Ontario Review Board
Re: Ronald R. Lance
ORB File No: 8444
Hearing held on: Monday, July 14, 2025
Place of hearing: Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre
Pursuant to: Section 672.48(1) and 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Ms. M. Labrosse
Members: Dr. W. Komer Dr. R. Cormier Mr. D. Sandor Ms. K. Brisson
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Ronald R. Lance Counsel: Ms. L. Konarowski
The Person in charge of Hospital: Representative: Dr. A. Sandhu
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. M. Dufort
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated September 2, 2025)
Introduction
[1]. On December 13, 2023, Ronald Lance was found unfit to stand trial on account of mental disorder on charges of harassment (August 1, 2017 – September 21, 2017), failure to return to court (January 26, 2018), failure to attend court (March 16, 2018) and failure to comply with release order (December 1, 2021 – December 18, 2021), all contrary to the provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada. He is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, dated April 16, 2024, that detains him at the Forensic Assessment Unit of the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre (hereinafter referred to as “the Hospital”). That disposition includes the privilege of living in the community in supervised accommodation approved by the person in charge of the Hospital. It also imposes several conditions on Mr. Lance, including that he abstain from the non-medical use of alcohol or drugs or any other intoxicant and that he submit samples for the purpose of monitoring his compliance with the abstention condition. The disposition requires that he refrain from contact or communication, direct or indirect with his ex-wife France Morin.
[2]. On July 14, 2025, a panel of the Ontario Review Board convened a hearing at the Hospital to review that disposition pursuant to section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Lance was present for the hearing, represented by his lawyer Ms. L. Konarowski.
[3]. The record for the hearing included the Notice of Hearing, the most recent Disposition (as mentioned, dated April 16, 2024) and the Reasons for that Disposition. On the consent of all parties, a Hospital Report, dated June 27, 2025, was entered into evidence as an exhibit.
[4]. The parties were canvassed for initial positions. Dr. Sandhu, Mr. Lance’s treating psychiatrist spoke for the Hospital. He expressed the position that Mr. Lance remained unfit to stand trial and that he continued to represent a significant risk to the safety of the public as that term is defined in section 672.5401 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. Lance to continue to be subject to a detention disposition. The representative of the Attorney General agreed with the Hospital’s position.
[5]. Counsel for Mr. Lance indicated that she would be exploring whether Mr. Lance is “permanently unfit” and whether he continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. She indicated that, if he is permanently unfit and not a significant threat to the safety of the public, Mr. Lance should be referred back to the court for a recommended stay. If, however, Mr. Lance continued to represent a threat to the safety of the public, it was her position, subject to questioning, that a continuation of the detention disposition would be necessary and appropriate.
[6]. For the following reasons, the Board has concluded that Mr. Lance continues to be unfit to stand trial and that it cannot be said at this stage that he remains “permanently unfit.” It has also concluded that Mr. Lance continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and that a continuation of his detention disposition is necessary and appropriate having regard to both the primary objective set out in section 672.54 of the Criminal Code (pertaining to the assurance of the safety of the public) and having regard to the other objectives of ensuring that Mr. Lance’s mental health and other needs are met, including the ultimate objective of his reintegration into the community.
Evidence at the hearing
[7]. The evidence for the hearing came from the Hospital Report mentioned and the live testimony offered by Dr. Sandhu.
[8]. Turning first to the Hospital Report, it is cumulative in nature and includes several details regarding Mr. Lance and the circumstances that brought him under the Board’s jurisdiction. Mr. Lance is now 59 years old. He is a university graduate from Carleton University’s Chemistry program, worked full-time for the Government of Canada over the course of his marriage to Ms. France Morin and separated from her in 2016. He has been unemployed since 2010. He has a history of hypertension and strokes and has been diagnosed with Major Vascular Neurocognitive Disorder with behavioural disturbance. He has experienced an onset of cognitive deficits and decline that have affected his ability to exercise or express any reality-based understanding of the circumstances that brought him into contact with the criminal justice system. Those same deficits have led to his inability to coherently express the nature and object of the criminal charges and proceedings that remain outstanding and have left him unable to describe the roles of key players in the justice system even after education and prompting. From the time of the alleged offences, Mr. Lance has persisted in perseverating over his relationship with his ex-wife and has been unable to manage his own financial affairs. In both the conduct of fitness assessments and in presentation of evidence at this hearing, care has had to be taken to avoid language and statements that would upset Mr. Lance and cause his perseverations to increase.
