Re: Russell Lamore
ORB File No: 7641
Hearing held on: Friday, February 20, 2026
Place of hearing: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health
Pursuant to: Sections 672.81(1) and 672.48(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. P. Capelle
Members: The Hon. B. Allen Dr. P. Prendergast Dr. M. Mamak Mr. A. Mete
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Russell Lamore Counsel: Mr. M. Schloss
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. M. Warner
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. M. Feindel
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated March 16, 2026)
Introduction
[1]. On November 19, 2019, Mr. Russell Lamore was found unfit to stand trial by reason of mental disorder on a charge of failure to comply with a recognizance (x1) (associated with a previous assault, breach of probation and uttering threats), contrary to the Criminal Code.
[2]. A panel of the Board was convened on February 20, 2026, at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (“CAMH” or “the Hospital”) to review Mr. Lamore’s fitness to stand trial pursuant to s. 672.48(1) and 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. The Board is also required to determine under s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code whether Mr. Lamore poses a significant threat to public safety and what the appropriate disposition should be.
[3]. The existing Disposition dated February 27, 2025, provides under s. 672.54 that Mr. Lamore should be detained at the Forensic Service at CAMH with privileges up to including residing in approved community accommodation. The existing Disposition also provides that Mr. Lamore remains unfit to stand trial within the meaning of s. 2 of the Criminal Code.
[4]. The parties advanced a joint position that Mr. Lamore continues to pose a significant threat to public safety and that detention at CAMH Forensic Service with privileges up to including living in approved accommodation should be maintained on the existing conditions. The parties take the further joint position that Mr. Lamore continues to be unfit to stand trial on the day of this hearing.
Issues
Significant Threat
[5]. Taking into account the safety of the public as a paramount consideration the Board on the current review must determine under s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code whether Mr. Lamore continues to be a significant threat to public safety and whether the previous disposition remains the necessary and appropriate, least onerous and least restrictive disposition in the circumstances.
Fitness to Stand Trial
[6]. Section 2 of the Criminal Code provides that unfit to stand trial means unable on account of mental disorder to conduct a defence at any stage of the proceedings before a verdict is rendered or to instruct counsel to do so. The Board must decide whether on the day of the hearing Mr. Singh is unfit to stand trial within the meaning of s. 2 of the Criminal Code looking at his inability to instruct counsel and to conduct a defence on his behalf.
Dispositions
[7]. For the reasons that follow the Board concludes that Mr. Lamore continues to pose a significant threat to public safety and that the necessary and appropriate disposition which is the least onerous and least restrictive is to maintain the detention order with privileges up to including living in approved accommodation on the existing terms. The Board further determines that on the day of the hearing Mr. Lamore continues to be unfit to stand trial.
The Evidence
[8]. The Board has before it the Hospital Report dated January 29, 2026, which contains an account of Mr. Lamore’s personal and psychiatric background which need not be repeated in detail here. The Board also has the oral evidence of Dr. Shi-Kai Liu, the author of the Hospital Report. Dr. Liu’s signature does not appear on the Hospital Report, and he adopted the contents of the Report at the hearing.
[9]. The Board will first provide a determination on significant threat followed by the decision on fitness to stand trial.
Current Diagnoses
[10]. Mr. Lamore’s current diagnoses are major neurocognitive disorder, schizoaffective disorder, polysubstance abuse and antisocial personality traits. Mr. Lamore’s neurocognitive disorder results from a stroke he suffered in 2012. He has experienced aphasia and neurocognitive deficits since then.
Index Offence
[11]. Mr. Lamore was charged with failing to comply with probation. He was at the time on probation for assault, uttering threats and failing to comply with recognizances. The Hospital Report at page 6 describes the nature of his non-compliance offences:
On December 14, 2018, Mr. Lamore entered into a 12-month probation order for assault, utter threats and failure to comply - recognizance. He breached the condition related to attending scheduled appointments with his probation officer. According to documentation, Mr. Lamore missed his appointments in March and June 2019. On June 28, 2019, a Warrant 1st Instance was granted for his arrest and on September 22, 2019, Mr. Lamore was arrested on an unrelated matter at Broadview and Danforth, at which time the warrant came to light.
