Re L. (J.-F.), 2026 CanLII 10968

Ontario Review Board

Re: L. (J.-F.)

ORB File No: 5679/5950

Hearing held on: Wednesday, November 19, 2025

Place of Hearing: Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre

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

Before:

Alternate Chairperson: Mr. P. Hageraats Members: Dr. S. Lessard Dr. R. Cormier Ms. M. Labrosse Mr. A. Bouvier

Accused: L. (J.-F.) Counsel: Ms. M. Lord

Person in charge of hospital: Representative: Dr. M. Strike

Attorney-General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. M. Dufort

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated January 8, 2026)

Introduction:

1. Mr. L. (J.-F.) was tried in Court on charges of sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching under 14 years, and sexual assault. In a separate case, he was tried on a charge of assault causing bodily harm. These are all offences contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada.

2. In each Court proceeding, expert psychiatric evidence established that Mr. L. (J.-F.) was suffering from a severe mental disorder when he committed the offences. In separate rulings, respectively dated August 12, 2010, and August 18, 2011, Mr. L. (J.-F.) was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (“NCR”).

3. Mr. L. (J.-F.) is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board (“ORB” or “the Board”), dated November 8, 2024, ordering his detention at the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre (“ROMHC” or “the hospital”).

4. The Disposition provided Mr. L. (J.-F.) with the privilege of living in the community in supervised accommodation, if first approved by the hospital.

5. On May 21, 2025, Mr. L. (J.-F.) appeared before the Board following the imposition of a significant restriction of liberty. By formal Decision dated June 4, 2025, the Board determined that Mr. L. (J.-F.)’s transfer from the hospital’s Forensic Rehabilitation Unit (“FRU”) to the more secure Forensic Assessment Unit was justified.

6. On November 19, 2025, the Board convened at the ROMHC to conduct an annual review. Mr. L. (J.-F.) attended in person. He was represented by counsel, Ms. Melanie Lord. Also present was the hospital’s social worker, Ms. Lindsay McLean.

7. The hearing proceeded in the French language. A hospital report, dated October 18, 2025, was filed in evidence. A second exhibit was filed at Mr. L. (J.-F.)’s request, a typed page titled “Information for my Lawyer”. In addition, the Board received direct testimony from the attending forensic psychiatrist, Dr. Melanie Strike.

8. The issues for this hearing are whether Mr. L. (J.-F.) represents a significant threat to the safety of the public, and, if so, to determine the disposition that is necessary and appropriate in the circumstances.

Positions of the Parties

9. The Board received a joint submission from all three parties. The issue of significant threat was not in dispute. The parties further advised it would be appropriate for the Board to have Mr. L. (J.-F.) continue under the same terms as appear in the current detention order.

10. For the reasons set out below, the Board adopted the joint submission.

Current Psychiatric Diagnoses, Hospital Report, p. 101

• Intellectual Disability, moderate intensity, secondary to Hypothalamus Hamartoma
• Tobacco Use Disorder

11. Mr. L. (J.-F.) is treated with psychiatric and anti-epileptic medications in oral form.

12. Mr. L. (J.-F.) remains incapable to consent to his psychiatric treatment. His mother continues as the substitute decision-maker (“SDM”).

Index Offences

13. The circumstances giving rise to the index offences are set out in previous ORB Reasons dated November 8, 2024, and in the hospital report. In summary:

The 2009 Offence

Mr. L. (J.-F.) was 22 at the time.

Ms. C. was 12 years of age when she first met Mr. L. (J.-F.) on October 31,2009 (Halloween night) at her residence after being introduced to him by her sister. Ms. C. fell in love with him. She went trick or treating while he accompanied her as she went door to door. With her parents’ permission later that same night, she attended Mr. L. (J.-F.)’s home in Casselman. He wanted to show her his apartment. Mr. L. (J.-F.) walked her home.

The following week, Ms. C. attended his residence after school where they watched movies. She never stayed the night.

On Saturday, November 7, 2009, Mr. L. (J.-F.) attended Ms. C.’s home at 9:00 a.m. and asked her to come for a walk. They went for a walk and afterwards to his apartment where they watched movies. They talked about “love,” and if either one wanted to get married or even have children one day. Eventually, this led to Mr. L. (J.-F.) asking her if she wanted to make love. She agreed and they went to his bedroom. They lay on the bed after their clothing was removed. They kissed. He asked her if she was interested in certain positions. She agreed to do it “doggy style.” She placed herself on « all fours » and he proceeded to penetrate her in the anus. There was no full penetration. She felt uncomfortable and uneasy and asked him to stop which he did immediately. Mr. L. (J.-F.) took his shower. Ms. C. got dressed and he walked her back home.

