Re: Jorge Langevin, 2025 CanLII 97810

Ontario Review Board

Re: Jorge Langevin

ORB File No: 8550

Hearing held on: Monday August 25, 2025

Place of Hearing: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health

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

Before:

Alternate Chairperson: Mr. R. Bigelow

Members: Mr. M. Segal

Dr. P. Prendergast

Dr. S. Wiseman

Mr. S. Duffy

Parties Appearing:

Accused: Jorge Langevin

Counsel: Mr. D. Embry

The Person in Charge Counsel: Ms. S. Zelaya

Attorney-General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. K. Kirec

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION (Dated September 25, 2025)

Introduction

1. On May 2, 2024, Jorge Langevin was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCR) on charges of murder and indignity to a dead body, contrary to the Criminal Code. He is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the Board) dated September 5, 2024, ordering his detention at the Secure Forensic Unit of the Centre for addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) with privileges including hospital and grounds privileges indirectly supervised and entering the community of Toronto accompanied by staff.

2. On Monday, August 25, 2025, the Board convened a hearing at CAMH pursuant to section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code to review Mr. Langevin’s disposition. Ms. Langevin was present at the hearing and represented by counsel, Mr. Embry. The issues to be determined at the hearing were whether Mr. Langevin continued to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public as defined in section 672.5401 of the Criminal Code and, if so, to determine what was the necessary and appropriate disposition that was also the least onerous and least restrictive taking into account the factors set out in 672.54 of the Criminal Code.

Initial Positions of the Parties

3. At the commencement of the hearing the parties were requested to provide their initial without prejudice positions with respect to the issues before the Board. Counsel for the Hospital indicated that it was the Hospital’s position that Mr. Langevin continued to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate disposition was a continuation of the current detention order with the addition of indirectly supervised passes into the community of Toronto and community living in approved accommodation.

4. Counsel for the Attorney General advised that she was supportive of the Hospital position save and except with respect to the addition of community living. With respect to that she wished to reserve her position pending hearing the evidence.

5. Counsel for Mr. Langevin advised that he supported the Hospital position.

6. The Chair noted that the panel at Mr. Langevin’s last annual review had ordered that “a pre-hearing conference shall be conducted no later than four months from August 22, 2024, for the purpose of considering whether a Gladue report should be ordered.” However, due to an administrative error, no PHC was scheduled. The parties were requested to advise of their positions with respect to proceeding without a Gladue Report and whether this panel should order such a report.

7. All parties submitted that the hearing should proceed without the Gladue Report. Counsel for Mr. Langevin and counsel for the Attorney General advised that in their view, this panel should order a Gladue Report for next year’s review. Counsel for the Hospital took no position with respect to the preparation of a Gladue Report.

Evidence at the hearing

8. The evidence at the hearing consisted of the Hospital Report and the oral evidence of Dr. Arnold, a PGY-6 forensic psychiatry fellow working under the supervision of Dr. Kravtsenyuk, Mr. Langevin’s treating physician who was also present at the hearing.

Findings:

9. For the Reasons that follow, the Board finds that Mr. Langevin continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate disposition is a detention order on the terms as recommended by the Hospital.

Index Offence:

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

Police Synopsis

On Thursday February 10 2022, at 8:36am, Toronto Police Communications Services received a 911 call from Oscar ZAPATA. Oscar advised that he was with his brother, Jorge LANGEVIN (the accused), and his father, Jorge ZAPATA (the deceased), who appeared to him to be deceased.

Toronto Fire Services, EMS, and Toronto Police attended unit 1502 at 235 Grandravine

Drive, Toronto, shortly after the initial call from Oscar. When Toronto Fire and EMS first came upon the deceased, he was in the bedroom on the floor, vital signs absent. No life-saving measures were undertaken. Oscar and LANGEVIN were still on scene. Police initially believed they were attending a sudden death call and spoke to Oscar and LANGEVIN in the hallway of the apartment building.

LANGEVIN told the first-on-scene uniformed police officer who was speaking to them that his dad (the deceased) was on the phone last night with his girlfriend and that, during the discussion, his dad fell or collapsed and hit his head on the TV in the living room. LANGEVIN told the police that he then dragged his dad to his bedroom, changed

his clothes, and did some cleaning up. The officer who was speaking with LANGEVIN at this point told him that it was a criminal investigation and advised him to stop talking. Police stayed with LANGEVIN and Oscar and eventually transported them to 31 Division to provide statements. LANGEVIN was later arrested at 31 Division, just after 2:00pm.

An officer from the Forensic Identification Service (FIS) attended around 11:00am on February 10, 2022 and entered the unit with the coroner shortly thereafter. They located the deceased in a bedroom, lying on the floor, in a bathrobe. The hood of the bathrobe was pulled over the deceased 's face and there were items placed between the deceased 's legs. The coroner made observations of numerous injuries to the face and head area, in particular a large gash to the right side of the deceased's neck.