Criminal History
[12]. As noted, previous to his failure to comply with various orders, Mr. Lamore faced charges of assault, uttering threats and failing to comply with a recognizance.
Substance Use
[13]. Mr. Lamore has a history of problematic substance use in relation to cannabis, amphetamines, opioids and cocaine.
Mr. Lamore’s Personal History Before the Current Reporting Year
[14]. Mr. Lamore is a 60-year-old male who had been homeless for over two years before being admitted to CAMH in 2019. He is single and has no dependants. He is supported by ODSP (“Ontario Disability Support Program”) benefits. His mother is deceased, and his father suffers from Alzheimer’s. Mr. Lamore has a brother and sister who have attempted to support him in the past with shelter but due to his unpredictable and aggressive behaviour were no longer able to continue this although they have been involved in his care.
[15]. Mr. Lamore completed a Grade 9 education. In 1985, he worked full-time as a carpet layer and also for a custom car parts company until he became ill. Mr. Lamore has had no regular employment since that time. He has lost stable housing on a number of occasions in the past due to drug use and he has refused to stay in shelters.
Mr. Lamore’s Psychiatric History before the Current Reporting Year
[16]. Mr. Lamore was first diagnosed with schizophrenia in 1988 by CAMH. In 2019, he was seen in emergency departments on more than 20 occasions. He was involved with the COMPASS ACT (“Concurrent Outpatient Medical and Psychosocial Services, Assertive Community Treatment”) team from which he was discharged in February 2020. COMPASS documentation indicates a history of aggressive behaviour by Mr. Lamore which increased after his stroke as a result of “diminished frontal lobe function and increased impulsivity.” He assaulted a worker at a shelter where he was residing in 2014 and threatened COMPASS staff when his demands were not met.
[17]. In September 2019, Mr. Lamore was admitted to CAMH at FATU (“Forensic Assessment and Triage Unit”). He remained isolative and dismissive. He had difficulty communicating due to his expressive aphasia which increased his frustration and agitation. Mr. Lamore would suddenly become hostile with no identifiable trigger and become verbally abusive making threatening gestures which resulted being placed in seclusion. He was started on an injectable antipsychotic medication and medication to address his anxiety.
[18]. In 2020/2021, Mr. Lamore was transferred to FSUA (“Forensic Secure Unit A”) at CAMH and was placed on a wait list for a unit in the General Forensic Service. During that period Mr. Lamore’s mental status and behaviour were unchanged and he continued to be isolative. Due to his limited attention, limited communication and motivation he could not engage regularly in programming or activities for in depth recreational or occupational assessments. Even with facilitated communication by way of graphics or written questions Mr. Lamore’s expression remained difficult to understand. This was further complicated by his inability to write which was thought to be a result of the stroke.
[19]. During 2020/2021, Mr. Lamore was generally calm and cooperative, and his communication was limited to addressing his basic needs. It was difficult due to the aphasia to assess Mr. Lamore for his emotional lability and irritability. Important to note here is that his behavioural outbursts and excessive emotional responses were assessed to be triggered by contingent personal and environmental factors and did not bear direct relationships to active psychosis.
[20]. A crisis plan was established to manage Mr. Lamore’s behavioural escalation through assisting with communication and allowing time lapses. If his agitation became threatening to a specific individual, intervention was implemented. Over 2020/2021, Mr. Lamore underwent locked seclusion ten times, the last being on November 28, 2020.
[21]. Mr. Lamore was transferred to LGUD (“Forensic General Unit D”) on May 20, 2021. He was transferred to FATU on May 28, 2021. Due to aggressive and violent behaviour toward a co-patient Mr. Lamore was no longer able to be safely managed in the general forensic service. It was the opinion of the treatment team that Mr. Lamore required a more secure setting. He was transferred to the FSUA on June 4, 2021.
