Ontario Review Board
Re: Jason Larose
ORB File No: 2639
Hearing held on: Tuesday, September 16, 2025
Place of Hearing: Ontario Review Board
Via Zoom Video Conference
Pursuant to: Sections 672.81(1) and 672.69 of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Ms. L. Banks
Members: Dr. K. Hand
Dr. S. Wiseman
Ms. K. Tomaszewski
Mr. R. Rainboth
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Jason Larose
Counsel: Ms. M. Perez
The person in charge of the
Hospital: Counsel: Ms. J. Lefebvre
Attorney-General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. J. Amenise
Correctional Services Canada
Representative: Dr. A. Allman
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated September 22, 2025)
Introduction
On December 12, 1997, Mr. Jason Larose was found not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder (“NCR”) on charges of trespass by night and possession of burglary tools. On August 2, 2002, while under an Ontario Review Board (“ORB” or the “Board”) Disposition, Mr. Larose was found guilty of second-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with no chance of parole for 10 years. As a result of this conviction, Mr. Larose became a dual status offender.
Mr. Larose is currently subject to a Disposition of the ORB dated June 26, 2023, which directs that Mr. Larose be detained at the Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care – High Secure Provincial Forensic Programs (“Waypoint” or the “hospital”), Penetanguishene, Ontario at the end of his period of incarceration.
At his 2023 annual ORB hearing, all parties agreed that the time for holding Mr. Larose’s the next hearing to review his Disposition would be extended to 24 months from the date of its issuance, pursuant to section 672.81(1.1) of the Criminal Code.
On September 16, 2025, a panel of the ORB convened a hearing by Zoom video conference to make a Disposition as required pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. The issues to be decided at this hearing are whether Mr. Larose meets the test of posing a significant threat to the safety of the public and, if so, a decision as to the necessary and appropriate Disposition to be made in the circumstances, including conditions to be attached to that Disposition, bearing in mind the four factors set out in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
At the outset of the hearing, Ms. Perez advised that her client wished to be excused from the hearing, and she further advised that she had instructions to proceed in his absence. All parties were content to proceed on this basis. Accordingly, the Board made an order under s. 672.5(10)(a) of the Criminal Code to excuse Mr. Larose from the hearing.
For the reasons set out below, the Board unanimously finds that Mr. Larose represents a significant threat to the safety of the public. The Board finds that the necessary and appropriate Disposition is that Mr. Larose shall be subject to his existing Detention Order Disposition at Waypoint when he is no longer subject to a term of imprisonment.
Index Offence
- The circumstances of the index offence are extracted from the ORB Reasons dated June 26, 2023, as follows:
“NCR - Trespass by Night and Possession of Burglary Tools
The accused apparently had been hearing voices from the devil from the summer of 1996 telling him to hurt people. He felt compelled to obey these voices. On December 21, 1996, he claims that he was again directed by the voices to hurt someone. He took a knife and put it in his coat and went out with the intention of hurting someone. He had stated that the person he was trying to find was someone who owed him money. He knew what the person looked like but didn’t know his name. He broke into an apartment building with the use of the knife and commenced looking for the person to beat him up. He wasn’t able to find the person. He indicated that this time he came to his senses and wondered what
he was doing in the apartment building. The superintendent had been watching the accused on a closed-circuit TV and phoned the police. The accused was arrested as he was walking home."
Criminal Offence Conviction
- The following is a description of the charge for which Mr. Larose was convicted:
“Conviction - 2nd Degree Murder
The accused was detained at the Royal Ottawa Health Care Group (Brockville Hospital Division) pending his transfer to Oak Ridge Division of the Mental Health Centre, Penetanguishene. While detained at Brockville, the accused and the victim, Peter Wayne Morin, share the same room on Oxford III. On October 9, 1999, the accused approached the nursing staff and indicated to them that Mr. Morin had asked the accused to kill him. Mr. Morin denied ever having made this request. During the same month, the accused was noted to have made several requests to hospital staff for a satanic Bible or a satanic priest.
