Re: Paul Leroux
ORB File No: 8760
Hearing held on: Thursday, September 4, 2025
Place of hearing: North Bay Regional Health Centre – North Bay Site
Pursuant to: Section 672.47(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Ms. C. Fromstein
Members: Dr. S. Lessard
Dr. M. Kalia
Mr. E. Siebenmorgen
Mr. A. Mete
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Paul Leroux
Counsel for Accused: Mr. G. Iwasiw via Zoom
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Mr. P. Trenker
The person on behalf of hospital: Mr. R. Holden
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. E. McRae via Zoom
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated September 15, 2025)
Introduction
On March 31st, 2025, Mr. Paul Leroux was found not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder for the offence of second-degree murder and breaking and entering. The presiding judge did not create a disposition and deferred that to the Ontario Review Board.
The date of the offence was July 30, 2021, and Mr. Leroux had remained in custody in jail until his admission to the North Bay Regional Health Centre – North Bay Site (‘Hospital’) on April 11, 2025.
On September 4, 2025, Mr. Leroux appeared for his initial hearing before the Ontario Review Board.
Mr. P. Trenker attended as counsel for the Hospital. Mr. G. Iwasiw represented Mr. Leroux via video telecommunication from Kenora. Ms. E. McRae represented the Attorney General, also by video telecommunication from Kenora.
The evidence at the hearing was comprised of the following written exhibits:
Victim Impact Statement (VIS) of Sarah Gilbert.
Victim Impact Statement (VIS) of Eileen Carl.
Warrant of Committal.
Criminal Record.
Synopsis x2.
Indictment.
Transcript of Trial.
NCR Report.
Hospital Report 2025.
Addendum to Hospital Report.
Dr. Le provided expert testimony.
Index Offence
- Very briefly summarized, Mr. Leroux, on July 30, 2021, stabbed to death his 62-year-old mother. In doing so, her neck was cut across from one ear to the other. The details of the index offence are set out in the Synopsis, which captures the agreed-upon facts at Mr. Leroux’s trial:
“The accused, Paul LEROUX, is a 35-year-old male resident of Kenora. LEROUX is the son of the female victim, 62 year old Christine WRIGHT, who is also a resident of Kenora.
On July 29, 2021, at approximately 9:35 p.m. in the City of Kenora, police were dispatched to a report of a motor vehicle on fire on Jones Road. Police attended, and spoke with Paul LEROUX, who stated that he was driving his vehicle too fast, which resulted in his vehicle leaving the roadway. At that time, his vehicle was observed to be on fire. Police transported LEROUX from the scene of the collision and dropped him off at approximately 11:00 p.m. at his mother, Christine WRIGHT's residence, located at 13 Mikado Avenue.
On July 30, 2021, at approximately 10:03 a.m. a break and enter was reported to police at the residence of 2730 Highway 17, in the City of Kenora. Police attended the residence and observed Paul LEROUX inside without the homeowner's consent. Paul LEROUX was arrested for Break and Enter a Place - Commit Indictable Offence, contrary to Section 348(1)(b) of the Criminal Code. Paul LEROUX was transported to the Kenora OPP detachment, and later released on a Form 10 to answer to the charge. The vehicle of Christine WRIGHT was located in the driveway of 2730 Highway 17, and it is believed that Paul LEROUX had driven the vehicle there.
On July 30, 2021, at approximately 2:59 p.m. police received a report of a death at 13 Mikado Avenue, in the City of Kenora. Police arrived at the residence, to find Christine WRIGHT, obviously deceased, with significant injuries to her upper body area. Christine WRIGHT was transported to the Ontario Forensic Pathology Service in Toronto, Ontario, for a Postmortem Examination that occurred on August 4, 2021. It was determined that Christine WRIGHT's cause of death was the result of stab wounds.