[22]. Mr. Lamore was repeatedly assessed for fitness to stand trial after being transferred to the FSUA. The Hospital Report at page 15 comments on Mr. Lamore’s communication obstacles:
Most of the time he could only provide one-to-two-word answers, with a marked tendency to perseverate. Very infrequently, he would suddenly burst out more complete single sentences, though they were disjointed and out of context. Overall, his verbal performances were consistent with those well-documented characteristics of express aphasia.
[23]. Fitness questions were presented in written form with multiple choice answers. He could not answer and failed most of the questions. The assessors concluded at page 18 of the Hospital Report:
Overall, even at his best in terms of attention and cooperation, Mr. Lamore showed significant perseveration. He failed almost all the Taylor questions. Not only he could not clearly express what he thought, but that the answers were stereotyped and wrong. These were considered the direct results of his aphasia as a consequence of his stroke; he was thus judged unable to instruct lawyer and hence remained unfit.
[24]. During the period 2022/2023, Mr. Lamore continued to reside on the FSUA. His mental condition remained stable with medication, and he had no active psychotic or mood symptoms. But he continued to have the same behavioural issues arising from the neurocognitive deficits that followed his stroke-related expressive aphasia.
[25]. Mr. Lamore’s verbal expression and communication continued to be very hampered and impulsive as a result of a lack of cognitive control. There were no significant changes in his fitness to stand trial and overall ability to understand and communicate. Mr. Lamore’s participation in social, recreational and therapeutic programming, although passive, increased. He had the use of a communication binder to communicate his wants and needs and communication cards to keep in his wallet for use in the community. Mr. Lamore participated in 27 escorted passes to the community during that review period.
[26]. During the period from February 2023 to January 2024, Mr. Lamore’s remained in FSUA. His mental status and behaviour were essentially unchanged. He did not exhibit significant mood or psychotic symptoms. However, he could become frustrated and act impulsively when he suddenly wanted to do something but was not able to. Mr. Lamore’s expressive aphasia did not worsen, and he continued to have difficulty with verbal communication. He continued to be compliant with medication administration. He was generally cooperative while on escorted community passes during which he preferred to go to Tim Hortons. There were no behavioural outbursts or difficulties in escorting him back to the unit.
[27]. During the February 2023 to January 2025 period, Mr. Lamore remained in FSUA. Again, his mental and behavioural status remained essentially unchanged without significant mood or psychotic symptoms. He continued to have difficulty with verbal communication due to the expressive aphasia but there was no decline. Mr. Lamore’s behaviour remained manageable without immediate concerns for physical aggression or violence.
[28]. However, on a daily basis Mr. Lamore would act with intense emotional and behavioural responses, disproportionate to the triggering events, using profanity and threatening gestures. This behaviour was thought to be a result of feelings of frustration flowing from his difficulty with verbal communication. Mr. Lamore continued to be assessed for fitness to stand trial, and he remained assessed as unfit.
[29]. Mr. Lamore attained level 4 on the pass ladder allowing him community visits accompanied by staff. He has remained at that pass level until the present. Generally, he was cooperative during passes on Hospital grounds and in the community. However, if Mr. Lamore became intent on going somewhere, and suddenly changed his mind, incidents would occur when he disengaged from the group and would go for coffee. The team had to call extra help to bring him back to the unit.
[30]. Mr. Lamore underwent five locked seclusion events during the 2024/2025 reporting period. These happened as a result of agitation when his needs were not met. He became aggressive towards staff or people in his way. Seclusions were often short-lived until he calmed down. These incidents did not cause significant harm to others. Mr. Lamore did not use any substances throughout the reporting period.
[31]. Also, over 2024/2025, on the positive side, Mr. Lamore participated regularly in a variety of programs in FSUA including recreational, social and therapeutic programs. In May 2024, he learned to use his new ACC (“Augmentative and Alternative Communication Clinic”) tablet with the assistance of the FSUA occupational therapist. The assessment task demands were challenging but Mr. Lamore developed some persistence and was able to continue through the assessment with no behavioural concerns. However, due to some behavioural instability on the unit the team decided to pause his attendance at this program.
