Re: Lascelles Graham
ORB File No: 5222
Hearing held on: Monday, August 25, 2025
Place of hearing: Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care 401 Sunset Drive, St. Thomas
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before: Alternate Chairperson: Mr. J. Weinstein Members: Dr. A. Park Dr. M. Kalia Ms. C. Murray Mr. A. Mete
Parties Appearing: Accused: Lascelles Graham Counsel: Mr. S.F. Gehl The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. J. Zamprogna Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. D. Rows
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated September 23, 2025)
Introduction
On November 27, 2008, Mr. Lascelles Graham was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (“NCR”) on charges of assault with a weapon, possession of a weapon for dangerous purpose, and assaulting a police officer, all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (the “Criminal Code”).
On August 25, 2025, a panel of the Ontario Review Board (“Board” or “panel”) convened to review Mr. Graham’s current Disposition pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. At the time of the hearing, Mr. Graham was subject to a Conditional Discharge.
Mr. Graham was present at the hearing. He was represented by counsel, Mr. Stephen Gehl, throughout the proceedings. This hearing was adjourned from May 15, 2025, to August 25, 2025, as Mr. Gehl had not received the Updated Hospital Report until minutes prior to the originally scheduled hearing. In the Updated Hospital Report the hospital put forward a new position that would potentially significantly limit Mr. Graham’s liberties.
A Hospital Report dated April 4, 2025, was entered as Exhibit 1. The above-mentioned Updated Hospital Report dated August 6, 2025, was entered as Exhibit 2.
The issues to be determined are whether Mr. Graham continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public, and if so, the necessary and appropriate Disposition to manage that risk having regard to the criteria set out in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
For the reasons set out below and based on the evidence and opinions before us, the Board found that Mr. Graham continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. The Board finds that a Detention Disposition at the Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care is the necessary and appropriate Order having regard to the safety of the public, which is the paramount concern, and also having regard to Mr. Graham’s mental health, reintegration into society, and his other needs.
Current Psychiatric Diagnoses
- Schizoaffective Disorder; and Polysubstance Use Disorder, in remission
Position of the Parties
At the commencement of the hearing, the parties were canvassed for their without prejudice positions. The hospital, represented by Ms. J. Zamprogna, supported by counsel for the Attorney General, Mr. Rows, took the position that Mr. Graham continues to represent a significant threat to the public and the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a Detention Order on terms set out on pages 4 and 5 of the Updated Report to the hospital of May 6, 2025 contained within the Report of the Hospital. However, the hospital is not requesting passes for up to 72 hours as their suggested clause 2(e) (passes for up to 1 week in Southern Ontario or Southwestern Ontario, with staff or an approved person, or indirectly supervised) would incorporate 72 hours. The hospital recommends that passes recommended in clause 2(e) be with an approved itinerary.
Counsel for Mr. Graham, Mr. Gehl, conceded significant threat and submitted for a continuation of Mr. Graham’s Conditional Discharge.
Index Offence
- The Hospital Report contains a detailed description of the index offences. The offences are briefly summarized as follows:
Mr. Graham was stopped by the police while he was walking north in the southbound lanes of a major London, Ontario street, wearing a sword that was in a sheath. When police arrived, Mr. Graham unsheathed the sword and approached an officer with the weapon pointed at the officer. He was subsequently tasered twice and he continued to struggle with the police before he was arrested.
Background and History
- The Hospital Report contains extensive information regarding Mr. Graham’s background and history, the entirety of which need not be repeated here in detail. However, the particulars are accurately summarized in last year’s Reasons as follows:
“Mr. Graham was fostered as a baby and subsequently adopted; however, his adoptive parents separated when he was five years old. Thereafter, he mostly lived with his adoptive mother but also lived for a time with his adoptive father who is alleged to have been physically, verbally and emotionally abusive towards Mr. Graham. Mr. Graham had a difficult childhood characterized by disruptive and sexualized behaviour. Mr. Graham left school in grade 9 and has a limited employment history. Mr. Graham is single. He has a teenage daughter with whom he has ongoing contact.