FIS officers spent the next several days examining and documenting the scene. Blood was located throughout the apartment, in the living room, kitchen, hallway, bedroom, and bathroom. The apartment was full of items, with little space to move around. There was evidence of blood having been cleaned up - diluted bloodstains in various areas (some that were still wet to the touch), a damp mop head that was tinged pink. A folding knife was located in one of the kitchen cupboards. That knife had grease-like material on the blade and near the handle that was submitted for DNA analysis. The DNA profile generated from the grease-like material was compared with a known sample of DNA from the deceased - the deceased could not be excluded as the source of the DNA profile generated from the knife. FIS officers also located steel wool in the bedroom where the deceased was located. The steel wool appeared to have biological material in it.

Police spoke with LANGEVIN's brother, Oscar, who advised that he received a call from his mother, Esther CAREY, the morning of February I 0, 2022, approximately 7: I 5am. His mother told him that LANGEVIN had just called her and asked to be picked up. When she asked why, LANGEVIN said that his dad was dead. CAREY asked Oscar to attend the residence to find out what had happened. When Oscar arrived just before 8:30am, he saw his dad on the ground and believed he was deceased. He then called 91 I. Oscar said that his brother did not tell him much about what had happened, only that his dad had been drinking alcohol the night prior (February 9, 2022) and fell or collapsed at some point and hit his head on the TV.

A post-mortem examination was conducted on February 11, 2022. The cause of death was determined to be a stab wound to the neck. The stab wound to the neck was approximately 12cm deep and incised both carotid arteries. The pathologist documented several other sharp force injuries to the head (top of head and forehead), numerous blunt injuries to the head (including widespread fresh dark hemorrhage of the scalp, bruising, lacerations, and missing teeth), and blunt force injuries to other areas of the body (broken ribs, bruising, dislocated shoulder, further hemorrhaging). The post-mortem examination also revealed numerous areas over the entire body of liquid chemical or thermal injury associated with discoloration and loss of skin. Small metal fragments were also seized from various areas of the deceased’s body.

Background Information Regarding the Accused:

11. Mr. Langevin is a 40-year-old indigenous individual born in North York. He indicated that he was not aware of his Indigenous background until he was in high school when he obtained formal Indigenous status and took some courses in Indigenous music and language.

12. His parents were in a common-law relationship until they separated when he was five years old.

13. Mr. Langevin completed high school although he had to repeat grade 12 after having failed a number of classes. Upon completion of high school, he attended college and received a certificate in “advanced CNC setup, programming.” After obtaining that certificate, Mr. Langevin was sporadically employed but largely relied upon public assistance to support himself.

Substance Use History

14. Mr. Langevin started using cannabis in high school and continued using on a regular basis up to the time of his arrest on the index offences. He has indicated that he used approximately one ounce per month. He began consuming alcohol in grade school and continued to drink up to the time the index offences usually with his father.

Legal History:

15. Although, Mr. Langevin had no criminal record prior to the index offences, he had been charged with causing a disturbance, assault police and assault, which charges were later withdrawn.

Psychiatric History

16. Last year’s reasons for disposition summarize Mr. Langevin’s psychiatric history as follows:

Mr. Langevin appears to have been diagnosed with bipolar disorder around the age of twenty-three. The psychiatrists who assessed him subsequently in 2012 and 2013 both diagnosed Mr. Langevin with schizophrenia. Over the years prior to his index offences, psychiatrists and his family doctor, Dr. Mobilos, prescribed various antipsychotic mediations to treat the schizophrenia and side-effects, but Mr. Langevin was non-compliant with taking medications. Mr. Langevin was treated with Olanzapine while in custody.

Current Diagnosis

17. Mr. Langevin’s current diagnoses are schizophrenia and substance use disorder (alcohol and cannabis).

Evidence of Dr. Arnold

18. Dr. Arnold stated that:

• Mr. Langevin had been transferred to unit 3-3 in October 2024 and there had been no safety concerns over the reporting year. He noted that Mr. Langevin’s medication had been changed to an injectable form and that he appeared to be stable on this medication. However, he continues to have negative symptoms of his illness.

• Mr. Langevin works well with the staff and progressed steadily throughout the reporting year. His current pass level was at IV and he has recently been approved for level V. Although the team continues to work with him with respect to insight, there have been no concerns with respect to substance use.

• Mr. Langevin currently remains on a secure unit but that given his progress it was likely that he would be transferred to a general unit within the upcoming reporting year. The recommendation for the addition of community living in Mr. Langevin’s disposition was optimistic but given his progress community living was possible in the next reporting year. However, Mr. Langevin would likely require supportive housing.

• Mr. Langevin had been offered culturally appropriate therapeutic programming within the Hospital but so far had declined those programs. However, he had been involved in some spiritual and drumming programs although Dr. Arnold was not aware of specifically how those programs connected to indigenous services.

• Mr. Langevin states that he does not have clear recall of the events surrounding the index offences or the criminal charges that were withdrawn and there are some discrepancies between his recall and the evidence with respect to those events. Mr. Langevin also has limited insight into his illness as described in the Hospital Report at page 16.