Police have investigated the circumstances surrounding Christine WRIGHT's death. It was determined Paul LEROUX purchased a knife on July 29, 2021, along with binoculars. Packaging for these items were found in the residence of Christine WRIGHT, as well as WRIGHT's vehicle. In addition, the knife was located in the residence of 2730 Highway 17. Contained on the knife is blood, which is the same blood located at Christine WRIGHT's residence, according to the Centre of Forensic Sciences.
Paul LEROUX was arrested by police on August 1, 2021, while being found not in compliance of the curfew condition of his Conditional Sentence Order. In addition, LEROUX has been served with an allegation of being not in compliance with the Keep the Peace and Be of Good Behaviour Condition of his Conditional Sentence Order on August 3, 2021. LEROUX is currently in the custody of the Kenora District Jail.”
Background Information
Mr. Leroux is presently 39 years of age, born July 19, 1986. He has a very long and serious criminal record, set out in the Hospital Report at pages 3 and 4, spanning 2013 – 2019 and including multiple offences of trafficking in narcotics, possession of stolen property, possession of a firearm and impaired driving.
Mr. Leroux also has an extensive history of drug addiction. Drug use began at an early age, with his first cannabis use at age 12. By age 15 he was consuming approximately one gram of cannabis daily with increased consumption on weekends. At age 12 or 13 he began drinking alcohol and his use quickly became problematic, wherein he experienced frequent blackouts. He developed withdrawal symptoms when he wasn’t drinking and once, he started drinking has indicated that he was unable to stop. His drug use developed into cocaine and ecstasy use, as well as methamphetamines on two occasions, but his primary substances of use during his youth were cannabis and alcohol. In his early 20s, following a relationship breakup, he began using cocaine daily and experimented with opiates and hallucinogens, including psylocibin mushrooms and LSD. Mr. Leroux did undertake residential treatment for substance use and was prescribed Nabilone which he indicates he used along with cannabis. However, he was then introduced to methamphetamines which he used regularly, and which escalated to his administration by injection.
Mr. Leroux’s personal history is set out in the Hospital Report, which was entered as Exhibit 9, so it need not be reported here in detail. Briefly summarized, he was born in Sioux Lookout, approximately seven weeks premature. He suffered from illnesses in his childhood which caused him to miss a significant amount of his early school education. He had reported having multiple concussions in the past. His parents divorced when he was ten years of age. He described that his father may have abused alcohol, and his mother may have struggled with opioid use, and was “unstable at times.” He and his sister lived with his mother in Kenora. Mr. Leroux had some contact with his father following the parents’ separation, but this diminished over time. He has reported there was a significant family history of mental health issues and substance misuse, as set out in the Hospital Report at page seven.
As noted in the synopsis of the index offence, Mr. Leroux had purchased a knife and binoculars in the days before the index offence. He indicates that he had been in recent contact with his father and that they had planned to go hunting, and that was his reason for purchasing the items.
Academically, Mr. Leroux performed well throughout school. He graduated high school at age 17 and briefly attended Georgian College to pursue a diploma in Business Administration but financial difficulties forced him to discontinue his studies after six months.
He began work at a young age, had a paper route, and has worked thereafter at a restaurant. At age 18 he began firefighting with the Ministry of Natural Resources, completed specialized training and rose in his position. His employment was interrupted when he was reported by a co-worker for smoking marijuana at work (prior to legalization). Mr. Leroux chose to take full responsibility and shield his co-workers and accepted an early layoff and attended drug counselling that winter. However, he was demoted the following year and, after returning for one season, at age 27 he left the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR), attributing his departure primarily to his drug use struggles. He then engaged in drug trafficking by assisting his roommate until his arrest in 2013. Once released on parole, he worked in concrete and carpentry until 2018. Another injury to his shoulder in 2019 or 2020 forced him to stop work. At this point, his drug sales became a full-time endeavour.
Mr. Leroux has had two significant personal relationships, the second of which began when he was age 30. He has acknowledged that substance use, particularly alcohol, cocaine, and amphetamines had a substantial negative impact on the relationship. This relationship, as noted in the details of the index offence, ended shortly before the index offence.