The victim stated that she and the accused were intimate on only the one occasion.

The 2011 Offence:

April 4, 2011, the Integra social worker, Mr. J.L., was driving Mr. L. (J.-F.) back home after running errands. The two were westbound on Route 500 West in Nation Township. Mr. L. (J.-F.) was in the front passenger seat. Before arriving back at the residence, Mr. L. (J.-F.) became anxious. He asked for his mother’s phone number. Mr. L. told him he would give him the number once they got there.

Mr. L. (J.-F.) yelled and swore at Mr. L. He punched him in the right temple. Mr. L. yelled at Mr. L. (J.-F.) to stop. Instead, Mr. L. (J.-F.) then grabbed Mr. L.’s face and poked him in the right eye with one of his fingers. He also grabbed the steering wheel, forcing Mr. L. to defend himself and try and maintain control of the moving vehicle at the same time. Mr. L. stopped in the middle of the road. Mr. L. (J.-F.) had his hand in Mr. L.’s mouth pulling him toward him and backwards.

With the vehicle still in motion, Mr. L. managed to pull over onto the opposite shoulder. He exited his vehicle and managed to flag down a motorist for assistance. He could not see out of his right eye and saw he had blood on his clothes. He flagged down an ambulance that happened to drive by. Paramedics treated his injury and transported him to the Ottawa General Hospital – Eye Institute. Mr. L. was operated on his right eye for a torn tear duct and a lacerated eyelid.

At the scene Mr. L. first told police he did not wish to pursue the matter criminally. Two days later, he changed his mind and requested that Mr. L. (J.-F.) be charged for assaulting him.

Background History

14. Mr. L. (J.-F.) is 38. He has lived in a hospital setting for many years. Since birth, he has suffered from a Hypothalamus Hamartoma (benign brain tumor). This congenital neuronal malformation is associated to treatment resistant epilepsy and intellectual developmental disability of variable intensity, along with behavioural disorder.

15. Mr. L. (J.-F.) lived with his mother until he was 10 when she had to place him due to his behaviour and aggressivity. Between 1997 and 2007, Mr. L. (J.-F.) lived in several foster homes due to these same behaviours. From July 2007, he lived in accommodation supported by the Children and Adult Services of Prescott Russell, an organization now called “Valoris”. He was a resident there at the time of the 2010 index offence.

16. Mr. L. (J.-F.) attended special classes up to grade 10. However, he remains illiterate and cannot read or write. He has had several short-term employment placements aimed at developing his abilities and structuring his time.

17. Since early childhood, Mr. L. (J.-F.) has been followed by a neuropsychological team. In 1993, when he was 6, a psychological assessment revealed significant intellectual and cognitive delays. Surgery on his tumor at the Children’s Hospital in Montreal in 1998 significantly reduced the frequency of Mr. L. (J.-F.)’s epileptic seizures. Despite this, he has continued to have sudden and unforeseeable aggressive attacks. Mr. L. (J.-F.) has received treatments in Ottawa, Montreal and Boston.

18. A psychological assessment in 2000 revealed the presence of a moderate to severe intellectual disability. A psychiatric assessment report issued in 2002 gave a diagnosis of behaviour disorder secondary to the neurological sequelae of the hypothalamic hamartoma. It was recommended he be placed in a therapeutic group home, focusing on behaviour modification. In 2003, a subsequent assessment confirmed that Mr. L. (J.-F.) suffers from severe intellectual disability.

Progress since the Index Offences

19. Following the separate NCR findings, Mr. L. (J.-F.) continued to live in one of the Valoris residences. He occupied a basement unit in a house for handicapped adults. Another patient lived on the ground floor. Staff provided direct supervision 70 hours per week, along with an emergency after-hours service.

20. Mr. L. (J.-F.) stayed at the Valoris residence until February 23, 2012, when he was admitted to the Montfort Hospital due to aggressive behaviour and threats of suicide. Valoris initially indicated they did not want Mr. L. (J.-F.) to return. Eventually however, they agreed to have him back. He was discharged back to their facility on March 30, 2012.

21. On June 21, 2012, Mr. L. (J.-F.) was readmitted to hospital, again due to aggressive behaviour. Valoris indicated they could no longer provide him with residential services. He continued to be detained in hospital until March 4, 2015, when he was discharged to Domaine Larose, a supervised residence managed by Valoris.