On October 23, 1999, at approximately 11:40 p.m., the accused approached the
nursing office on Oxford III and informed the nurse on duty that he had just killed his roommate, Peter Wayne Morin. When asked by the nurse why he would have done so, the accused replied “I had to. It was a ritual killing.”
The accused was convicted on a charge of second-degree murder on August 22, 2002, and sentenced to life in prison.”
Initial Positions of the Parties
The Alternate Chair confirmed with the parties that the purpose of the hearing was an annual review of Mr. Larose’s Disposition and not a placement hearing. All parties were in agreement.
Ms. Lefebvre appeared for Waypoint. She advised of Waypoint’s position that Mr. Larose remains a significant threat to public safety, and if the Board so found, the necessary and appropriate Disposition is for Mr. Larose to be subject to a Detention Order at the High Secure Provincial Forensic Program at Waypoint when he is no longer subject to a term of incarceration.
Ms. Armenise appeared for the Attorney General. She indicated the Crown’s support for the hospital’s position.
Ms. Perez appeared for Mr. Larose and indicated that she was not disputing the issue of significant threat and was not challenging the continuation of his current Disposition. Ms. Perez advised that her client requested that his next ORB Disposition hearing be conducted approximately 24 months from today's date. Counsel for the hospital and the Crown concurred with that request.
In final submissions, all parties maintained their initial joint recommendation to the Board.
Background Information
The documents included in the Record and Exhibits for this hearing contain detailed information regarding Mr. Larose’s personal, criminal and psychiatric history and need not be repeated at length here. Briefly stated, Mr. Larose was born and raised in Ottawa. His father, now deceased, originated from the Timiskaming Reserve in Quebec and was a survivor of the Residential School System and Child Welfare System. Mr. Larose was not exposed to his Indigenous culture until the age of 14 when he entered the correctional system and began learning about traditional beliefs and values.
Mr. Larose witnessed his father's physical abuse towards his mother on several occasions as a young child. His parents separated when he was five years old and thereafter, he primarily resided with his mother. He lived with his father for a brief period, which was described as an abusive and unstable living situation.
Mr. Larose’s behaviour as a child and adolescent was characterized by aggression and assaults, property crimes and substance abuse. He became involved in criminal activity from around the age of eleven and spent periods of time in custody. Of note, he experienced sexual abuse by a female staff member while residing at a youth detention centre. File information also indicates Mr. Larose was also abused by a male in his neighborhood who paid him and his friends for sexual acts. He has also disclosed a history of being sexually abused by several men known to his mother between the ages of 6-15.
Mr. Larose has a significant history of alcohol and drug use. He reported that his father began offering him alcohol (beer) as early as age 7 and that he independently used both alcohol and drugs by 13 years of age. He has used or experimented with marijuana, LSD, crack cocaine, gasoline, and solvents.
Mr. Larose reports that he achieved the equivalent of Grade 9 in the community. He has a very limited work history other than his institutional employment. He was employed as a general worker at Edmonton Institution.
In terms of social supports, Mr. Larose maintained regular contact via telephone with his mother until her passing in late 2022.
Mr. Larose was married while in federal custody in 2019. He met his wife while they were both incarcerated at Regional Psychiatric Centre (“RPC”) in Saskatoon. They sent each other letters via the institutional mail.
Mr. Larose does not have any recent experience living in the community as he has been incarcerated for most of his adult life.
Criminal History
According to the Assessment for Decision dated December 2, 2024 (“2024 Assessment”), Mr. Larose’s criminal behavior began as a young offender at age 11 and continued throughout his teenage years. He was involved in criminal activities such as car thefts, stealing credit cards and assaults and had been sentenced to both open and closed custody settings.