Mr. Graham has a history of alcohol and marijuana abuse. Prior to the index offences, Mr. Graham had a criminal record that commenced in 2001 when he was a youth and which includes, inter alia, convictions for robbery, carrying a concealed weapon, possession of a prohibited weapon, careless use of a firearm, sexual assault with a weapon, uttering threats, forcible confinement, assault and failing to comply with court orders.
Mr. Graham’s first contact with psychiatric services was in 1994, when he was 8 years old. Mr. Graham is diagnosed as suffering from schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type, substance use disorder, in remission in a supervised setting and antisocial personality disorder.”
Course Since Last Disposition
The Hospital Report and Updated Hospital Reports provide information regarding Mr. Graham’s course in hospital since his last Disposition.
Mr. Graham moved to an independent apartment in London, Ontario on July 18, 2024, from his prior housing at Clark Centre. The apartment is supported through the Forensic Supportive Housing Program (FSHoP), which provides Mr. Graham with mental health support and community reintegration, along with monthly check-ins.
Mr. Graham has a history of non-adherence with medication when living unsupervised. Therefore, he was to call into Clarke Centre staff after taking his medications to monitor compliance for two weeks. After that time, he was to call into the hospital message line to report he had taken his medication. Bloodwork was taken on November 1, 2024, which showed a significant drop in his valproate levels. On December 12, 2024, Mr. Graham disclosed that he missed about 25 to 30 percent of his medications over the prior few months. His treatment team supported him by adding daily alarms to his phone as reminders. Despite the reminders, he continued to miss six to eight doses of medication in January 2025.
The treatment team had started a referral for ambulatory care in anticipation of an absolute discharge in the coming year. However, this referral was put on hold due to his poor medication adherence.
Mr. Graham attended Kings University as a part-time student since 2022. He majors in World Religions and minors in Philosophy. He successfully completed one full semester during the reporting period.
Up to the date of the Hospital Report, Mr. Graham demonstrated developed insight into the index offences. He demonstrated fluctuating insight into his illnesses. He demonstrated good insight into his substance use illness. He demonstrated fluctuating insight into his need for treatment, which is evidenced by his non-adherence.
Mr. Graham has told the treatment team that he does not have the potential to become violent again.
Oral Evidence at the Hearing
Dr. Ajay Prakash, Mr. Graham’s psychiatrist and signatory of the Hospital Report and Updates, provided oral evidence at the hearing to supplement the documentary evidence.
Dr. Prakash testified that Mr. Graham has been non-adherent to his medications since August 6, 2025.
Mr. Graham’s cannabis use has continued and, in fact, increased since the first Update. Mr. Graham’s last positive screen for cannabis prior to this hearing was August 13. On that date, he also disclosed alcohol use since July 25, 2025. Both cannabis and alcohol use increase Mr. Graham’s risk to the safety of the public.
Mr. Graham has become unstable as a result of his substance use and non-adherence to medication. The treatment team now attends his home in pairs because they feel uncomfortable going individually due to his decompensation.
Though Mr. Graham obtains his cannabis from a dispensary, it is a potent THC-based cannabis leaf.
To Mr. Graham’s credit, he continues to meet with the treatment team. He continues to engage in martial arts. His home is in good standing.
For the most part, Mr. Graham engages with his personal supports. However, this year his approved person, Kellen DeVos, left the role of approved person due to a falling out between him and Mr. Graham. The treatment team has been unable to contact him.
The recommendation for a detention order is to allow Mr. Graham a greater chance of remaining in the community. Mr. Graham is now lacking personal supports in the community. A warrant of committal is necessary to effect a quick and efficient return to hospital if necessary. A Mental Health Act (“MHA”) Form 1 would not be sufficient to return him to hospital before his risk to the public becomes unmanageable.
In the past the treatment team has witnessed a decompensation of Mr. Graham’s mental status with non-adherence and the use of cannabis and alcohol. His declining mental status caused anger, mood lability, and an inability to comply with authority. In 2020 an early board hearing was called to change the Disposition from a Conditional Discharge to a Detention Order under similar circumstances. At that time, Mr. Graham was non-adherent to medications, seclusion was required on admission, and it was necessary to involve police to bring him to hospital.