22. Between March 2015 and January 2016, Mr. L. (J.-F.) required six hospital admissions, generally because of aggressive behaviour. At times while at the ROMHC, he was kept on the more secure FAU, and at other times on the less secure FRU.

23. Following the annual review hearing held in October 2023, Mr. L. (J.-F.) continued to reside on the ROMHC’s FRU. His mental health remained stable. He did not present any aggressive or inappropriate behaviour. Mr. L. (J.-F.) participated in several activities and was described as doing well. Community outings were staff accompanied as it was felt that unsupervised passes could put the community at risk.

24. In April 2024, Mr. L. (J.-F.) was assaulted by a co-patient. While he did not suffer any injuries, he insisted the person be charged, and she was. This co-patient was removed from Mr. L. (J.-F.)’s unit for several months. Following her return, their relationship was good.

25. During the 2024 reporting year, Mr. L. (J.-F.)’s aggressivity increased. This was likely due to a lack of activities, although the treatment team was making efforts to find positive activities for his participation.

26. At last year’s review hearing, held on October 16, 2024, Dr. Strike advised the Board that Mr. L. (J.-F.) was otherwise well. The hospital was going to continue their efforts to find appropriate accommodation for him in the community. It was acknowledged this would be difficult given his special needs and the lack of funding for the special accommodation that his condition requires. The Board noted that changing Mr. L. (J.-F.)’s environment would be difficult for him and that any change needs to be done very slowly.

Recent Course, October 2024 to November 2025

27. In the Fall of 2024, while still on the Rehabilitation Unit, Mr. L. (J.-F.) was suffering from anxiety. He worried about future plans and was seen to getting more irritable. He had a conflicted relationship with an older female patient. They would go back and forth between friendship and feeling they were enemies.

28. In December 2024 and January 2025, the treatment team had concerns about Mr. L. (J.-F.)’s use of social media on Facebook. After some resistance, he agreed to give them his tablet to have Facebook removed.

29. In addition, the treatment team had to deal with issues of conflict arising when Mr. L. (J.-F.) was asked to do his own laundry.

30. On January 21, 2025, a staff member saw Mr. L. (J.-F.) violently strike another patient to the head using his fist. Mr. L. (J.-F.) was accusing the victim of beating women. The male victim was knocked down and suffered an injury.

31. Given the heightened risk of violence, involving increased behavioural difficulties, aggression and violence, Mr. L. (J.-F.) was soon transferred to the more secure FAU, where he remains.

32. Mr. L. (J.-F.) was charged with assault. He later appeared in Criminal Court and entered a guilty plea. The Court sentenced Mr. L. (J.-F.) to abide by a non-reporting term of probation for one year, which will end in July 2026.

33. The probation order also required Mr. L. (J.-F.) to have no contact with the victim, MF, and to not be within 25 metres of his person unless with the explicit consent of the treatment team.

34. In the Board’s Reasons for Decision dated June 24, 2025, dealing with the restriction of liberty, the Board noted that Mr. L. (J.-F.) is a vulnerable patient. He is prone to being negatively influenced by co-patients. The Board noted that others had convinced Mr. L. (J.-F.) that he was being mistreated by the hospital and were telling him he had been in hospital for too long.

35. Mr. L. (J.-F.) has gone on to repeat this to members of the treatment team more than once. At times, he will repeatedly question treatment team members about his discharge. He will insist he wants to move to his own apartment and register for school. It was in this background that Mr. L. (J.-F.)’s level of aggression had increased, leading to the difficulties observed in early 2025.

36. At the same restriction of liberty hearing held in May 2025, Dr. Strike testified that Mr. L. (J.-F.) was not yet ready for transfer back to the Rehabilitation Unit where he might otherwise have had access to a higher level of privileges.

37. Dr. Strike added it was then still very difficult to engage Mr. L. (J.-F.) into a discussion about his behaviour and aggression, given his inability to manage his emotions. Dr. Strike and the treatment team were working with him to increase his insight. The Board heard that the hospital was - without finally deciding the issue - looking at transfer options to have Mr. L. (J.-F.) go to another forensic facility, possibly to North Bay.

38. In May and June of 2025, the Board heard that the hospital was making plans to put a behavioural therapy program in place. Mr. L. (J.-F.) was on a wait list for Developmental Services Ontario (“DSO”) funding for a possible community placement. Although his case was deemed urgent, no suitable resource was likely to be available. Mr. L. (J.-F.)’s history of violence to residence staff further complicated his discharge back to the community.