Diagnosis
The Hospital Report sets out Mr. Leroux’s diagnosis as Bipolar 1 Disorder, most recent episode manic, with psychotic features.
At the hearing, Dr. Le acknowledged that substance use disorders would appropriately be included in his diagnoses but that the Hospital does not yet know Mr. Leroux well enough to determine which substances to include and so has not yet formally added that diagnosis. The Hospital reports that prior to his admission at hospital, Mr. Leroux has received extensive substance abuse treatment and while in jail was highly involved with the facilitation of some treatment programming. He maintains that he has been sober for five years which is the period of his incarceration following the index offence.1 He has been cooperative with urine drug screens since admission which have all been negative for alcohol or illicit substances.
Initial Positions of the Parties
- At the outset of the hearing, the parties were canvassed as to their initial positions. Mr. Trenker, on behalf of the Hospital, indicated his position was a detention order with privileges that include up to indirectly supervised privileges into the community of North Bay as well as indirectly supervised passes into Ontario. In final submissions he withdrew the latter recommendation of indirectly supervised passes into Ontario. Ms. McRae, on behalf of the Attorney General, indicated her opposition to the inclusion of indirect passes to either the community of North Bay or Ontario. Mr. Iwasiw indicated, at the outset, that he agreed with the detention order disposition and the privileges as initially suggested by the Hospital. In final submissions, he adopted the Hospital’s modified position.
Evidence at the Hearing
Dr. Le gave evidence. She has been Mr. Leroux’s attending psychiatrist since his admission to the hospital in April 2025. Because he has not yet had an initial disposition, Mr. Leroux has been restricted to the Assessment Unit, which she noted to be a more restrictive setting even than what he had available to him when in jail. She testified that Mr. Leroux has done well since his admission to the hospital and gets along well with staff and with peers. She noted that the treatment team were still getting to know Mr. Leroux. He has, to date, been compliant with her medication recommendations and follows these. He continues to express to her that will follow whatever the doctor recommends. She noted that Mr. Leroux while in detention for four years did substance use programming at jail to the point that he was leading the groups. Since then, he has continued to abstain from substance use to her knowledge. They have discussed formalized substance use treatment, but he has been restricted in participating because of the unit on which he has been restricted to date. She hopes to see his engagement in programming. Dr. Le said because they are still getting to know him, the treatment team do not know how he will do based on their records and to date she expects he will stay sober and in programs, Mr. Leroux has expressed that he is eager to work in the future, have a job and become reintegrated to some degree in the community.
Dr. Le explained the privilege ladder which Mr. Leroux will have to progress through following the imposition of his initial disposition. His initial privileges are expected to permit him to leave the unit he has been placed on to attend groups in hospital. Hospital privileges are initially apt to be with two staff accompanying him. This will allow the team to observe how Mr. Leroux manages in a group. The treatment team has monthly full team risk assessment meetings wherein they will have an opportunity to discuss Mr. Leroux’s progress and what privileges they will recommend to the Hospital to be permitted to him. Dr. Le testified that there is some reasonable hope that in 12 months Mr. Leroux might be able to be safety managed on indirectly supervised passes into the community. She gave, for an example, his attendance at a local store. She indicated that it struck her as unrealistic within a year that Mr. Leroux would progress to being permitted indirectly supervised travel passes into the province, which had been considered to allow him to travel for work. She noted that Mr. Leroux has indicated that he has no desire moving forward to leave North Bay.
Dr. Le indicated that Mr. Leroux’s insight is fair. He has insight into his need to take medication. She noted, however, that he does not always recognize psychotic symptoms. There have been episodes of underlying psychosis observed by staff that he has not recognized. When Dr. Le approached him, as a result, to add an antipsychotic to his medication, he was willing to follow her recommendation. He was subsequently transitioned to a long-acting injectable medication. He has said that the medication made him feel better and the nursing staff have remarked on their observation of his doing better since their start. Dr. Le testified that if Mr. Leroux was experiencing a re-emergence of more significant psychotic features, she does not know that he would reach out to staff. He still has difficulty with his own insight to recognize these symptoms as well as what is needed to address them. To date, it has been the medical team observing him and determining what he needs, and he still has difficulty with respect to his own insight to recognize his symptoms or his needs. There has been clear evidence of psychosis, and he struggled to recognize that.