• Mr. Langevin was currently not at a stage where discharge could be considered but should his progress continue the treatment team would begin a functional assessment of his needs for support in the community. Psychological assessments had shown that Mr. Langevin was low functioning in a number of areas and a functional assessment would be required prior to consideration for discharge. Dr. Arnold did not believe that it was necessary to require supervised housing in the disposition and that it would be sufficient to manage risk to require that housing be approved by the person in charge.

Final Positions of the Parties.

19. Both counsel for the Hospital and counsel for Mr. Langevin maintained their initial positions that Mr. Langevin continued to be a significant threat but that his risk could be managed under the terms of the current disposition with the addition of indirectly supervised community access and community residence in approved accommodation.

20. Counsel for the Attorney General advised that after having heard the evidence she continued to take the position that the current order should be maintained with the addition of indirectly supervised access to the community, but that community living should not be added. In her submission, it was very early in Mr. Langevin’s journey through the forensic system. There were currently too many unknowns and that his risk could not be appropriately managed in the community at this time.

Analysis and Conclusion, Significant Threat:

21. The Board finds that Mr. Langevin continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. He suffers from a long-standing major mental illness, schizophrenia as well as a lengthy history of medication noncompliance including at the time of the index offences. He continues to demonstrate poor insight into his diagnoses and the importance of antipsychotic medication to his mental stability. He also has a significant history of cannabis use which has been noted to exacerbate his psychotic symptoms and negatively impact his judgement. Although he has been both compliant with medication and abstinent from substance use for a prolonged period, this is in the context of residence on a secure hospital unit with a significant level of supervision and limited access to the community.

22. The Board finds that the evidence supports the conclusions of the risk assessment contained in the Hospital Report where it states:

In risk assessment, one of the best predictors of future violence is history of violence. If Mr. Langevin were to reoffend, it would likely be in the context of psychotic symptoms due to non-compliance to medication, substance use, and/or stressors leading to psychotic decompensation. In the absence of external monitoring, he would likely disengage with services due to his poor insight and become non-compliant with medication, which would increase his risk of psychotic symptom recrudescence. Mr. Langevin also has a history of substance use disorder, specifically cannabis and alcohol, which could further destabilize his mental status and exacerbate psychotic symptoms.

Analysis and Conclusion, Necessary and Appropriate Disposition:

23. The Board also finds that the evidence supports a finding that the necessary and appropriate disposition is a detention order on the Forensic Service on the same terms as the current Order but with the addition of indirectly supervised access to the community and community residence in approved accommodation. Mr. Langevin has made significant progress over the reporting year and has been compliant with medication as well as abstinent from substance use in a controlled environment. However, he has a lengthy history of nonadherence to medication as well as substance use exacerbating his psychotic symptoms. The Board agrees with the Hospital that the evidence supports a conclusion that a cautious and gradual introduction of privileges and passes with the support of social networks and his treatment team will allow Mr. Langevin to integrate safely back into the community.

24. The Board does not disagree with the comments from counsel for the Attorney General that it is early on in Mr. Langevin’s journey through the forensic system but notes the Hospital’s careful and gradual approach to increasing access to the community and is satisfied that the addition of the privileges as recommended by the Hospital can safely manage his risk to the community, the paramount consideration, as well as addressing his mental condition, reintegration into society and other needs.

Gladue Report

25. In the decision of Re: Cooper ([2024] ONCA 484) the court noted:

7The Board has a duty to search out, gather, and review all relevant and available evidence pertaining to the four factors, set out in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code, that are to be considered when making a disposition – namely, public protection, the mental condition of the accused, the reintegration of the accused into society, and other needs of the accused: Winko v. British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute), 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625, at paras. 54-55. In the case of an Indigenous NCR accused, in the absence of equivalent information, it is difficult to see how the Board can properly carry out its duties without a Gladue Report. We also note that while the parties can request it, only the Board can require the preparation of a Gladue Report.

8It is well-established that Gladue principles apply to proceedings before the Board: R. v. Sim (2005), 2005 CanLII 37586 (ON CA), 78 O.R. (3d) 183, at para. 16; Mitchell (Re), 2023 ONCA 229, at para. 23. The Board is required to take Gladue principles into account when considering the four factors set out in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code in the case of an Indigenous NCR accused.

9As this court explained in Mitchell (Re), at para. 22, in cases involving Indigenous accused persons, the Board is to engage in a “different method of analysis”, which “requires adjudicators to pay particular attention to the unique circumstances of Indigenous people detained in psychiatric facilities, and how those circumstances affect the four statutory criteria” under s. 672.54.

26. The Board finds that, in order to fulfil its responsibilities to “search out, gather and review all relevant available evidence” paying particular attention to the unique circumstances of indigenous individuals detained in psychiatric facilities, a Gladue Report is necessary. Accordingly, the Board orders the preparation of a Gladue Report which is to be made available to the parties as well as the Board prior to Mr. Langevin’s next annual review.