[9]. The Hospital Report includes a summary of the alleged index offences. It begins with a preamble that explains the following:
The complainant (France MORIN) and accused (Ronald LANCE) were in a relationship from 2006 and divorced in 2016. They have no children together.
On June 9, 2015 the accused and complainant were having an argument over the TV and the Wii Gaming console. The accused subsequently assaulted the complainant by throwing the Wii console at her and pushed her repeatedly. The accused was charged with assault with a weapon and released on a PTA and Undertaking. 4 days later the accused attended the home of the complainant and was subsequently charged with breach. Both matters have been resolved (withdrawn and entered into a peace bond at the time; peace bond has since expired). There have been no other domestic incidents reported to police.
[10]. As for the Index Offences, the Hospital Report goes on to state the following:
The accused, Ronald LANCE and the complainant, France MORIN were previously married from 2006 until their divorce on December 10, 2016. After not having had contact with the complainant since June 2015 (accused had been charged at that time with assault with weapon on the complainant and FTC, which were subsequently resolved by way of a peace bond), the accused resumed contact in March of 2017 once his peace bond expired. The complainant felt that the accused was becoming more and more angry in his communications as he continued to deny the fact that they were now legally divorced, and he wanted to continue their relationship.
On May 18, 2017 the complainant sent a clear text message to the accused telling him not to contact her and her family by any means. On May 19 the complainant received 2 Blackberry messenger messages from the accused as well as one phone call (which she did not answer).
The complainant contacted the Ottawa Police. Det. JEFFERSON followed up and spoke with the accused by phone on June 12 and advised him to cease all forms of communication with the complainant. The accused agreed to stop.
On September 21, 2017 the complainant contacted Det. JEFFERSON to report that the accused resumed communication on August 1, 2017.
On or between August 1 and September 21, 2017 in the City of Ottawa, the accused communicated with the complainant by phone 11 times, left 9 voicemails and made 3 attempts to contact the complainant via social media. The complainant has not responded to any of these unwanted communications.
The voice mails that the accused has left are an angry tone, whereby he repeatedly refers to the complainant as his wife and angrily insists that his "wife" should be calling him back to make their marriage work.
The messages have left the complainant concerned for her safety and feeling harassed, as the accused has not accepted their divorce and she is worried he will continue to attempt to locate and reach her.
The accused is charged with one count (on or between August 1 and September 21, 2017) of criminal harassment by repeated communication.
Failure to return to court (January 26, 2018)
Failure to attend court (March 16, 2018)
Failure to comply with release order (December 1, 2021 – December 18, 2021)”
[11]. The Hospital Report’s update begins at page 18 of 23. It explains that at the time of his last hearing, Mr. Lance was residing at Bruyere Continuing Care program where he remained on a locked unit awaiting long term care placement. He continued to perseverate throughout this review period on his relationship with the complainant and was unable to understand why he could not return to his old home in Pembroke. He was unable to express any recollection or understanding of the alleged offences. He continued to fixate on finding his wife and experienced increased perseverations in this regard as he eloped from the locked unit at his residence. Even following Mr. Lance’s transfer to Greystone Village Retirement residence in Ottawa, he continued to emphasize that he wanted to “go home” and was unable to develop any insight as to why he was at a long-term care facility.
[12]. Mr. Lance’s perseverations have led to irritability and physical and verbal aggressivity towards staff leading to one period of hospitalization at the Ottawa Hospital. Over that period of time, Mr. Lance continued to be aggressive and to seek to locate exits. Following medication adjustments and a period of approximately one week at the Ottawa Hospital, Mr. Lance returned to the retirement home where he continued to be threatening towards other patients. He was returned to the Ottawa Hospital and was eventually transferred to the Transitional Care Unit on November 26, 2024, where he awaited his eventual placement in a long-term care facility.
[13]. In December 2024, Mr. Lance was transferred to the Bonnechere Manor in Renfrew, Ontario. He continued to have no insight whatsoever into his condition and continued to become agitated when limitations on his ability to return to his previous home in Pembroke were discussed.
