Re: Micheal Spence
ORB File No.: 6048
Hearing held on: Wednesday, January 21, 2026
Place of hearing: Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. J. Weinstein
Members: Dr. K. Hand Dr. J. C. Rose Hon. E. Kruzick Mr. R. Rainboth
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Michael Spence Counsel: Ms. E. Morris
The person in charge of hospital: Representative: Dr. E. Leinonen
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. S. Frenette
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated February 18, 2026)
Introduction:
On January 25, 2012, Mr. Michael Spence was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, on charges of aggravated assault and failure to comply with probation order, both contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (“Criminal Code”).
Mr. Spence is subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the “Board”), dated February 3, 2025, which ordered that he be detained at the Secure Forensic Unit of the Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre (“TBRHSC”), Thunder Bay, Ontario. This Disposition provided Mr. Spence with certain privileges, including the ability to live in the community, in “supervised” accommodation approved by the person in charge.
Mr. Spence was present at the hearing and was represented by counsel, Ms. E. Morris.
A Hospital Report dated January 7, 2026 (the "Hospital Report") was entered as Exhibit 1.
The issues at this hearing were whether Mr. Spence is a significant threat to public safety, as defined in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code, and, if so, the necessary and appropriate Disposition in the circumstances must be determined, bearing in mind the factors enunciated in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
For the reasons set out below and based on the expert evidence and opinions before us, the Board concluded that Mr. Spence continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. The Board found that the necessary and appropriate Disposition in the circumstances is the continuation of a Detention Order, with a change to paragraph 2(e), to now permit Mr. Spence to live in the community, in accommodation approved by the person in charge.
Current Psychiatric Diagnoses:
Schizophrenia
Alcohol Use Disorder
Cannabis Use Disorder
Cocaine Use Disorder
Index Offences:
- The circumstances giving rise to the Index Offences are extracted from last year’s Board Reasons, as follows:
“On November 8, 2011, the Nishnawbe Aski Police received a call request to attend from Hearst Ambulance Service in regards to a male subject stabbed at location. Police attended the residence of 6 Ma-chitch, Constance Lake, and entry was made via the front and rear doors. The accused was located seated on the couch in the living room. A sweep of the upstairs was conducted at which time no other persons were located. Police located the victim, TW, in the basement of the residence. The victim suffered a stab wound to his left side lower abdomen. The victim reported that his brother, the accused, had stabbed him with a black handle knife. The accused was arrested for assault with a weapon. The accused advised that the knife used in the stabbing was placed in the kitchen sink. The suspect was removed from the residence where he was placed in the rear of the police vehicle. The knife was seized by police.”
Position of the Parties:
- Dr. Leinonen, as representative of the Hospital and most responsible physician, recommended a continuation of the existing Detention Order with one change to Mr.
Spence’s privileges: Mr. Spence would now be permitted to live in accommodation “approved by the person in charge” rather than in “supervised” accommodation.
Counsel for the Attorney General agreed that Mr. Spence continues to represent a significant threat to public safety and that a Detention Order is appropriate. However, she wished for a continuation of the existing Detention Order as is, with no change to the requirement to live in “supervised" accommodation.
Counsel for Mr. Spence took no position on the issue of significant threat. Should the Board find that Mr. Spence does represent a significant threat to the safety of the public, she would adopt the recommendations of the hospital.
Course Since Last Disposition:
- Mr. Spence’s course since his last Disposition is set out in detail in the Hospital Report. The following extracted paragraphs are relevant to this hearing:
“Mr. Spence for the past year has been residing at the Forensic TRHP home at Andras Court (Unit This 4-bed unit has supervision 24/7. Mr. Spence tends to get along quite well with the staff and there have been no major issues or concerns this past year while he has been residing there; other than his ULOA and substance use which is mentioned below in notable incidents.
Mr. Spence continues to struggle with substance use. He typically will deny experiencing any cravings or urges to use substances but when substances are easily accessible, Mr. Spence will occasionally accept. Additional support has been offered to Mr. Spence in regards to his relapses with substance use but he typically declines this. As a result of the substance use, Mr. Spence’s community access was reduced at Andras Court, and will slowly be increased as the team feels appropriate.