At age 15, he returned home with conditions but incurred additional charges (car theft, failure to comply and drug-related charges) that resulted in placement at the Innis Road Detention Centre for five months, Brookside facility for three months and then Portage Ontario for an alcohol residency treatment program. After two months there, he escaped and was deemed to be unlawfully at large until he was eventually returned to the program.
Mr. Larose self-reports that his first violent conviction was in 1994 when he assaulted a peer while at the Portage Ontario facility. File information also refers to an assault on his mother where he reportedly hit her while she was phoning the police to inform them that he had violated his curfew. Mr. Larose has also acknowledged that he has been involved in other violent altercations that did not result in criminal charges or convictions.
In 1997, Mr. Larose was found NCR in respect of charges of Break and Enter and Possession of Break in Instruments. He was then ordered detained at the Brockville Psychiatric Hospital where he committed his index offence of Second-Degree Murder of his roommate in 1999.
In July 2021, Mr. Larose was convicted of Assault – Intentional Use of Force where he repeatedly punched another patient at RPC. He received a 3-month sentence for this offence.
In October 2022, Mr. Larose was again convicted of Assault – Intentional Use of Force when he punched another inmate in the head and torso multiple times while at the RPC in Saskatoon. He received a sentence of 6 months for this offence.
In September 2024, Mr. Larose was convicted of Assault to Prevent Execution of Process. He assaulted a correctional officer at the Saskatchewan Penitentiary by placing the officer in a headlock. He pled guilty and was sentenced to 30 days concurrent for this offence.
The documentation before the Board indicates that Mr. Larose has been involved in numerous security-related incidents throughout his time in incarceration. He has a history of institutional violence towards other inmates as well as threatening behaviors towards correctional officers. His behavior has resulted in institutional charges, placement in administrative segregation, and institutional transfers.
Psychiatric History:
Mr. Larose’s mental health diagnoses are contributing factors to his criminal offending, and he has demonstrated that when suffering from symptoms of his illness, his potential for violence has increased.
According to the testimony of Dr. Allman, Mr. Larose’s current diagnoses as recorded in the Correctional Services Canada (“CSC”) diagnostic registry, are:
Persistent Depressive Disorder;
Schizoaffective Disorder (provisional); and
Polysubstance Use Disorder (provisional).
- In reply to a question posed by the Alternate Chairperson, Dr. Allman advised that Anti-social Personality Disorder is not listed in his diagnosis registry.
Evidence at the Hearing
The Board admitted into evidence a number of CSC documents including, the Psychological Risk Assessment Report dated November 28, 2024 (the “Psychological Assessment”), the Assessment for Decision dated December 2, 2024, an Updated Correction Plan dated April 28, 2025, and an Assessment for Decision dated June 26, 2025 (the “2025 Assessment”). These documents provide a considerable amount of detail covering many years of Mr. Larose’s detention in the penitentiary service.
According to the testimony of Dr. A. Allman, the representative of CSC, following Mr. Larose’s last ORB hearing on June 14, 2023, he remained detained at Saskatchewan Institution in the maximum secure section of that facility. File records indicate he was working as a housekeeper five days per week. He was transferred from the Saskatchewan Institution to the Regional Psychiatric Centre (“RPC”) on October 15, 2024 and he remained detained there until October 28, 2024 when he was returned to Saskatchewan Institution.
On February 13, 2025, Mr. Larose was transferred to the Edmonton Institution. On April 15, 2025, he was transferred to the Structured Intervention Unit (“SIU”) at Edmonton Institution. Most recently, on August 1, 2025, Mr. Larose was transferred to the Kent Institution in British Columbia where he remained detained on the hearing date.
