Re: Donald Louis, 2026 CanLII 10966

Ontario Review Board

Re: Donald Louis

ORB File No: 7526

Hearing held on: Monday, November 17, 2025

Place of Hearing: Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre

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

Before:

Alternate Chairperson: Ms. M. Labrosse

Members: Dr. W. Komer Dr. R. Cormier Mr. P. Hageraats Mr. A. Bouvier

Parties Appearing:

Accused: Donald Louis Counsel: Mr. G. Murray

Person in charge of hospital: Representative: Dr. J. Hwang

Attorney-General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. J. Wright

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated January 7, 2026)

Introduction

1On April 15, 2019, the accused, Donald Louis, was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (“NCR”) on five counts of assault, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada.

2Mr. Louis is currently subject to an Ontario Review Board disposition dated November 6, 2024, detaining him within the Secure Forensic Unit of the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre on terms and conditions including permission to live in the community in accommodation approved by the person in charge.

3On November 17, 2025, a panel of the Ontario Review Board (“ORB”) convened a hearing at the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre, hereinafter referred to as the hospital, to review Mr. Louis’ most recent disposition pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Louis attended his hearing and was represented by counsel, Mr. G. Murray. An updated hospital report dated October 27, 2025, was entered as Exhibit 1 for the hearing.

4At the outset of the hearing, Mr. Murray requested an appointment as counsel to represent Mr. Louis at the hearing, which appointment was granted pursuant to s. 672.5(8)(b) of the Criminal Code.

5The issues for this hearing are whether Mr. Louis continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public, and if so, to determine the necessary and appropriate disposition having regard to the factors enunciated in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.

6At the commencement of the hearing, the parties were canvassed as to their preliminary positions for the hearing at which time the Board was presented with a joint submission that the maintenance of the current disposition remains necessary and appropriate and least onerous and least restrictive for the coming year. The parties maintained their positions at the conclusion of the hearing.

7For the reasons set out below, the Board finds that Mr. Louis continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the maintenance of the current detention order on the same terms and conditions remains necessary and appropriate for the coming year.

Index Offences

8Between January 2, 2019, and January 15, 2019, Mr. Louis assaulted five female persons who were walking on different streets in the City of Ottawa. The assaults were on strangers and were unprovoked. Some of the victims had been shoved to the ground. None suffered injuries.

Background History

9Mr. Louis’ personal, legal and psychiatric history is set out in detail in the hospital report. Briefly summarized, Mr. Louis is currently 44 years of age and was born in Haiti. At the age of eleven he moved to Canada and lived with his father and stepmother until the age of sixteen. He lived in shelters between the ages of sixteen and eighteen. As an adult he resided in several rooming houses and is well known to shelter staff at the Shepherds of Good Hope and the Ottawa Mission.

10Mr. Louis dropped out of school in grade ten.

11Mr. Louis has used cannabis on a regular basis since around age sixteen. Prior to his incarceration for the index offences, he smoked crack cocaine frequently. Mr. Louis has often stated that he would like to quit crack cocaine for good but wants to continue using cannabis because he believes it does not negatively affect him.

12With respect to his criminal history, Mr. Louis was convicted of possession of property obtained by crime under $5000 and robbery in December 2015. He received a suspended sentence and twelve months’ probation.

13With respect to his psychiatric history, Mr. Louis has had multiple psychiatric admissions to hospital due to agitation or aggressive behaviour associated with psychotic symptoms including disorganized behaviour, disorganized thinking, and hallucinations. He was previously on a community treatment order in 2009, which was subsequently discontinued based on his adherence to a long-acting injectable antipsychotic medication.

14Mr. Louis’ current diagnoses include schizophrenia, multiple episodes, currently in partial remission, cocaine use disorder, severe, and cannabis use disorder, severe.

Evidence at the Hearing

15The hospital’s evidence was presented through its report dated October 27, 2025, and through the oral testimony of Dr. J. Hwang who has been Mr. Louis’ attending psychiatrist since July 2024, having taken over Mr. Louis’ care from Dr. J. Gojer. This evidence is summarized below.

16Mr. Louis has continued to reside in the community in his own apartment for which he receives support through the Salus SSHP Program. Mr. Louis has a Salus Case Manager, Robin Deschamps, who meets with him regularly in the community and at his home.