39. In early July 2025, Mr. L. (J.-F.) returned to his mental baseline state. He was calm, followed the rules and routines of the unit without difficulty and had no relational problems with peers.

40. Mr. L. (J.-F.) seeks help from hospital staff when he feels cravings for tobacco. He has attended Smart Recovery groups for smoking cessation.

41. In July, Mr. L. (J.-F.) began participating in recreational therapy including with basketball, gardening, and playing cards with other patients. He has developed a good relationship with his occupational therapist and the assistants. Mr. L. (J.-F.) has been spending time with peers. He can be a positive influence on others, without becoming the victim of intimidation and without other interpersonal problems.

42. Mr. L. (J.-F.) continues to feel anxious about his long-term future. The treatment team keeps up their support. Despite ongoing worries, Mr. L. (J.-F.) has increased his participation in groups - including daily involvement in occupational therapy. By September 2025, Mr. L. (J.-F.) was doing much better managing his stress, anger, irritability and anxiety. He appeared to be much more at ease on the Assessment Unit than earlier when on the Rehabilitation Unit.

43. Mr. L. (J.-F.) kept up his progress in the months of September and October 2025.

44. The hospital social worker does regular check-ins with Mr. L. (J.-F.) about his anxiety regarding certain topics. The social work department is making efforts to find a suitable community placement with Development Services Housing. While Mr. L. (J.-F.)’s name has been put forward for a few vacancies, he has been turned away by homes who will not support individuals who are still bound by court-ordered probation.

45. Mr. L. (J.-F.) has talked about the assault he committed in January 2025. He will say that for him to go back to the Rehabilitation Unit where the offence took place would not be good. Mr. L. (J.-F.) has said he would still want to punch out the other co-patient. He does not like what he claims the other co-patient had done earlier.

Current Violence Risk Assessment

46. Dr. Strike made recent use of the HCR-20v3, structured clinical judgment instrument. Based on the various factors, including historical, clinical (present or recent) and risk management items, she is of the opinion that Mr. L. (J.-F.) presents a moderate to high risk of future violence.

Evidence at the Hearing

47. The Board also received direct testimony from Dr. Melanie Strike, forensic psychiatrist at the ROMHC. Dr. Strike is the author of the hospital report. She confirmed the contents and provided further explanations.

48. Dr. Strike testified that Mr. L. (J.-F.) is doing well. He engages very well with staff and peers on the Assessment Unit even though he does not like being there. Mr. L. (J.-F.) has been managing his stress in admirable fashion. He is able to speak about this with staff members and makes use of helpful strategies, such as going to his room on his own for isolation when he feels the need.

49. Mr. L. (J.-F.) exercises privileges on hospital grounds. He is accompanied by the outpatient worker, Julie, with whom he has a very good relation. Julie is with the Innovation Community Support Services Team (“ICSS”) funded by the Passport program.

50. The hospital is still trying to find an appropriate residence for Mr. L. (J.-F.). Mr. L. (J.-F.) remains subject to the probation order until July 2026. This presents administrative challenges when seeking approval of the agencies consulted.

51. Dr. Strike noted that Mr. L. (J.-F.) is in the category of those long-term hospital patients who are deemed to be at an “Alternative Level of Care”. In other words, these are patients who do not necessarily need to be in hospital but for whom no other residential options are available.

52. Dr. Strike confirmed that the victim of the January 2025 assault, MF, remains a patient on the Rehabilitation Unit. This prevents Mr. L. (J.-F.) from being returned there.

53. Dr. Strike testified that Mr. L. (J.-F.) is presently in a good environment on the Assessment Unit. They are not putting his name on the waitlist for transfer to the Rehabilitation Unit.

54. Smoking continues to be an issue. Mr. L. (J.-F.) still has cravings for tobacco. He keeps up some participation in the Smoking Cessation Group. He would like to be able to smoke at least two cigarettes daily.

55. Responding to a question from Ms. Lord, Dr. Strike conceded that group programs available on the FAU are more limited. Regarding the victim MF, Mr. L. (J.-F.) has told the treatment team he would not feel sure of himself if he returned to the same unit as MF.

56. Questions were asked about Mr. L. (J.-F.)’s wish to go to another unit, the Mood and Crisis Unit (“MCU”). It was suggested he might have more privileges there. Dr. Strike clarified: the MCU is not an option. If transferred to the MCU, Mr. L. (J.-F.)’s doctor would have to be changed. There is also the fact that resources available for Mr. L. (J.-F.)’s needs would be more limited in that setting.

