Re: Jonathan Michaud
ORB File No: 7378
Hearing held on: Wednesday, January 7, 2026
Place of hearing: Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre
Pursuant to: Sections 672.81(1) and 672.81 (2.1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Ms. M. Labrosse
Members: Dr. S. Lessard
Dr. G. Boulais
Mr. D. D’Intino
Ms. K. Brisson
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Jonathan Michaud
Counsel: Mr. G. Campbell
The person in charge of hospital: Representative: Dr. S. Gulati
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. J. Wright
REASONS FOR DECISION & DISPOSITION
(Dated February 20, 2026)
Introduction
On June 7, 2018, Mr. Jonathan Michaud was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, on one count of second-degree murder, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (“Criminal Code”).
Mr. Michaud is subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the “Board”), dated January 17, 2025, which ordered that he be detained within the Secure Forensic Unit at the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre (“ROMHC”).
By letter dated August 22, 2025, the Board was notified by the Person in Charge of the Hospital that Mr. Michaud was transferred from the Rehabilitation Unit to Forensic Assessment Unit, resulting in a loss of privileges for greater than seven days.
On January 7, 2026, a panel of the Ontario Review Board (“ORB”) convened in person and a hearing was held at the ROMHC. The purposes of the hearing were to determine if Mr. Michaud continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public as defined in the Criminal Code of Canada, and if so, the necessary and appropriate disposition, as well as to determine if the restriction on his liberties was and remains necessary and appropriate.
For the reasons set out below, the Board unanimously finds that Mr. Michaud meets the threshold for significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a continuation of his current Detention Order Disposition with some changes to its terms and conditions.
The Panel also finds that the initial and ongoing restriction of Mr. Michaud’s liberty was, and remains, necessary and appropriate.
Current Psychiatric Diagnoses:
Schizophrenia
Antisocial Personality Disorder
Stimulant Use Disorder, Severe
Cannabis Use Disorder, Moderate
Alcohol Use Disorder, Mild
Index Offences:
- The facts giving rise to the index offences were set out in last year’s Reasons for Disposition and are summarized as follows:
“On April 5, 2015, while living in his mother’s home in Cornwall, Mr. Michaud took his mother’s life. He stabbed her and left her on the couch covered under a blanket.
Mr. Michaud then left the home to wander about different locations in Cornwall and surrounding areas. Upon speaking soon after about his actions to a family member, the police were called. Officers found the deceased on the couch where Mr. Michaud had left her in the still locked residence.”
Without Prejudice Positions of the Parties:
At the commencement of the hearing, the parties were canvassed for their initial positions.
The Hospital took the position that Mr. Michaud meets the threshold for significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate Disposition was a continuation of the existing Detention Order with a change to its terms that would allow for him to be in the community in a 50km radius for the purpose of employment, while deleting term 2(e) as redundant. The Hospital also took the position that the initial and ongoing restriction of Mr. Michaud’s liberty was and remains necessary and appropriate.
Counsel for the Attorney General anticipated supporting the Hospital’s position.
Counsel for the accused also supported the Hospital’s position and thus the Board was presented with a joint submission.
Evidence at the Hearing:
The Board had available to it the evidence and documents forming the Record, the Exhibits, and oral evidence from Dr. Gulati.
Dr. Gulati testified that Mr. Michaud’s restriction of liberties (“ROL”) is ongoing because he has not yet regained the privileges, he enjoyed prior to his transfer from the Forensic Rehabilitation Unit (“FRU”). That transfer occurred in late December 2025 and was ongoing as of the date of the hearing because, although Mr. Michaud was transferred back to the FRU, he had not yet regained his privilege milieu.
The reason for the transfer – causing the resultant reduction in privileges – was that while on the Rehabilitation Unit Mr. Michaud had repeated use of illicit substances, despite being warned about the consequences of using same. Since his transfer to the Forensic Assessment Unit (“FAU”), Dr. Gulati told the Panel that there have been no recent instances of substance use by Mr. Michaud.
Dr. Gulati told the Panel that if Mr. Michaud continues to make progress, that the treatment team expects Mr. Michaud to regain level 4-6 privileges in the next 6-8 weeks.
The reason for the change sought to the Detention Order terms allowing for Mr. Michaud to travel up to 50kms in the community is for the purpose of pursuing employment, which the hospital does support.
Dr. Gulati testified that he does not see community living being a reasonable possibility in the coming year, but if sufficient progress is made, the hospital would ask for an early annual hearing.
In response to questions from the Crown, Dr. Gulati agreed that the Hospital Report mentions a sexual assault allegation by Mr. Michaud against a female co-patient that allegedly took place in November of 2025. Dr Gulati told the Crown that the hospital was unclear as to what the status of the investigation is.
There was a further incident with the same female copatient after that and both parties were thereafter separated onto separate units while the investigation and legal process plays out. Dr. Gulati stated that neither he nor the treatment team had any concerns for the public at large vis-à-vis any potential sexual offending.