[14]. Since arriving at Bonnechere, Mr. Lance has been largely appropriate but has continued to demonstrate re-directable exit seeking behaviour. In the month leading to this hearing, Mr. Lance struggled again with increased perseveration surrounding his desire to return to Pembroke. He attached this to a support worker at the residence who was from that area and showed increased interest in her. He experienced difficulty sleeping and was not receptive to re-direction. He demonstrated verbal aggression and aggression towards property. He has continued to struggle with memory and executive function.
[15]. The Hospital Report squarely addresses the question of Mr. Lance’s fitness as observed and assessed over the course of this review period. While Dr. Sandhu was unable in the course of his live evidence to express the opinion that Mr. Lance was “permanently unfit,” the Hospital Report did confirm that Mr. Lance is still unable to marshal any reality-based understanding of the nature and circumstances of his charges and is unable to communicate meaningfully with counsel. This has all been considered by this panel in the context of criminal charges that are actually fairly complex and where efforts by a court to accommodate Mr. Lance cannot be said to be able to mitigate the general cognitive deficits and behavioural symptoms associated with his major mental illness. Even when undertaking fitness assessments, or presenting evidence over the course of this hearing, Dr. Sandhu has had to exercise care given the intense emotional responses that Mr. Lance experiences when being re-oriented to his current legal circumstances, the alleged offences, and his limited autonomy.
[16]. The Hospital Report includes a Violence Risk Assessment the methodology and contents of which were not challenged over the course of this hearing. It notes that over this review period, Mr. Lance has presented with problems with insight, violent ideation, symptoms of major mental disorder, problems with instability and problems with treatment supervision response. He struggles with stress and coping. His risk of violence increases when his circumstances and limits are explained to him and manifests itself in verbal or physical aggression.
[17]. To this Dr. Sandhu added his evidence that Mr. Lance continues to perseverate in spite of medication adjustments. He confirmed, as mentioned, that he was unable at this stage to indicate that Mr. Lance is “permanently unfit” and explained that Mr. Lance has not experienced a deteriorating course of cognitive functioning as is seen in cases of dementia. Dr. Sandhu explained that while Mr. Lance’s perseveration and behaviours have worsened, his decreases in fitness and problems with cognition and memory have been acutely related to the strokes he experienced and have not worsened. Accordingly, there is no evidence at this stage that Mr. Lance is “permanently unfit.”
[18]. Dr. Sandhu described the level of supports Mr. Lance’s current residence requires from the treatment team to manage his behaviours. He explained that these are effectively “early days” at the new residence that require a higher level of assistance from the Hospital. In terms of reintegration into the community, Dr. Sandhu explained that until residence staff develop a stronger understanding of Mr. Lance’s mental health and other needs, the treatment team will need to provide support and instruction in order to manage Mr. Lance’s verbal and physical aggression. Dr. Sandhu did express hopes that progress in this domain will be made over the course of this next review period and referenced improvements in Mr. Lance’s comportment at Bonnechere, particularly now that he has his own television, room, and instruments.
[19]. Dr. Sandhu commented on the nature of risk that informs the Hospital’s position on the issue of significant threat to the safety of the public. He testified that he cannot say that the risk to the complainant, Mr. Lance’s ex-wife is low. He pointed to Mr. Lance’s pattern of exit-seeking behaviours over the course of this review period and to his efforts to find her when he absconded. He indicated however that he was not only concerned with the threat Mr. Lance poses to Ms. Morin, but also the risk he poses to staff and other patients at Bonnechere. He testified that while Mr. Lance’s behaviours have not risen to the level of criminality, he has been verbally and physically aggressive in highly supervised settings that have benefitted from significant supports and instruction from the treatment team. In Dr. Sandhu’s opinion, Mr. Lance’s current supports at Bonnechere require the Hospital’s involvement to address Mr. Lance’s acute needs.