17Dr. Hwang advised that Mr. Louis’ attendance at the hospital for appointments with her deteriorated between June 2025 until October 27, 2025, though he continued to attend at the hospital for his long-acting injectable (“LAI”) and to provide urine drug screens, though often a few days late.

18For that period between the end of June and the end of October 2025, when he did not attend his meetings with Dr. Hwang, Mr. Louis would typically say that he was not attending appointments because of a problem that he is experiencing with his eyes which he believes is causing him blindness. Mr. Louis was told by Dr. Hwang that he would not be deemed suitable for independent living if his blindness was causing him such significant impairment. Mr. Louis claims to be able to continue to look after his activities of daily living but says that he is unable to do more intricate duties such as cleaning his apartment or arriving on time for appointments.

19Dr. Hwang stated that Mr. Louis has been generally disengaged in his appointments with her. He also refuses to engage with other treatment team members such as an occupational therapist which was recommended to him to enhance his engagement. Mr. Louis has even declined to engage in telephone communications with the occupational therapist and refused to attend any appointments.

20In early January 2025, Mr. Louis had failed to attend appointments at the hospital for more than a month and was more than a week late for his LAI injection. It was reported that Mr. Louis presented as more irritable and more disorganized, and accordingly, a Form 49 was issued to bring him into hospital on January 8, 2025. He was not apprehended when police attended his home as he did not open the door but eventually attended the hospital of his own volition later that day.

21Mr. Louis tested positive for cocaine and cannabis. Though he presented as more symptomatic in terms of irritability and disorganization, Dr. Hwang found that Mr. Louis did not meet the criteria for a Form 1 admission under the Mental Health Act despite the presence of these symptoms. The treatment team seriously considered admitting Mr. Louis to hospital, however there were no available beds.

22Though Mr. Louis’ symptoms improved over the course of the next month, he remained disengaged with the treatment team. Despite receiving education on the detrimental effects of cocaine and cannabis on his mental health, he believes that these substances alleviate his headaches.

23In the opinion of Dr. Hwang, Mr. Louis is not optimally treated at this moment. She has recommended an increase in the frequency of his long-acting injectable antipsychotic, namely Aripiprazole which he currently takes every 28 days. Dr. Hwang recommended that the frequency increase to once every 21 days, which Mr. Louis declined. Currently, Mr. Louis remains capable of consenting to treatment and has refused to increase his medication.

24Dr. Hwang believes that a detention order continues to be necessary and appropriate to manage the risk given that Mr. Louis is not optimally treated, that he continues to use cocaine and cannabis, and that he is poorly engaged with the hospital treatment team.

25In response to questions posed to her by counsel for the Attorney General, Mr. Wright, Dr. Hwang advised that another UDS result for the month of October was positive for cannabis and cocaine.

26Dr. Hwang stated that the hospital continues to attempt to engage Mr. Louis, however he is not demonstrating any internal motivation to do so. In addition to trying to engage him through an occupational therapist, the hospital has also offered to sign up Mr. Louis for OC Transpo to assist him in attending the hospital more assiduously. Unfortunately, none of this has worked so far.

27Dr. Hwang confirmed that over the course of the past year there has been a slight decline in Mr. Louis’ ability to continue living independently, however he has so far not demonstrated any aggression despite not being adequately treated and despite his poor engagement.

28In response to questions posed to her by counsel for Mr. Louis, Mr. Murray, Dr. Hwang responded as follows:

(a) Dr. Hwang acknowledged that Mr. Louis’ engagement with his Salus Case Worker, Robin Deschamps, is better than his engagement with the hospital and that this is likely because Ms. Deschamp comes to him as opposed to having him travel to meet with her.

(b) Mr. Louis’ disengagement has increased over the course of the past year and is significantly worse following his NCR finding and early in his tenure under the Board.

(c) Dr. Hwang confirmed that the hospital does not know what Mr. Louis was doing during that period of June to October 2025, when he was refusing to meet with her, but coming to hospital for his LAI and UDS and continuing to see his Salus Case Manager, Ms. Deschamps.

(d) The hospital does not know what Mr. Louis’ drug-taking habits are.