In response to questions from Mr. Campbell, Dr. Gulati agreed that if Mr. Michaud were able to work in the community, that his financial situation would improve, and he would have greater housing options. Dr. Gulati also agreed that having employment, even in a part-time capacity, would be a protective factor for Mr. Michaud’s stability.
In response to questions from the Panel about what he thought triggered some concerning behavioural incidents in the fall of 2025, Dr. Gulati opined that it was a function of his antisocial personality disorder and the fact that Mr. Michaud does not appreciate being confronted or any increased scrutiny that occurs when he breaches the rules of the hospital.
Dr. Gulati further testified that the initial restriction of liberty was necessitated by substance use. Mr. Michaud has slowly begun to regain his privileges – he was approved for level 3 privileges the day prior to this hearing – and Dr. Gulati expected it to take approximately six weeks to move to the next privilege level provided that Mr. Michaud does not revert to his old habits.
In respect of why a Detention Order was the necessary and appropriate, least onerous and least restrictive disposition, Dr. Gulati explained that while in a fairly restrictive environment, there have been numerous incidents of verbal intimidation, physical intimidation, aggression of various kinds, bringing drugs on the unit and otherwise compromising the integrity of the unit.
Dr. Gulati concluded by saying that if Mr. Michaud were on a less restrictive disposition, he would be concerned as to whether Mr. Michaud would continue to take his medication and fall away from treatment.
At the conclusion of the evidence, the parties maintained a joint submission with respect to the continuation of the Detention Order and all parties also agreed that the initial and ongoing restriction of liberty was and remains, necessary and appropriate.
However, Crown Counsel opposed the hospital’s recommendation that the community radius be extended to 50km.
Analysis and Conclusions
Having heard and considered the entirety of the evidence as well as the submissions from the parties, the Board finds that Mr. Michaud does meet the threshold for significant threat to the safety of the public and finds that a continuation of the existing Detention Order Disposition is the least onerous and least restrictive, necessary and appropriate Disposition in the circumstances.
Moreover, the Panel agrees that both the initial and ongoing ROL was and remains necessary and appropriate.
Finally, the Panel accepts the hospital’s recommendation that the radius contained in the Detention Order can be extended to 50km.
Beginning by addressing the issue of significant threat, a significant threat to the safety of the public cannot be speculative. It must entail a real risk of serious physical or psychological harm arising from conduct that is both serious and criminal in nature.
In determining whether Mr. Michaud represents a significant threat to the safety of the public, the Board has carefully analyzed the evidence as it relates to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Winko, 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625 and the definition of the term in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code.
Mr. Michaud suffers from schizophrenia, several substance abuse disorders and antisocial personality disorders, all of which are challenging to manage even with Mr. Michaud residing in a secure forensic environment. For example, while on the Forensic Rehabilitation Unit Mr. Michaud was involved with repeated relapses into substance abuse, noncompliance with urine drug screening and behavioural challenges which necessitated his transfer to the Forensic Assessment Unit and triggering the ROL.
In 2025, there were several incidents of concerning behaviour displayed by Mr. Michaud in respect of bringing illicit substances onto his unit and also in respect of a female copatient, culminating in an investigation into a sexual assault allegation made by the female copatient against Mr. Michaud.
The Hospital Report suggests that Mr. Michaud continues to lack insight into the destabilizing effects of illicit substance use on his mental status. When under the influence of substances, he becomes verbally aggressive and has threatened to bring substances into the hospital when his needs are not met. The last two annual reports highlight concerns about not only aggression, but “sexual bullying”, deceptive behaviours and describe Mr. Michaud as a “ringleader” in regard to rule-breaking behaviour.
The Panel also notes that the index offence was one of extreme violence which resulted in the death of Mr. Michaud’s mother.
The Panel finds that there was uncontradicted evidence on the record that supports the position of the hospital that Mr. Michaud remains a significant threat to the safety of the public.
Thus, the Panel agrees with the parties that the least onerous and least restrictive, necessary and appropriate Disposition is that of a continuation of the existing Detention Order.
As it concerns the radius condition, the Panel finds that employment would be a protective factor for Mr. Michaud and that extending the radius to 50km would assist in Mr. Michaud’s search for work.
That being said, the Panel expects the hospital to proceed with caution as it concerns Mr. Michaud’s return to competitive employment, given the concerns raised by the hospital concerning his behaviour while in a secure forensic environment.
Finally, the Panel agrees with the parties that the initial and ongoing ROL was and remains both necessary and appropriate under the circumstances.
Mr. Michaud’s use of substances and introduction of substances onto the unit, coupled with his noncompliance with unit rules presented a risk to all patients and staff in the hospital. Given that Mr. Michaud was already in the hospital setting, there were limited options available to the hospital to address the risk to the public and hospital staff posed by Mr. Michaud’s conduct.
The transfer to the FAU and the resultant loss of privileges was the only reasonable option available to the hospital under the circumstances and remains necessary and appropriate.
DATED this 20th day of February 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Mr. D. D’Intino
Legal Member
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board