is completely unrealistic at this early stage of treatment. Ms. Hall has no residence in the community. Her future accommodation warrants approval by the hospital to ensure it addresses her needs. She has a history of medication non-compliance. We fully accept the evidence of Dr. Leinonen, that the Mental Health Act would not be sufficient to manage returning Ms. Hall to the hospital if that was needed or maintaining her for a sufficient period of time to address the concerns and manage her risk. That is in part because she not only is suffering from symptoms of psychosis at this time but also suffers from a personality disorder, which issues would need to be potentially addressed in a re-, hospitalization.
Ms. Hall is showing progress. The fact that she is engaging with programming is quite positive, particularly with the one-on-one psychologist. Ms. Hall, in her own testimony, acknowledged that she is having ongoing difficulties with which she is trying to cope. It is hoped that she will continue to work with her psychiatrists with respect to medication compliance. The disposition proposed allows for a wide envelope of privileges, including the possibility of Ms. Hall being discharged into the community within the upcoming year.
It is no doubt essential to Ms. Hall’s wellbeing that she have regular contact with her children. We appreciate that the hospital has made some effort to facilitate this, but in our view, more must be done. We do not have the details of why the video transmission meeting did not take place but take the view that the hospital must take all steps as quickly as possible to ensure that Ms. Hall has the ability for regular contact with her children.
For these reasons, we grant the disposition and conditions as recommended by the hospital. We do so in consideration of the paramount factor of maintaining public safety, Ms. Hall’s mental condition, her reintegration into the community and her other needs.
DATED this 5th day of September 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Ms. C. Fromstein
Alternate Chairperson
___________________
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board