57. The parties presented no further evidence.

Submissions of the Parties

58. On behalf of the hospital, Dr. Strike congratulated Mr. L. (J.-F.) for his significant improvements shown since the early Summer of 2025. Mr. L. (J.-F.) has succeeded in improving several risk factors over the past six months. Dr. Strike noted Mr. L. (J.-F.)’s ability to engage well with the treatment team. He has been managing his anger and has made a good start at handling interpersonal relations with appropriate limits. The hospital hopes there will be some movement at obtaining suitable housing appropriate for his developmental needs. Dr. Strike stated, Mr. L. (J.-F.) knows he is doing much better than before.

59. Counsel for the Attorney-General, Ms. Dufort, supported the hospital recommendation to have the current disposition continue without change as did Mr. L. (J.-F.)’s counsel, Ms. Lord.

60. Ms. Lord reminded the Board that Mr. L. (J.-F.) has remained on inpatient hospital status since he was last in an approved group home with Valoris. This goes back to 2012. Ms. Lord stated, it is most regrettable that Mr. L. (J.-F.) continues such status.

61. His case is complex. Ninety percent of the time, he is calm and polite, indeed as we all could see when Mr. L. (J.-F.) appeared before the panel. He engaged appropriately and in a quiet friendly manner. Ms. Lord stated that Mr. L. (J.-F.) does not enjoy being where he is, but he is doing well. Outings with his worker, Julie, help and offer him something to look forward to. Regrettably, Ms. Lord submitted, the current detention order remains necessary and appropriate.

Conclusions and Disposition

62. Based on the evidence and long history, the Board had no difficulty coming to the unanimous conclusion that Mr. L. (J.-F.) continues to represent a significant threat as that term is defined in the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Winko. The Board concludes, with some regret, that a continuation of the current detention order remains necessary and appropriate. It remains the least onerous and least restrictive disposition that is available in all the circumstances.

63. It is very much to the credit of Mr. L. (J.-F.) that he has made real progress since his arrival on the Forensic Assessment Unit in January 2025. By all accounts, the FAU appears to be a safe and therapeutic placement for him.

64. That said, we agree with Mr. L. (J.-F.) that this is not where he wants to be, or even possibly, where he needs to be.

65. The Board took careful note of Mr. L. (J.-F.)’s typed single page document, “Information for my Lawyer” filed as Exhibit 2. It reads as follows:

From L. (J.-F.)

• I have been doing good things since I’ve been on FAU.
• I do not fight with anyone, anymore.
• If I get stressed, I walk away and tell my nurse.
• I do not want to stay on Forensics.
• I would like to go to a unit, like mood and crisis.
• I want to know what other options are available for me, off Forensics.
• I want to go for smokes.
• I like spending time with my ICSS worker.
• I want to be able to go to the mall and get a drink (* not necessarily alcohol).
• I know I cannot go upstairs to rehab, because M. is still there.
• What else can I do to help make it off the forensic unit?

66. Considering Mr. L. (J.-F.)’s progress, with the encouraging news that he is developing greater insight and ability to manage his conduct, the Board strongly urges and encourages the hospital to do all it can to advance Mr. L. (J.-F.) in his quest moving forward to an appropriately supervised form of supportive accommodation in the community.

67. Mr. L. (J.-F.) remains bound by the Court’s probation order. It is dated July 2025 and will continue until July 2026. The reality of Mr. L. (J.-F.)’s situation is described to us by Mr. L. (J.-F.)’s counsel, namely: the Probation Office cannot offer Mr. L. (J.-F.) any services. His is a non-reporting order.

68. In such a light, we have difficulty understanding why Mr. L. (J.-F.) is disentitled to admission at an appropriately supervised community facility.

69. For these reasons, having regard to the primary need to keep the public safe, and considering Mr. L. (J.-F.)’s mental condition, his reintegration and other needs, a renewed detention order is provided. The hospital will retain its discretionary power to approve and monitor Mr. L. (J.-F.)’s placement in the community.

70. We thank Dr. Strike and the treatment team members for their dedicated efforts. We commend Mr. L. (J.-F.) for the good work he has been doing and encourage him to continue.

71. The panel expresses our thanks to both counsel for their assistance.

DATED this 8th day of January 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.

Mr. P. Hageraats Alternate Chairperson

__________________

Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board