Notable Incidents:
There are four notable incidents to report this past year for Mr. Spence. All four incidents involved substance use.
On Saturday, March 8, 2025, Mr. Spence failed to return to Andras Court for night curfew. Mr. Spence was deemed ULOA. He returned to Andras Court on his own on Sunday, March 9, 2025, around 1100. The nurse who was working made the decision to allow Mr. Spence back into Andras Court. Vital signs and a mental status was completed. Mr. Spence admitted to cocaine and weed use during the ULOA. He met with his Psychiatrist (Dr. Leinonen) on Monday, March 10, 2025, to discuss the ULOA and substance use. Mr. Spence’s community privileges at Andras Court were reduced on March 10, 2025.
On June 6, 2025, the John Howard staff working at Andras Court suspected client to be under the influence of substances as Mr. Spence returned from a community pass and was observed to be stumbling and had trouble remembering where he had gone and what he had did on his pass in the community. It was noted that Mr. Spence lost his wallet and phone as well. Case manager went and saw Mr. Spence later that day; he denied using any substances. A urine drug screen was collected. A few days later, Mr. Spence disclosed to outpatient staff that he used salvia on June 6, 2025.
On September 14, 2025, and September 15, 2025, Mr. Spence admitted to crack cocaine use on both these days. Mr. Spence admitted to using crack cocaine while out on his community passes with friends he has made. Mr. Spence met with his Psychiatrist (Dr. Leinonen) on Tuesday, September 16, 2025, to discuss his substance use. His community privileges at Andras Court were reduced and the frequency of urine drug screens increased.
Mr. Spence went on an authorized LOA to visit family in Constance Lake, ON, from November 30, 2025, to December 4, 2025. He disclosed to Forensic staff that on Monday, December 1, 2025, he drank alcohol and used substances while in Constance Lake, ON. Mr. Spence could not remember all the details from that evening and night but he admitted to drinking alcohol until he was ‘blacked out’ and reported substance use, although he could not recall what substances he took. Mr. Spence reported he was with his brother when the alcohol and substance use occurred. He as well missed two days of his scheduled oral medications during this LOA. Mr. Spence’s community privileges at Andras Court were reduced due to the alcohol and substance use.
Involvement with Community Agencies:
Mr. Spence is well engaged with the Forensic Outpatient Team. He continues to participate in group therapy twice weekly, which is facilitated by Social Work and Psychology. Mr. Spence will participate in weekly outings with Social Work for various activities and to socialize.
FSHP workers remain connected with Mr. Spence and offer support when required or requested.”
Evidence at the Hearing:
- The Board had available to it the evidence and documents forming the Record, the Exhibits, and oral evidence from Dr. Leinonen. Dr. Leinonen is Mr. Spence’s treating psychiatrist, and he co-authored and adopted the Hospital Report. He testified as follows:
a) Mr. Spence has resided in the community during the past reporting year, which should be considered a positive step. Mr. Spence also initiated participation in a Cree language course, a pro-social activity, and another positive development. The treatment team is hoping that Mr. Spence will also seek part-time employment in the coming reporting year
b) Mr. Spence’s main barrier to progress within the forensic system has been his repeated incidents of substance use, leading to a pattern of starts and stops in his rehabilitation. These incidents have required adjustments to his community access privileges. Substance use is identified as a key factor increasing Mr. Spence’s risk to public safety, especially when combined with his unauthorized absences from supervised settings.
c) Mr. Spence lives with a severe, persistent mental illness (schizophrenia). He has variable insight into his condition, his need for medication and his need to remain abstinent from substances.
d) The factors detailed above are highlighted in the Risk Assessment, starting on page 64 of the Hospital Report. Mr. Spence also has a long history of criminal charges. They, and the serious nature of the Index Offence, contributed to the conclusion that Mr. Spence continues to represent a significant threat to public safety.