Dr. Le testified that a return to substance use remains a concern. The team is still getting to know Mr. Leroux and have not observed him outside of a highly controlled setting. While drugs are available in a jail, he did not, to her knowledge, use during his four years in custody. She indicated that while drugs are hard to obtain on his current hospital unit, they can be obtained if someone is significantly motivated to do so. She noted that if he does relapse to any substance use, that would result in a restriction of any privileges that have been given to him. It will also have to be observed how any symptoms of his mental illness respond to his being in a more stressful environment as privileges are granted to him. She responded to a question from counsel for the Attorney General to explain that if Mr. Leroux was given an indirectly supervised pass to the community and didn’t return immediately at the time required, that is when they would put out the alert to the police.
To-date, in hospital, as noted previously, Mr. Leroux has been quite restricted and so not able to participate in things like cleaning or working in the kitchen. He has been given art tools to use as he is a competent artist. He will start privileges, it is anticipated, with a two to one staff escort to attend groups. The team intends to work towards developing his insight into substance use and for him to learn more about his illness and about medication to develop his insight. They seek to be able to observe how he engages with others. She acknowledged that substance use is directly linked to him having another psychotic episode with violence. His being on a long-acting injectable medication might mitigate the risk of violence if he were to acquire substances, but not necessarily.
When asked if he would be provided with trauma counselling, in addition to substance use counselling, Dr. Le noted that there are groups with different counsellors. Once they determine what Mr. Leroux’s needs are, they will then discuss what additional therapies should be put in place.
Dr. Le was asked whether she had concerns that including broad privileges in the disposition might provide Mr. Leroux with a sense of entitlement versus acting as a motivating factor. She noted that that is always a concern, but she does not get the sense from him that he would try to pressure the team into granting additional privileges. He has expressed that he appreciates that his ORB experience will be a slow process and intends to follow the recommendations of the treatment team.
Dr. Le confirmed that there has been no actuarial risk assessment done to date. As noted in the Hospital Report, this is because they are unfamiliar with Mr. Leroux. He has been at the hospital for only a number of months. She said that the team are nevertheless able to do clinical assessments and that if there were clinical concerns, they would not increase his privilege levels.
His sleep presently is good. Insomnia was noted in the report to be a significant precursor symptom and trigger for manic episodes. She discusses sleep hygiene with him. She noted as well that as more privileges are granted to Mr. Leroux, the Hospital will increase the frequency of urine drug screens.
That completed the evidence for the Hospital.
Counsel for the Attorney General, Ms. McRae, called as evidence, Ms. Sarah Gilbert, who read the Victim Impact Statement of her aunt, Eileen Carl, as well as that of herself. Both individuals attended the hearing remotely and were able to listen to the proceedings.
Submissions
Mr. Trenker, on behalf of the Hospital, as previously noted, withdrew the Hospital recommendation for indirectly supervised travel passes throughout Ontario, as, based on the evidence that is not a reasonably foreseeable prospect in the upcoming year. He agreed that there should be included, in addition to the prohibitions recommended in the Hospital Report, prohibitions against Mr. Leroux having contact with either his sister Sarah Gilbert or his aunt Eileen Carl or their immediate family members (spouses and children).
Ms. McRae, on behalf of the Attorney General, submitted that Mr. Leroux has been a drug addict since he was a boy and refused while at North Bay to engage in AA meetings. She noted that there remains a concern in that he still shows signs of psychosis. She referred to the NCR Report of Dr. Klassen, who had opined that Mr. Leroux remains a high risk to reoffend and had testified at trial that Mr. Leroux is at 100% risk of reoffending2 if he does not take his medication or get enough sleep. She submitted that that makes the management of his risk that much higher. She expressed her concern with the inclusion of any indirectly supervised positions. She noted that Mr. Leroux’s mother had had insight, as a very intelligent retired nurse, of his mental health challenges and had been doing Google searches in this regard shortly prior to the index offence. Ms. McRae supported a detention order that does not include any indirectly supervised privileges.