[32]. Mr. Lamore participated in six sessions of CAT (“Cognitive Adaptation Training”) during this review period. Sessions were occasionally cut short due to him wanting the unit occupational therapist to leave the room. Through the CAT program he received multiple items to assist with organization and attending to his activities of daily living.
The Current Reporting Period – January 2025 to February 2026
[33]. During this reporting period Mr. Lamore has continued to reside on the FSUA. Overall, his mental manifestations and behavioural response patterns remained basically unchanged with occasional fluctuations. He did not present with active psychotic or mood symptoms and was compliant with his antipsychotic medication. Mr. Lamore was generally cooperative with the unit’s routines usually sitting quietly among co-patients. He could be impulsive if he wanted to do something other than what was planned. Staff had to adjust to his need changes to prevent him acting out and becoming difficult to redirect.
[34]. In general Mr. Lamore’s fitness assessment results were consistent with those from the previous year. He could not answer most of the Taylor questions1. On Mr. Lamore’s current capacity to communicate the Hospital Report observes at page 27:
In his day-to-day interactions, Mr. Lamore could exhibit quick, intense emotional/behavioural reactions disproportionate to the triggering events. He could be using profanity and threatening gestures, likely as a result of feelings of frustration flowing from his difficulty with verbal communication. These behavioural reactions are contingent to environmental events.
[35]. Mr. Lamore’s disruptive behaviours to the present typically escalate when his needs are not being met and to get attention he has pounded on the nursing station windows and if staff do not react to him, he starts shouting incoherently. Mr. Lamore has had 14 locked seclusion events during the current reporting period. He has assaulted staff if they are not responding to his disruptive behaviours. Fortunately, he does not always make physical contact with staff and has not caused significant harm to staff when he does make contact.
[36]. Also of concern was an incident when Mr. Lamore was angry on one occasion and pulled down his pants and exposed himself to staff when he was not satisfied when a request was not met. He was not directable when staff tried to direct him.
[37]. As with previous years, during the current reporting year, Mr. Lamore’s verbal responses have been inconsistent. On most occasions he could only provide one-to-two-word answers with an observable tendency to perseverate. On infrequent occasions he would suddenly burst out complete single sentences usually as disjointed and out of context statements. The clinical team concludes that Mr. Lamore’s overall verbal performances are consistent with those well-documented characteristics of expressive aphasia.
[38]. At page 36 of the Hospital Report the clinical team comments on the potential risk for Mr. Lamore to re-offend:
Overall, results from the current assessment indicate that Mr. Lamore is at HIGH risk to re-offend. Given that Mr. Lamore’s clinical manifestation now is dominated by emotional/behavioural symptoms resulting from his neurocognitive dysfunction, the nature of Mr. Lamore’s behavioural/emotional outbursts are mostly situation-specific and interactive in nature. The inherent difficulty due to aphasia in communication will predispose Mr. Lamore to stress and frustration... Mr. Lamore presents with increased propensity towards acting out when the communication breaks down. In this regard, the violent risk can happen in the day-to-day living environment and during regular interactions. As a result, people in his vicinity, especially those involved in close interactions with Mr. Lamore will be at the highest risk. Given the current level of support needs, Mr. Lamore is not likely able to manage independent community living and will likely stay in institutions. Co-residents and staff hence will be those at risk.
The Parties’ Positions on Significant Threat
[39]. The parties advanced a joint position on significant threat and disposition. Regarding significant threat Mr. Lamore’s counsel and the Crown accept the Hospital’s conclusion that due to Mr. Lamore’s extensive neurocognitive condition he poses a significant threat to public safety, and the appropriate disposition is detention at General Forensic Service at CAMH on the existing privileges including up to residing in approved community accommodation.
The Board’s Analysis on Significant Threat
[40]. While mindful of the parties’ joint position on significant threat the Board is required to come to an independent determination.