The Psychological Assessment indicates that “… in recent years Mr. Larose had demonstrated increasing concerns of violence including assaults on other offenders, as well as threatening and disruptive behavior toward staff and co-inmates and institutional subculture involvement. He had required a significant level of staff intervention and operations management during the preceding 24-months, having been involved in 19 institutional incidents.” The Psychological Assessment concluded that while his risk of violence has attenuated somewhat over the years, it remained assessed as “moderate to high”
We note that Mr. Larose was convicted of assault to prevent execution of process on September 11, 2024 and was sentenced to 30 days concurrent. As referenced above, he assaulted a correctional officer at Saskatchewan Institution on April 19, 2024 by placing him in a headlock.
Further, the 2024 Assessment indicates that on October 27, 2024, while detained at RPC (Prairies), Mr. Larose responded to a co-inmate’s taunting by punching him numerous times. As a result, he was transferred from RPC to Saskatchewan Institution.
On April 14, 2025, while detained at Edmonton Institution, Mr. Larose assaulted an inmate. The victim had been Mr. Larose’s intimate partner but the victim had recently ended their relationship. As a result of the assault and Mr. Larose’s ongoing threats to “do whatever it takes” to affect a transfer, Mr. Larose was transferred from Edmonton Institution to the SIU at Edmonton Institution on April 15, 2025. The rationale for the transfer was to ensure the safety of his fellow inmates. It was determined that Mr. Larose could not be safely managed within the mainstream prison population of that institution.
When referencing Mr. Larose’s engagement with programming, the 2025 Assessment indicates that “He has not participated in any coaching sessions with the Behavioural Skills Coaches; however, he has completed the Motivational Module –SIU with the Indigenous Correctional Program Officer. He has recently begun engaging with the provisions of the Indigenous Initiatives Department, where he has. participated in traditional Indigenous ceremonies including Smudging and Prayer. Overall, he has not been consistently meeting his daily entitlements of two hours of meaningful interaction time and four hours of time outside of his cell. He is encouraged to participate in all interventions offered to him, to assist with working towards integrating into mainstream population.”
Since Mr. Larose’s transfer to the SIU, he has not incurred any institutional charges nor has he been involved in any security-related incidents. He has been compliant with his prescribed psychiatric medications. His behaviour in the SIU was described as “settled”
With regard to Mr. Larose’s diagnosis of Polysubstance Use Disorder, the Updated Correctional Plan notes that: “Substance abuse was not historically a problem for LAROSE during his incarceration as he has several earlier urinalysis tests listed on file since the commencement of his sentence with no positive results. However, increased concerns in this area have appeared recently. Out of the last five urinalysis tests asked of him, LAROSE has refused three of them and had a positive result occur from a test from April 2024; the positive result was for Buprenorphine. LAROSE most recently refused a urinalysis test in January 2025. With this number of refusals, it can be speculated that there may be issues with substance use concerns.”
It was noted that in May 2024, Mr. Larose was found in a condition other than normal. He had slurred speech, was incoherent, unstable on his feet, red faced and had bloodshot eyes. Substance use was suspected. Of note, the 2025 Assessment indicates “There is a link established between Mr. Larose’s offending and his substance use.”
The Updated Correctional Plan notes that Mr. Larose’s mental health has been stable. Mental Health Services indicated that he is prescribed psychotropic medication and is routinely monitored by EI psychiatrists. When compliant with his prescribed medications, the symptoms of his illness are well-controlled.
In terms of eventual community reintegration, the 2024 Assessment indicates that Mr. Larose has been incarcerated for most of his adult life and accordingly, a gradual structured release is recommended once he is able to demonstrate a prolonged period of stability and progress, with no incidents of concern. He will have to demonstrate sustained progress within a medium and then a minimum-security institution. At the present time, his reintegration potential is assessed as “low”.
52 To Mr. Larose’s credit, since his last ORB hearing, he has participated in a number of programs and has engaged well in vocational placements. As well, he has completed several vocational certificates such as First Aid/CPR, Food Safety, WHMIS, Working at Heights and Chainsaw Safety that will be upon his eventual transfer to the community.