Mr. Graham does not recognize his symptomology and decline in mental status.
It is possible that Mr. Graham would return to hospital voluntarily, as last time the MHA was utilized. However, Dr. Prakash testified that given the non-adherence to medication combined with the increase in cannabis use and lack of personal support system, a warrant of committal would likely be necessary to bring Mr. Graham back to hospital at this time. Mr. Graham is likely to further lose insight the more unwell he becomes.
Mr. Graham would not stay voluntarily in the hospital. There is a real risk of violence to the public should the treatment team need to wait until he is certifiable to be able to hospitalize him. Therefore, the MHA is insufficient for the management of his risk to the public.
Dr. Prakash has spoken to Mr. Graham about his recommendation for a Detention Order. Mr. Graham no longer wants to be part of the forensic system. He hopes to stop using cannabis when school starts. However, Dr. Prakash stated that the treatment team is observing an increase in Mr. Graham’s substance use, which is not unusual given his substance use disorder. Dr. Prakash testified that Mr. Graham’s insight will diminish quickly, which increases the risk to public safety.
The treatment team is able to maintain Mr. Graham’s housing for three months if Mr. Graham ends up needing hospitalization while on a Detention Disposition. If he is admitted to hospital, the treatment team has arranged for Mr. Graham to continue his schooling despite hospitalization.
Mr. Graham remains treatment capable at this time.
Analysis and Conclusions
Having heard and considered the entirety of the evidence as well as the submissions from the parties, the Board independently finds that Mr. Graham remains a significant threat to the safety of the public.
Mr. Graham had increased stress this year related to school and work, which resulted in heightened symptoms of his mental illness including impulsivity, emotional lability and intimidation tactics. His mental illness is fragile and he lacks the ability to recognize these issues.
Mr. Graham was non-adherent to his medication regimen this year, illustrating his fluctuating insight into the need for treatment. Mr. Graham has a history of non-adherence with medication, which has led to decompensation and threatening behaviours. Due to his non-adherence with medication and increase in substance use this year, his referral to an Ambulatory Care team was put on hold.
Adherence to medication would be a protective factor. Unfortunately, Mr. Graham has not been adherent while at the same time increasing his substance use. The Board accepts Dr. Prakash’s evidence that the increase in substance use along with non-adherence increases his risk of harm to public safety.
The Board relies on the Re-Offence Scenario described in the Hospital Report as follows:
“Absent Forensic support and increased stressors (e.g., working long hours, school or work-related), Mr. Graham would likely lose focus of his treatment goals, discontinue or forget to administer his medications and experience increasing decompensation. This would likely present as impulsivity, emotional lability, and poor interpersonal boundaries. He would likely not reach out for mental health support if decompensating due to impaired insight around the need for professional care which has been evident through his historical patterns and recent demonstrations of non-compliance with recommended treatment. His behaviours would quickly exacerbate, increasing his risk of serious violence.”
In light of the Board’s finding of significant threat, it is charged with shaping a Disposition for the coming year.
The Board accepts the evidence of the hospital that given the lack of personal support systems and failing insight due to both non-adherence to medications and substance use, a Detention Disposition would be necessary to bring Mr. Graham back to hospital. Further, Mr. Graham would not stay voluntarily in the hospital. There is a real risk of violence to the public should the treatment team need to wait until he is certifiable to be able to hospitalize him. The Board agrees that the MHA is insufficient for the management of Mr. Graham’s risk to the public.
An Absolute Discharge was considered by the hospital during the reporting year. However, this option was abandoned when Mr. Graham became non-adherent with medication. His poor insight into the need for medication demonstrates the ongoing need for forensic supervision. Mr. Graham has a historical pattern of non-adherence to treatment resulting in violence and threatening behaviour. The Board agrees that a Conditional Discharge would not be sufficient to manage Mr. Graham’s risk.
The Board finds that the necessary and appropriate, least onerous and least restrictive disposition is a Detention Disposition on the terms set out in our formal Disposition.
The panel would like to wish Graham the best in the coming year.
DATED this 23rd day of September 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Ms. C. Murray Legal Member Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board