e) The treatment team believes that, while Mr. Spence requires active management and oversight they have provided, there is potential for him to be safely managed in less-supervised, approved accommodation within the next 12 months. The hospital would proceed gradually and closely monitor his transition to new housing.
f) The Hospital Report detailed four notable incidents involving substance use. They included unauthorized absences and use of cocaine, cannabis, salvia, and alcohol, all of which resulted in the reduction of Mr. Spence’s privileges. The notable incidents were often reported to the treatment team by staff at Andras Court. Mr. Spence has also sometimes reported his own use of substances.
g) The active management and supervision of both the treatment team and the staff at Andras Court is credited with preventing more serious or sustained episodes of decompensation.
h) The Hospital is recommending the change from “supervised accommodations” to “approved accommodations” in Mr. Spence’s Disposition, as it would allow for more flexibility in housing options and could serve as a motivation for his continued progress.
i) The treatment team is confident that they can ensure Mr. Spence’s continued abstinence from substances, even at a residence with less supervision than at Andras Court, by maintaining frequent contact and monitoring, including drug screening.
j) A transition to accommodation with less supervision would only happen if Mr. Spence demonstrated continued stability and progress.
k) Mr. Spence’s substance use is a primary risk factor; it would exacerbate his psychotic symptoms and increase his risk of violence, jeopardizing public safety.
l) The treatment team’s management and close monitoring of Mr. Spence are essential in maintaining his stability and protecting public safety.
m) The team recognizes that Mr. Spence has the potential for greater independence, but they also acknowledge his need for ongoing support and a gradual transition to any new accommodation.
n) If Mr. Spence were to be granted an Absolute Discharge or a Conditional Discharge, the risk to the safety of the public would be greatly increased. Even with all the support he has received from the treatment team, the Hospital Report describes multiple notable incidents, including several unauthorized leaves from Mr. Spence’s current supervised residence. He has previous criminal charges for failure to comply, possession of weapons, and assault, and the Index Offence was very serious and violent. For all these reasons, and those set out in the Hospital Report, Dr. Leinonen believes that Mr. Spence continues to represent a significant threat to public safety.
- In response to questions from the Attorney General, Dr. Leinonen testified:
a) Mr. Spence’s substance use is a persistent and significant issue. The incidents in the past year have been isolated, but each required active management by the hospital team to prevent any increased risk to public safety.
b) Substance use is identified as a key factor that elevates the risk to public safety, especially when combined with unauthorized absences from supervised settings. The risk is further increased because Mr. Spence relies on daily oral medication, in addition to long-acting injectables; missing doses due to unauthorized leave could exacerbate his psychotic symptoms and increase his risk of violence.
c) The hospital team’s active management and close monitoring are credited with preventing more serious or sustained episodes of decompensation.
d) The Hospital Report suggests that, although there were four notable incidents this reporting year, they had all been contained and managed effectively.
e) The hospital recommends a cautious transition from “supervised,” to “approved,” accommodation, to increase flexibility in housing options. The treatment team hopes to transition him, cautiously, to what is known as “supervised housing,” which does not have staff on site 24-7. They are not proposing unsupervised accommodation as Mr. Spence’s next step. The team will retain the authority to increase supervision of Mr. Spence, if needed, and any move to less supervised housing would only occur if Mr. Spence demonstrated ongoing, and sustained, stability.
f) Substance use is a significant risk factor, as it would exacerbate Mr. Spence’s psychotic symptoms, mood changes, agitation, and irritability. In the past, substance use has led to increased aggression and inappropriate behaviours.
g) Mr. Spence’s insight into the impact of substance use on his mental health is limited and fluctuating. He sometimes acknowledges the risk of using substances, at other times minimizes it, and occasionally expresses ambivalence.
h) The team is encouraging Mr. Spence to engage in pro-social activities and vocational activity as part of his rehabilitation.
i) The Hospital Report’s Risk Assessment remains valid and relevant; it indicates that, without supervision and monitoring, there is a real risk that Mr. Spence’s mental state would decompensate, creating the potential for serious criminal acts. It continues to be the hospital’s position that a Detention Order is necessary to protect public safety.