[41]. Based on the evidence before us the Board unanimously accepts the opinion, as stated in the Hospital Report, that Mr. Lamore remains a significant threat to public safety within the criteria outlined in Winko, 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 SCR 625 and as defined in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code. The Board considered the criteria, as set out in s. 672.54, namely, the paramount criterion of the safety of the public and Mr. Lamore’s community re-integration, his mental condition and his other needs.
[42]. We accept, in accordance with s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code, that the least onerous and least restrictive disposition, that is necessary and appropriate in the circumstances is detention at CAMH Forensic Service on the same terms as the existing disposition.
[43]. The Board arrives at that decision for the following reasons.
[44]. Dr. Liu had no material updates regarding changes in Mr. Lamore’s circumstances since the date of the Hospital Report prepared on January 29, 2026.
[45]. Dr. Liu testified that Mr. Lamore has remained in a secure forensic unit during the current reporting year and his behaviour on the unit has remained consistent with previous reporting years. The doctor confirmed that Mr. Lamore’s symptoms are rooted in his neurocognitive deficits rather than his major mental illness which is controlled by his antipsychotic medication.
[46]. Mr. Lamore has continued to have difficulty understanding his needs and gets frustrated attempting to express them. Dr. Liu testified that the clinical team has grown to understand Mr. Lamore’s behaviour patterns and has developed behavioural control and redirection strategies and provided enhanced support including the assistance of developmental service workers.
[47]. On accommodation placement Dr. Liu pointed to the fact that Mr. Lamore has been under the care of CAMH for some five years and that without success attempts have been made to find long-term care placement for him. It is evident that Mr. Lamore is in need of a very structured environment with a clinical facility to address his neurocognitive deficits as he ages.
[48]. The doctor testified that the Hospital submitted a referral for a long-term facility, representatives of which visited Mr. Lamore twice one year ago. But the Hospital has yet to receive a response. The team social worker continues to investigate other possible placements looking at brain trauma and geriatric options. The Baycrest Health Centre’s brain trauma facility has been approached but there is no housing accommodation available.
[49]. The Board accepts the Hospital’s opinion that Mr. Lamore remains at a high risk to re-offend. The evidence is clear that his clinical picture is dominated not by his major mental illness but rather by emotional and behavioural symptoms resulting from his neurocognitive dysfunction for which there seems to be no cure. Mr. Lamore’s propensity for frustration and irritability with breakdowns in communication place persons in his proximity at risk of him acting out with profanity and aggressive behaviours towards them. This presentation has not changed over time. Mr. Lamore has had 14 locked seclusion events during the current reporting period and has assaulted staff and pounded on the nursing station windows if he does not get a response to his disruptive behaviours.
[50]. The Board finds it has been amply established that Mr. Lamore continues to require a highly structured environment as the most appropriate accommodation. The Board finds Mr. Lamore’s circumstances to be very unfortunate given the poor prospect for significant relief from his neurocognitive symptoms. The Hospital Report concludes at pages 22 and 36 that Mr. Lamore is likely to remain unfit permanently and not likely to be able to manage independent community living. He will likely remain in institutions. The Board hopes the Hospital soon finds suitable accommodation for Mr. Lamore that offers the supports he requires to afford to him some comfort in his difficult circumstances as he ages.
[51]. Based on the Hospital Report and the evidence added in Dr. Liu’s testimony the Board concludes, under s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code, that Mr. Lamore remains a significant threat to public safety and that the necessary and appropriate disposition, that is the least onerous and the least restrictive to mitigate threat to public safety, is detention at CAMH Forensic Services on the existing conditions.
[52]. The existing disposition satisfies the paramount criterion under s. 672.54 of protecting the safety of the public and further meets Mr. Lamore’s interests in community re-integration, and support for his mental health and his other needs.
Determination on Fitness to Stand Trial
[53]. As noted earlier the parties advanced a joint position on fitness to stand trial accepting that Mr. Lamore remains unfit at the time of this hearing. Again, while there is agreement among the parties that Mr. Lamore remains unfit to stand trial the Board is required to arrive at an independent determination on this issue.