Submissions
[20]. At the end of the hearing the parties renewed their submissions as set out at the beginning of the hearing. The Hospital and the representative of the Attorney General argued that Mr. Lance remained unfit to stand trial and represented a significant threat to the safety of the public. Both argued that a continued detention disposition was necessary to manage the identified risk. The representative of the Attorney General addressed contextual elements informing her position as to Mr. Lance’s inability to participate in his legal proceedings in a reality-based manner. She explained that he has more than one set of charges outstanding and that the communications that inform the primary alleged offence span a period of time that ultimately will lead to complex evidentiary issues and a trial period that will span more than a half-a-day. She explained that breaks and accommodations would not ameliorate the identified cognitive and behavioural deficits that are seen in Mr. Lance’s major mental illness. She questioned whether Mr. Lance would be able to appreciate the roles of individuals in the justice system or be able to make decisions associated with the presentation of his defence where he has been unable to either appreciate that he has been charged with anything or recall the circumstances of the index offences. Given the elevation Mr. Lance manifests when discussing charges or his current legal circumstances, she questioned whether he could communicate with counsel in a meaningful manner. At that point, the Supreme Court of Canada had not released its decision in the case of R. v. Bharwani 2025 SCC 26. It bears noting however that Ms. Dufort’s expressed concerns regarding Mr. Lance’s abilities as described above find their footing in the fact that Mr. Lance is unable to approach the outstanding litigation or communicate with counsel in any reality-based manner.
[21]. Counsel for Mr. Lance in her closing submissions focused on the Winko standard of significant threat to the safety of the public. She noted that this is a high standard and correctly indicated that the standard set by the Supreme Court of Canada insists that there be both a significant likelihood that an individual will commit a serious criminal offence absent a disposition and that serious physical or psychological harm of the type contemplated in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code will result from that offending conduct. She pointed to important factors weighing on this issue in the case of Mr. Lance. The allegations that gave rise to the Board’s jurisdiction are eight years old. She argued that while Mr. Lance has perseverated over his wife and past residence and has exhibited exit rumination, he has not actually tried to reach her in “meaningful ways.” She questioned whether the evidence established that the risk posed by Mr. Lance to other residents and staff at Bonnechere rose to the level of significance required under Winko. She finally submitted that, if the threshold were met, then a detention disposition would be necessary and appropriate, largely given Mr. Lance’s mental health and other needs, including the need to preserve his placement in appropriate supervised accommodations.
Analysis and conclusion
[22]. Turning first to the issue of fitness, there is no question that the evidence establishes that Mr. Lance continues to be unfit to stand trial. In the recently decided case of Bharwani, cited above, the presumption of fitness is rebutted where an individual is unable to exercise a reality-based approach to outstanding criminal charges. That inability may negate the individual’s ability to mount a substantive defence or response to the allegations laid against the individual. It may negate the ability to understand plea options and their consequences or to appreciate the nature and roles of the various parties and actors involved in the litigation process. It may result in an impossibility of meaningful dialogue with defence counsel. In any of these situations, let alone in a case where all are manifest, an individual will continue to be found to be unfit to stand trial regardless of the accommodations a court could offer, noting that trial fairness is not tantamount to fitness.
[23]. In Mr. Lance’s situation, he has no recollection of the alleged offences, cannot conceptualize them and his major mental illness moves him to a state of aggressivity and irritability when he is instructed or cued as to his legal circumstances. He is not able to understand or appreciate plea options or why he would have to enter any pleas associated with the index offences. After instruction, he remains unable to comprehend or appreciate the roles of the different actors in a court proceeding. His perseveration and aggressivity pose insurmountable burdens on any possibility of carrying on meaningful dialogue with counsel. All of this in the context of trial proceedings that would be complex informs our finding that Mr. Lance continues to be unfit to stand trial.
[24]. Meanwhile, it cannot be said on the evidence received at this stage that Mr. Lance is “permanently unfit.” Dr. Sandhu, in his evidence, explained the distinction between Mr. Lance’s continued perseveration and aggressivity and his compromised cognitive state as distinct elements of his major mental illness. The former are symptoms that have persisted and have required changes in medications as they have deteriorated from time to time since Mr. Lance’s coming under the jurisdiction of the Ontario Review Board. The latter is the product of his several strokes and, at this stage is static. According to Dr. Sandhu, it cannot be determined at this stage that Mr. Lance’s cognitive limitations will persist such that he can be declared “permanently unfit.” That being said, it has been eight years since the index offences, and a review of the Hospital Report suggests that the fact that there has been neither deterioration nor amelioration of Mr. Lance’s ability to make reality-based decisions associated with the outstanding charges should cause the Hospital to seriously consider over the next review period whether any return to fitness for Mr. Lance is a clinical reality or even a likely possibility.