In addition to the documentary evidence, the Board heard from Mr. C. Offin, who was Mr. Larose’s institutional parole officer at SIU Edmonton Institution from April 15 to July 31, 2025. Mr. Offin authored the 2025 Assessment for Decision. He advised that SIU is designed to house inmates who are not able to be managed in the maximum-security prison setting. Mr. Offin stated that his primary goal was to expedite Mr. Larose’s transfer out of SIU to a non-SIU setting. He commented that SIU is not intended as a long-term placement. Mr. Larose consented to his transfer to Kent Institution, a maximum-security setting.
Mr. Offin testified that SIU placements are utilised when inmates cannot be safely managed in mainstream federal prison populations because of the risks they pose to their own safety or to the safety of others. When placed in a SIU, an inmate has his own cell with personal items and is able to access the yard and shower. An inmate in SIU is monitored by mental health care professionals. In response to questions posed by the Alternative Chairperson, Mr. Offin confirmed that inmates placed in SIU are essentially in “segregation” but they are able to spend approximately 4 hours daily outside of their cells for programming, therapy sessions and other approved activities. As well, they are typically allowed 2 hours daily of interactions/interventions or culturally appropriate programming.
While detained in SIU, Mr. Larose reportedly managed well and availed himself of his entitlements by accessing the phone and showers and unstructured time on the range, out of his cell. Mr. Offin testified that Mr. Larose was able to effectively communicate and he interacted appropriately with staff members and other inmates. He noted that Mr. Larose was accepting of program recommendations and interventions; however, Mr. Offin commented that Mr. Larose has low frustration tolerance and is prone to act out with spontaneous aggression.
When questioned as to whether or not Mr. Larose is insightful, Mr. Offin commented that Mr. Larose has some insight into his challenges, but he is quick to absolve himself of responsibility for his assaultive behaviours.
When asked what Mr. Larose’s mental health needs were, Mr. Offin stated he was not the best suited to answer that question as he is not a mental health professional; however, he commented that Mr. Larose has limited ability to regulate his emotions and can resort to physical violence very quickly.
Mr. Offin confirmed, in response to questions posed by counsel for the hospital, that Mr. Larose’s transfer to SIU was prompted by a violent assault he perpetrated on a previous intimate partner. Other inmates at Edmonton Institution expressed being fearful of Mr. Larose given the severity of the assault he perpetrated.
Mr. Offin stated that while in SIU, Mr. Larose was able to complete the Motivational module. He also interacted with the Elders of the Indigenous program. Mr. Offin was not aware of the content of these programs.
Mr. Offin confirmed that substance use remains a risk factor for Mr. Larose. He commented that on May 14, 2025, while in SIU, Mr. Larose’s incoming mail contained illicit contraband.
The 2025 Assessment recommended that Mr. Larose be transferred from Edmonton Institution’s SIU to Kent Institution in order to “alleviate his SIU status”. That report indicates that the Case Management team believes that Mr. Larose is a maximum-security offender (as opposed to a medium -security offender) “… due to his ongoing tendency to react to negative stimuli via violent actions. He has mental health considerations which act as a responsivity issue and continue to require him to be managed within the confines of a maximum-security institution.” Mr. Offin endorsed the conclusion that Mr. Larose presents as a maximum-security offender primarily due to the fact that he engages in episodic and unpredictable acts of violence.
Mr. Offin commented that throughout Mr. Larose’s time in SIU, he adhered to SRU protocols and did not present with any challenging behaviours or rule violations.
The Board also heard evidence from Mr. G. Watkins, an institutional parole officer at Kent Institution, who has been involved in Mr. Larose’s case since August 1, 2025, when Mr. Larose was transferred to that facility.
Mr. Watkins stated that Mr. Larose resides in his own cell in the mental health unit at Kent Institution which houses 20 mental health offenders. He advised that Mr. Larose is followed by a mental health team at Kent Institution which includes: a psychologist, social workers, and mental health nurses. Mr. Larose also has access to a psychiatrist on an as-needed basis. Mr. Larose has been encouraged to submit a mental health report to request additional mental health supports, if needed. Presently, he attends twice-weekly morning group therapeutic and/or recreational programs run by the mental health workers.