- In response to questions from counsel for Mr. Spence and from the Panel, Dr. Leinonen testified:
a) Even though the recommended Disposition no longer specifies “supervised accommodation,” the hospital would still retain full discretion to require Mr. Spence to remain at Andras Court, or another supervised setting, if clinically indicated.
b) Any transfer to housing with a lower level of supervision would only occur if Mr. Spence were stable and if the team were confident that public safety would not be compromised. The process would be gradual, with intermediate steps, rather than an abrupt transition from 24-7 supervision to no supervision.
c) During the four notable incidents of substance use in the past year, Mr. Spence did not exhibit suicidal or homicidal ideation, perceptual disturbances, agitation, or threatening behaviour; however, their absence is likely due to close monitoring, and active management, by the team.
d) Mr. Spence remains independent in his activities of daily living, which is a key reason for recommending the change to “approved accommodation.” The treatment team believes that, with continued support, Mr. Spence can safely transition to less restrictive housing.
e) Mr. Spence receives significant one-on-one and group programming, focused on substance use and relapse prevention. He has expressed no interest in attending a residential treatment program.
f) The Hospital Report’s Risk Assessment remains valid, and the hospital maintains that ongoing supervision and the authority to approve housing are necessary to manage risk to public safety. The Mental Health Act is not sufficient to address the risk posed by Mr. Spence’s substance use.
g) The following paragraph from the Risk for Violent Reoffending Assessment, conducted by Ms. Kristine Lake in 2021, is still true and valid today:
“Mr. Spence has a history of problems and violence within his family of origin. Problems with substance use have also been significant, though he seems to minimize this for the most part. He has consistently experienced difficulties related to supervision and treatment, in that he violated his conditions on several occasions and his ability to engage in supportive services or treatment has been limited. Previous episodes of violence appeared to be related to his psychiatric symptoms and his behaviour. When Mr. Spence is complying with his medication and abstaining from substance use, he presents as relatively stable and seems to function reasonably well. If Mr. Spence were able to consistently manage his substance use and psychiatric condition, it is possible that his risk for violence re-offending would be low. Unfortunately, his previous history and apparent limited insight (e.g., severity of substance use, appropriate supports, and treatment needs) would suggest that Mr. Spence is at high right for treatment noncompliance and continued substance use.
This would likely lead to destabilization and impair his ability to self-regulate and to make appropriate decisions. This would suggest that his risk for violent re-offending is more likely to be at least moderate (according to the definition of ‘violence’ employed by the HCR-20v3) outside of a structured, supported, and secure environment.”
h) The hospital requires the ability to approve Mr. Spence’s housing, to ensure that he remains abstinent from substances and to monitor his oral medication, especially since he has gone AWOL in the past.
i) The risk that Mr. Spence would decompensate as a result of using substances or missing his medication is real, and it represents a significant threat to public safety. If Mr. Spence were to use substances, he would likely decompensate in a matter of days or weeks. The timeline would depend on the nature of substances used, as well as the quantity, and frequency, of use. Mr. Spence obtains substances from the street, not from a legal dispensary, and it is not uncommon for such substances to be adulterated.
j) Use of substances would not, in itself, be enough to trigger the operation of the Mental Health Act. Even if Mr. Spence were admitted to a hospital under the Mental Health Act, most hospitals’ general practice is to discharge patients as soon as they become stable. The Mental Health Act is more reactive than proactive.
k) Mr. Spence has a proven history of decompensating when using substances. The safety of the public could not be ensured by anything less than a Detention Order. Should Mr. Spence get a Conditional Discharge or an Absolute Discharge, there is a real risk that he would commit a serious criminal act. This risk cannot be described as speculative, but as real. If Mr. Spence were to decompensate, it is unlikely that he would return to, or stay in, the hospital voluntarily.
l) The treatment team would like Mr. Spence to engage in some meaningful activity to provide structure in his day. Mr. Spence has held many senior positions in the past. The team hopes that reducing the required level of supervision in his accommodation will serve as a motivating factor for him.