[25]. The issue of significant threat always warrants the Review Board’s thoughtful consideration. This is particularly the case where, as counsel for Mr. Lance pointed out, 8 years have passed since the occurrence of the index offence without further acts of serious criminality on the part of a patient. That being said, it would be inappropriate to conclude that lack of serious criminal charges represents the litmus test under section 672.5401 of the Criminal Code. Inasmuch as that section and the Board’s primary objective under section 672.54 of the Criminal Code seek to prevent the occurrence of serious criminal acts, a panel must look to other evidence than simply the absence of explicit criminality to ground a finding of significant threat to the safety of the public.
[26]. In the case of Mr. Lance, the index offences are serious and contextually come with a history of domestic violence against his ex-wife. While Mr. Lance may or may not be able to locate her at this point, still it is noted that his ex-wife, home, and the town wherein the index offences took place remain the acute subjects of his perseveration. Mr. Lance has no insight into his circumstances, the index offences, the risk he poses to his ex-wife or to others. This past review period has seen repeated instances of both physical and verbal aggressivity. His perseveration expanded beyond his ex-wife to staff that came from the same region. Mr. Lance resides with a fragile population in a state where his inability to comprehend what led to his inability to live with his ex-wife at his old home leads to frustration, irritability, and aggressive outbursts. The evidence is that staff at Bonnechere require the ongoing support from the Hospital’s treatment team to manage Mr. Lance’s symptoms and behaviours. Mr. Lance has had repeated periods of involuntary hospitalization and has required repeated adjustments of his medications. In our view, serious criminality has been avoided over the course of this review period because the Hospital has been empowered by the reigning disposition to respond quickly to Mr. Lance’s abscondments and periods of deterioration. He presents with 5 of 5 clinical risk factors according to the Hospital’s Violence Risk Assessment. He has few supports in the community. Those that he does have are, at this stage, ill-equipped and only partially educated in what is required to mitigate against the risks that Mr. Lance continues to pose. In our view these factors establish clearly that he continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public.
[27]. Mr. Lance has substantial needs that have not changed significantly since coming under the jurisdiction of the Ontario Review Board. He remains a risk of abscondment and continues to perseverate about returning to his former home where he once lived with his ex-wife. He has no insight into either the circumstances that brought him under the jurisdiction of the Board, into his major mental illness, or his need for treatment and supervision. In such circumstances, the primary objective set out in section 672.54 of the Criminal Code can only be satisfied by way of a detention disposition. The time may come when the risk presented by Mr. Lance will be no different than the risk presented by other long-term care patients that suffer from cognitive deficits similar to his, but at this early stage in long-term care, the Hospital must be able to both approve Mr. Lance’s accommodations and be able to respond quickly to signs of increased sleeplessness, hopelessness, irritability and aggressivity if it is going to ensure the safety of the public, including the fragile population with whom Mr. Lance now lives.
[28]. Similarly, Mr. Lance’s mental health and other needs warrant the imposition of a detention disposition. Mr. Lance’s supports at Bonnechere are in the process of familiarizing themselves with him and the symptoms of his major mental illness. The treatment team is providing important instruction and direction that, with time and as Mr. Lance continues to settle into his new home, may lead to the conclusion that, contextually, Mr. Lance will no longer represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. At these preliminary stages of his residency at Bonnechere, the Hospital must be able to respond quickly if Mr. Lance’s needs, including his ultimate need for reintegration into the community, are to be met.
[29]. For these reasons, the Board has concluded that Mr. Lance continues to be unfit to stand trial, continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and that a detention disposition is necessary and appropriate, having regard to the objectives set out in section 672.54 of the Criminal Code. An order will issue accordingly.
[30]. The Board thanks all who have participated in this hearing for their assistance, as well as all those at Bonnechere and the Hospital that are supporting Mr. Lance for their continued efforts and attentive care.
DATED this 2nd day of September 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
D. Sandor Legal Member
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board