The Law
[54]. Section 2 of the Criminal Code defines unfit to stand trial as “unable on account of mental disorder to conduct a defence at any stage of the proceedings before a verdict is rendered or to instruct counsel to do so in view of, in particular, whether the person is unable to: (a) understand the nature or object of the proceedings, (b) understand the possible consequences of the proceedings, or (c) communicate with counsel”.
[55]. The Ontario Court of Appeal in Bharwani, 2023 ONCA 203 (CA) further defined the test for fitness to stand trial holding that the accused must: (a) have a reality-based understanding of the nature and object of the proceedings; (b) understand the possible consequences of the proceedings; and (c) have the ability to make decisions, though are not required to have the capacity to engage in analytic thinking in that the accused need not be able to act in their own best interests.
[56]. The Supreme of Canada (the Court) in R. v. Bharwani, 2025 SCC 26 further elucidated and expanded on the Court of Appeal’s determination on fitness to stand trial and what is required of an accused’s ability to establish their fitness as contemplated by s. 2 of the Criminal Code.
[57]. The Supreme Court substantially accepts the fitness to stand trial test articulated in R. v. Taylor, (1992) 1992 CanLII 7412 (ON CA), 59 O.A.C. 43 (CA), and as elucidated by the Court of Appeal in Bharwani, subject to certain elaborations and clarifications. The Supreme Court observed that the Court of Appeal concentrated most of its analysis on the “capacity threshold” in terms of what it means to “conduct” a defence while there was relatively little focus on what “‘a defence’ actually entails.”: [Bharwani, at para. 50].
[58]. The Supreme Court opined that there must also be a focus on what the accused’s Charter-protected right to full answer and defence means in the fitness analysis. The Court explained that “to determine what capacity threshold Parliament intended it is helpful to canvass the decisions and actions in a ‘defence’ that an accused must be capable of executing or instructing counsel to execute”: [Bharwani, at para. 55].
[59]. The Court cited some of the options available to an accused to choose from in conducting a criminal defence, among them: whether to enter a plea, electing the mode of trial (whether they chose a jury or judge-alone trial), whether to testify in their own defence, whether to retain counsel and whether to select or discharge counsel or choose to represent themselves: [Bharwani, at para. 58].
[60]. Satisfying the right to full answer and defence entails an accused’s right to be physically and mentally present at trial, which in turn reflects basic principles of fairness in criminal law”: [Bharwani, at para. 60]. Protecting the right takes on special significance in a case where an accused is unable, due to neurocognitive deficits, to communicate effectively verbally and further is unable to write, and whose emotional presentation impairs his communication and thinking processes.
[61]. The Court also clarified that “the fitness to stand trial test is contextual, as the inquiry focuses on the decisions that form part of an accused’s defence in a specific case, and not in the abstract”: [Bharwani, at para. 65]. The implication here is that there is no across-the-board or uniform approach to determining fitness to stand trial and the capacity to conduct a defence. Assessments of an accused’s capacity to make decisions must be assessed in the context of the particularities of each case.
[62]. The Supreme Court concludes that the purpose of the definition of “unfit to stand trial” supports an understanding of the capacity threshold,
... that requires an accused to be able to make reality-based decisions in the conduct of their defence and intelligibly communicate these decisions to counsel or the court. This necessitates a reality-based understanding of the nature or object and possible consequences of the proceedings, as well as an ability to understand the available options and their consequences, and to select between those options when making decisions. The accused is not required to make decisions in their best interests, but cannot be overwhelmed by delusions, hallucinations, or other symptoms of their mental disorder when making and communicating these decisions: [Bharwani, at para. 77].
The Board’s Analysis on Fitness to Stand Trial
[63]. For reasons that follow the Board is unanimous, based on the opinion stated in the Hospital Report and by Dr. Liu in testimony, that Mr. Lamore continues to be unfit to stand trial on the date of this hearing as contemplated by s. 2 of the Criminal Code.