- No other evidence was called.
Analysis and Conclusions:
Having heard and considered the entirety of the evidence, as well as submissions from the parties, the Board finds that Mr. Spence remains a significant threat to the safety of the public.
In Winko, the Supreme Court outlined that, in coming to the conclusion on the issue of significant risk, a Review Board should closely examine a range of evidence, including: the circumstances of the original offence; the past and expected course of the accused’s treatment; the present state of the NCR accused’s medical condition; the NCR accused’s own plans for the future; the support existing for the NCR accused in the community; and most importantly, the recommendations provided by experts who examined the NCR accused. In reaching our conclusion in this matter, the Board relies on the uncontroverted expert evidence of Dr. Leinonen, as well as the documentary evidence before us, to find that Mr. Spence remains a significant threat to public safety.
Mr. Spence lives with a major psychiatric illness, schizophrenia. In addition, he has a history of abuse of substances, including cannabis, cocaine, alcohol, opiates, and hallucinogens.
The Hospital Report outlines four notable incidents between March and December 2025. The most recent one resulted in an unauthorized leave of absence from his supervised accommodation, from November 30to December 4, 2025. During this time, he missed two days of his scheduled oral medications.
Mr. Spence has a history of nonadherence with treatment recommendations. Mr. Spence continues to request a decrease in his medications and occasionally questions their necessity.
In particular, the Board relies on the Risk for Violent Re-Offending Assessment, which the doctor confirmed remains accurate today, as set out in detail in these reasons.
Finally, the Board relies on the doctor’s answers, in paragraphs 15 (f)-(k), to conclude that Mr. Spence continues to represent a significant risk to public safety.
In light of the Board’s finding of significant threat, it is charged with shaping a Disposition for the coming year. It is clear from the Hospital Report and the doctor’s evidence that the hospital needs to retain the ability to approve of Mr. Spence’s housing; this control allows the treatment team to monitor his mental stability and to make sure he remains abstinent from substances, in particular. The uncontroverted evidence before us is that Mr. Spence’s four notable incidents all involved either cannabis, salvia, crack cocaine, or alcohol; the early intervention of the treatment team was the only factor that limited this use and prevented Mr. Spence from becoming a significant threat to public safety.
The Board accepts the doctor’s uncontroverted evidence that: the Mental Health Act would not be sufficient to protect the safety of the public: and Mr. Spence would not voluntarily return to hospital, nor stay there should his mental state decompensate.
The doctor was unequivocal that there is a real likelihood that Mr. Spence would commit a serious criminal act, posing a high risk to public safety, if he were to be subject to a Conditional or an Absolute Discharge.
The last issue before the Board was whether it would be appropriate to allow Mr. Spence to live in “supervised” accommodation, as opposed to “accommodation approved by the person in charge.” The Board recognizes that the safety of the public is the paramount consideration; however, it still must craft a Disposition that is necessary and appropriate in the circumstances, as well as the least onerous and least restrictive option. Mr. Spence is currently living in 24-7 supervised accommodation. The hospital has said that his next step would be to what they call “supervised” accommodation, which does not have staff on site 24-7. Any transition to less supervised accommodation would be made gradually and cautiously, and only after Mr. Spence has demonstrated stability and progress in the community. The hospital would not even consider a transfer to independent living until well towards the end of his next reporting year. We agree that allowing Mr. Spence the potential to live in less supervised accommodation, and eventually to independent living, could serve as a motivator. Accordingly, the Board agrees with the hospital’s recommendation.
In consideration of all the evidence, submissions of the parties and criteria set forth in s. 672.54, the paramount consideration being the safety of the public, in addition to the mental condition of Mr. Spence, his reintegration into society, and his other needs, the necessary and appropriate Disposition is to continue with the Detention Order, with one amendment regarding the type of appropriate accommodation.
DATED this 18th day of February 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.
Mr. J. Weinstein Alternate Chairperson
__________________ Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board