(e) With respect to the prognosis for his vision issues, Mr. Louis has been encouraged to attend to see an optometrist which is likely more accessible than waiting for an appointment with an ophthalmologist. Based on the information that she has, Dr. Hwang understands this to be a treatable condition, however until such time as Mr. Louis makes an appointment, no further information is available.

29In response to questions posed to her by members of the hearing panel, Dr. Hwang acknowledged that even though Mr. Louis is not following any of the hospital recommendations, the treatment team has been able to manage him safely in the community as there are no reports of any aggressive or violent behaviour so far.

30Dr. Hwang acknowledged that Mr. Louis would be better managed as an in-patient and that the hospital had planned to admit him when the Form 49 was issued. Even with the increased risk, the hospital is unable to secure a bed because of shortages and other bed priorities.

31Dr. Hwang added that Mr. Louis’ functioning at the time of the index offences was significantly worse than it is now that Mr. Louis is taking medication. Given that Mr. Louis does not meet the criteria for a Form 1 under the Mental Health Act, it is not an option to have him admitted at another hospital. Dr. Hwang stated that the hospital has considered admission to Brockville, however that hospital is also dealing with a long wait list.

32Finally, Dr. Hwang stated that Mr. Louis reports taking his Olanzapine approximately four times a week though it is prescribed for daily use.

33The hospital’s risk assessment is found at page 68 of the hospital report and is summarized as follows:

“Based on this assessment, Mr. Louis presents as a Moderate risk for future violence. The most likely scenario involving risk of violence would be Mr. Louis developing psychotic symptoms in the context of substance use, medication non-compliance, or combination of the two factors. The psychotic symptoms may include persecutory delusions where he would target those who he believes are sources of his difficulties.”

34No further evidence was presented.

Analysis and Conclusion

35Having considered all of the evidence tendered at the hearing, and the submissions of the parties, the Board finds that Mr. Louis continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public as defined in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code of Canada, and as further defined in Winko v. British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute), 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625.

36According to R. v. Winko, a significant threat to the safety of the public means a real risk of physical or psychological harm to members of the public that is serious in the sense of going beyond the mere trivial or annoying. The conduct giving rise to the harm must be criminal in nature.

37Our finding that Mr. Louis continues to meet the threshold of significant threat to the safety to the public is based on his long-standing psychiatric history and the fact that he suffers from a psychotic illness that is exacerbated by ongoing drug use. Mr. Louis committed a violent index offence involving multiple assaults on random women, while in a psychotic state.

38Mr. Louis demonstrated poor insight into his illness and the need for treatment. He is not following recommendations of his treatment team and has become considerably more disengaged from treatment. He refused to meet with his treating psychiatrist for several months in the past year and is not fully adherent to his medication.

39The uncontroverted and expert evidence of his treating psychiatrist, Dr. Hwang, is that Mr. Louis has further disengaged over the past year and that he is not optimally treated. The hospital has wanted to admit Mr. Louis to hospital but there are no available beds due to bed pressures and priorities. Because he does not meet criteria for a Mental Health Act admission, it is not possible to have him admitted to a non-forensic hospital.

40If this situation persists or worsens, it raises serious questions as to whether Mr. Louis can continue to be managed in the community. Mr. Louis is barely managing as it is. He has been living with a bedbug infestation because of his inability to organize himself for proper remediation of this situation. He is also experiencing issues with his vision and has so far not been able to make an appointment to see a specialist. Coupled with his poor engagement with treatment and his ongoing stimulant drug and cannabis use, this situation has the appearance of “an accident waiting to happen”, though it is acknowledged that there have not yet been any reports of aggression or violence on the part of Mr. Louis.

41We find that the detention order continues to be required to manage the risk to the public. The hospital must be able to intervene promptly should the situation require it, as well as to continue to manage Mr. Louis’ living accommodations.

42We have taken into consideration the factors at section 672.54 of the Criminal Code of Canada, namely the protection of the public, which is the paramount consideration, the mental condition of the accused, his reintegration into society and his other needs in coming to the unanimous finding that that a detention order, on the same terms and conditions, remains the necessary and appropriate, and the least onerous and least restrictive disposition in all of the circumstances.