Mr. Watkins advised that, to date, all of his interactions with Mr. Larose have been appropriate and he noted that Mr. Larose has been well engaged. Mr. Larose was recently approved to be a peer mentor worker with the Aids Bleach project; however, Mr. Watkins was unable to expand on that initiative. Mr. Larose has been waitlisted for the Institutional Maintenance program as well as Adult Education level 3.
Mr. Watkins advised that Mr. Larose has not presented with any behavioural concerns since his recent arrival at Kent Institution. Specifically, he has not engaged in any incidents of violence nor has he incurred any institutional charges. There have been no instances of substance use nor has Mr. Larose been observed in an altered state of consciousness. Mr. Larose has not yet undergone any urine drug screens at Kent Institution.
Mr. Watkins testified that Mr. Larose has self-reported being compliant with his prescribed medications. Mr. Watkins is not aware of Mr. Larose not maintaining adherence to his prescribed mental health medications. Mr. Watkins advised that morning medications are administered to the inmates by mental health nursing staff; however, he was not certain if Mr. Larose’s medications were administered under staff supervision or if they were self-administered.
In response to a question raised by a panel member, Mr. Watkins confirmed that Mr. Larose is identified as being of Indigenous heritage but he commented that Mr. Larose has not yet engaged with the institution’s Indigenous Initiatives team.
No further evidence was called by the parties.
Analysis and Conclusions
Significant Threat
The Board is unanimous in accepting the joint submission of the parties that Mr. Larose continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. Mr. Larose’s stated diagnosis is Persistent Depressive Disorder and his provisional diagnoses Schizoaffective Disorder and Polysubstance Use Disorder. It is clear that when experiencing psychotic symptoms, he has engaged in significant violence and aggression. Absent suffering from the symptoms of his mental illness, Mr. Larose has engaged in significant acts of violence. He was convicted of second-degree murder in 2002. Additionally, Mr. Larose’s history is replete with significant incidents of institutional violence. His mental health diagnoses remain contributing factors to his offending, and when presenting as unstable, Mr. Larose has demonstrated that his potential for violence increases. Additionally, his behaviour has regressed in the last few years as evidenced by his involvement in several violent incidents over the past few years. Mr. Larose most recently assaulted a fellow inmate in April 2025, prompting his transfer to a more secure custodial environment.
In making its determination, the panel has also been mindful of Mr. Larose’s historical and clinical risk factors as set forth in the documentary evidence before the Board. In this panel’s assessment, Mr. Larose continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public.
Disposition
The Board finds that the necessary and appropriate Disposition, as well as the least restrictive and least onerous, is that Mr. Larose shall be subject to a Detention Order Disposition at Waypoint on the terms of his existing Disposition should he cease to be subject to a term of imprisonment.
The Board finds that a Detention Order Disposition confers upon the hospital two critical risk management tools that will be crucial to Mr. Larose’s safe management when he is released from custody. The first is that the Detention Order confers upon the hospital oversight with regard to Mr. Larose’s placement in the community to ensure that he will be adequately monitored, supervised and supported. Additionally, it allows the hospital to promptly readmit Mr. Larose to the hospital should he evidence any signs of decompensation, whether as a result of non-adherence to his medications, relapse to alcohol or substance use, breakthrough symptoms, or otherwise.
Finally, the panel concurs with the request of the parties and accepts that it is both necessary and appropriate that Mr. Larose’s next review occur approximately 24 months from today’s date.
In making this Disposition, the Board has taken into consideration Mr. Larose’s mental status, his reintegration into society, his other needs and, the paramount need of the safety of the public.
DATED this 22nd day of September 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Ms. L. Banks
Alternate Chairperson
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board