Mr. Iwasiw, on behalf of Mr. Leroux, submitted that the Hospital knows him quite well because he has been here since April 2025, and they have his jail records to review. He submitted that if the Hospital feels it’s beneficial for his development that he be granted indirectly supervised privileges to the community, that they have the knowledge to deal with this and his illness, so that all privileges as recommended by the Hospital should be included in the disposition. He did not oppose the inclusion of a no contact condition within the disposition and noted that Mr. Leroux had no reason to be outside the North Bay area (his family members reside in Kenora).
Analysis and Conclusion
The Board is unanimous in finding that Mr. Leroux represents a significant threat to the safety of the public. We recognize that that was a joint position of the parties. We make that determination independently based on all of the evidence before us. We had no difficulty in accepting that the necessary and appropriate disposition is that of a detention order. We further accept that the detention order must be that which is the least onerous and least restrictive, and that it should include privileges that will allow for Mr. Leroux’s progress while maintaining the safety of the public. We note that the offence committed was of the highest order of seriousness and brutality.
The key issue to be determined, in our view, was whether it was necessary and appropriate and least onerous and least restrictive to include a condition in this initial disposition of indirectly supervised passes into the community. It is our unanimous view that it is premature to include that privilege in the disposition. Our reasons for this are as follows:
At this stage there has been no formal actuarial risk assessment completed by the hospital. They acknowledge that is because Mr. Leroux has been at the hospital only for a period of a few months. Dr. Le, in her evidence, repeatedly indicated that the treatment team does not yet know Mr. Leroux well. It is noted that, on the evidence, the relapse rate for his bipolar disorder is high as well as the risk that stems from his substance use disorder. Further, there is a direct link on the evidence between his psychotic illness of bipolar disorder and his engaging in violence.
On the evidence, even if he is on antipsychotic medication, this would not necessarily mitigate the risk of violence should he relapse into any substance use. It is noted in the evidence that there was recently, in April, an incident wherein he was staring down a woman, which was of enough concern to be included in the Hospital Report. The team had to intervene when it was reported to them.
Mr. Leroux is compliant with the recommendations of his treatment team. However, he still has limited insight into his experiencing symptoms of psychosis. He is not yet able to identify these. This is a risk factor that must be considered. The fact that the evidence before us is that the Hospital does not yet have enough information about Mr. Leroux to determine even the details of his substance use disorder makes it evident that they require a more extensive period in order to get to know Mr. Leroux and to observe him as he is granted any initial privileges so that the team can fully determine his ongoing risks. On the evidence, that will be a slow process.
As our primary direction is protection of the public, it is our unanimous view that on the available information, the inclusion of indirectly supervised passes to the community would present an undue risk. We note of course that if Mr. Leroux shows significant progress in the upcoming months, that the Hospital can, if they determine it appropriate, seek an early hearing to expand his privileges. He has a wide envelope in the disposition being imposed for the upcoming year to progress in his treatment and his reintegration.
We create a disposition for a detention order at North Bay Regional Health Centre – North Bay Site with the privileges as recommended by the hospital in final submissions, including the prohibition against contact with his sister, his aunt, or their immediate families. We do so in recognition of the four factors in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
DATED this 15th 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
Footnotes
- In fact, the period from Mr. Leroux’s arrest on August1, 2021 to the hearing date of September 4, 2025, was just in excess of four years.
- The panel would point out that in fact, Dr. Klassen’s testimony at the trial was that if his diagnosis of a bipolar disorder was correct, the risk of occurrence of a second manic episode was 100% (Transcript, p. 36, ll. 5-13).