[64]. Dr. Liu testified that he most recently assessed Mr. Lamore’s fitness on the morning of this hearing. He found as in previous years that Mr. Lamore remained unable to answer the Taylor questions often giving inconsistent answers to the same question. Dr. Liu pointed to the findings on page 30 of the Hospital Report that exemplify his fitness observations: Mr. Lamore could only provide one-to-two-word answers with a marked tendency to perseverate; he would suddenly burst out complete single, disjointed and out of context sentences; and his answers to the Taylor questions tended to be stereotyped and wrong. Compounding this is that Mr. Lamore has been reluctant to proactively use the communication tools and to learn new skills.
[65]. Mr. Lamore presents with significant obstacles to satisfying the three criteria set down in s. 2. On each occasion when presented with the Taylor questions he failed in his responses. The Hospital Report at page 10 indicates that for each question he gave incorrect answers and despite repeated explanations and clarifications he did not significantly change his answers.
[66]. The Hospital Report at page 10 encapsulates the team’s observations about Mr. Lamore’s comprehension of the criminal process:
He denied being charged with anything—even after each of the charges was shown to him.
Although he knew the differences in the consequences from pleading guilty vs. not guilty, he did not know the parties in a trial—he included police and victim.
He did not know the role of judge, crown attorney or lawyer; he chose Judge as the one who would assist him with his case.
He knew what under oath means—he gestured to show how to do it. However, he did not understand the concept of perjury—he did not think anything will happen if he lies under oath.
[67]. As noted, earlier Mr. Lamore’s emotional and communication problems are thought principally to stem from his aphasia which has posed challenges for assessors determining the extent of his comprehension of the nature and object of the proceedings and his understanding of the possible consequences of the proceedings. It has been difficult for the clinical team to assess what Mr. Lamore has understood during his attempts to communicate.
[68]. As the Hospital Report observes at pages 9, 19, and 32 - even with assistive tools to facilitate communication, such as the use of graphics or written questions, a flip book tablet and a communication binder to communicate his wants and needs, with cue cards and communication cards to keep in his wallet - Mr. Lamore had difficulty communicating and his expression remained difficult to understand. Furthermore, a neurological assessment of his neurocognitive impairments conducted in 2019, among other deficits, found Mr. Lamore was also unable to write due to the stroke.
[69]. Mr. Lamore has also been resistant to assessment and learning new skills. As noted earlier, in May 2024 the FSUA occupational therapist attempted to introduce Mr. Lamore to the ACC, and he learned to use his new ACC tablet. Although he showed some capacity to continue through the assessment, after a few months of attendance, he expressed unwillingness to continue and would rise from his chair and leave the room early. The team decided to pause his attendance to this program due to his irritable behaviour in relation to this assessment.
[70]. It is clearly predictable the impediments Mr. Lamore will face in communicating with and instructing counsel in the context of criminal proceedings. It appeared to the clinical team, as stated at page 8 of the Hospital Report, that Mr. Lamore was able to understand spoken language at least partially, but his way of responding was very limited. As the Hospital Report expands later on page 8: “At times, he could manage to utter single word answers. Most of the time, he needed to use gestures. The interactions hence were severely hampered by his limited repertoire of language and gesture and most of the time, people needed to guess what he tried to express by the context of the interaction.”
[71]. The Hospital Report further indicates at page 8 that due his global aphasia Mr. Lamore has difficulty communicating abstract concepts. Criminal proceedings are often fraught with complexities and nuance, a challenge even for those not faced with questions of their fitness.
[72]. The right to full answer and defence mandates that an accused’s right to counsel be protected and that the accused understand the substance and object of a proceeding and be able to communicate clearly and effectively with their counsel. This includes communicating from the witness stand if they decide to exercise their other Charter-protected right to testify in their own defence. Mr. Lamore’s verbal communication barriers, inability to write and emotional deficits put him at an obvious disadvantage in a criminal proceeding.
Conclusion on Fitness to Stand Trial
[73]. In the result the Board finds under s. 2 of the Criminal Code that Mr. Lamore remains unfit to stand trial on the date of this hearing.
DATED this 16th day of March, 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
The Hon. B. Allen Legal Member
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board