Re: Lucas Kopperson
ORB File No: 7933
Hearing held on: Tuesday, February 17, 2026
Place of hearing: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. P. Capelle
Members: The Hon. B. Allen Dr. P. Prendergast Dr. M. Mamak Mr. T. Wall
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Lucas Kopperson Counsel: Mr. D. Embry
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. M. Warner
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. D. Brandes
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated March 16, 2026)
Introduction
On August 26, 2021, Mr. Lucas Kopperson was found not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder on a charge of harassment by a combination of prohibited conduct, contrary to the Criminal Code.
Under s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code a panel of the Ontario Review Board (“the Board”) was convened on February 17, 2026, at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (“CAMH” or “the Hospital”) to review Mr. Kopperson's threat to public safety and the appropriate disposition under s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
Mr. Kopperson’s existing Disposition dated February 24, 2025, provides that he be detained at the Forensic Service at CAMH with privileges up to including residing in approved accommodation.
The Hospital and Crown advanced a joint position that Mr. Kopperson continues to pose a significant threat to public safety and that the detention order should be maintained on the existing conditions including residing in approved accommodation. The defence concedes significant threat but submits that a conditional discharge is the appropriate disposition in the circumstances.
Disposition
- For the reasons set out below the Board concludes, under s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code, that Mr. Kopperson continues to pose a significant threat to public safety and that the necessary and appropriate disposition is detention at Forensic Services at CAMH on the existing conditions.
Current Diagnoses
- Mr. Kopperson’s current diagnoses are schizophrenia, cannabis use disorder and query alcohol use disorder.
The Evidence
- The Board has before it the Hospital Report dated January 23, 2026, which contains an account of Mr. Kopperson’s personal and psychiatric background which need not be repeated in detail here. The Board also has the oral evidence of Dr. Brian Robertson, a Psychiatric Forensic Fellow with CAMH and author of the Hospital Report.
Index Offences
The circumstances of the index offence are described in the Hospital Report on pages 15 and 16 the highlights of which are summarized as follows.
The index offences arise from several incidents that occurred during 2018 and 2020 involving a unit in an apartment building in Toronto where Mr. Kopperson resided. During the initial incidents Mr. Kopperson was arrested and charged and placed on probation. He breached probation orders on several occasions in relation to the same residence and was re-arrested.
The incidents involved Mr. Kopperson breaking into his neighbour’s residence at various hours of the day and night. On one occasion he damaged the neighbour’s window and entered the unit. Mr. Kopperson fled the scene when the neighbour became aware of his presence in the unit. He was subsequently apprehended. As a result, Mr. Kopperson faced a number of offences including harassment, mischief and failure to comply with probation orders.
Criminal History
- Mr. Kopperson’s criminal history outside of the index offences is lengthy, spanning from 2016 to 2018 before the December 18, 2018, index offence, and extending into 2020. The offences include assault, assault with a weapon, uttering threats, failures to comply with probation orders and recognizances, damage to property, public mischief, being unlawfully in a dwelling house and fraudulently obtaining food or lodging.
Substance Use
- Mr. Kopperson reportedly has a history of using cannabis from age 17. His parents indicated that he had a history of alcohol abuse as well. No details were given about his past use of alcohol.
Mr. Kopperson’s Personal and Psychiatric History
Before the Current Reporting Year
Personal History
Mr. Kopperson is a 35-year-old single man born in Toronto. He has had one long term relationship with a woman which ended when Mr. Kopperson was age 28. He has co-parented their two children with this ex-partner and provided some financial support. Regarding his education he completed Grade 11 and half of Grade 12.
Mr. Kopperson has expressed an interest in obtaining his GED (“General Education Diploma”) and becoming an electrician. He has had several jobs in the restaurant industry as a cook and briefly worked at telemarketing. Mr. Kopperson has lived in Toronto for most of his life with the exception that at age 18 he lived in Vancouver for approximately one-and-a-half years working as a cook. He currently receives ODSP (“Ontario Disability Support Program”) benefits. Mr. Kopperson has described his relationship with his parents, who have supported him financially, as “good.”
Psychiatric History
Mr. Kopperson's parents first observed him displaying bizarre behaviour when he was approximately age 18 when he was residing in Vancouver. He was preoccupied with the police and expressed paranoia and strange thoughts involving conspiracy theories mainly in relation to authority whom he believed were “out to get us.” He abruptly left his job and apartment and moved back to Ontario where he met his ex-partner and moved in with her. He was observed drinking alcohol regularly, having difficulty maintaining employment and behaving erratically.
After 2016 Mr. Kopperson’s mental status began to further deteriorate as he was exhibiting bizarre and paranoid thoughts and behaviours. He began talking to internal stimuli, adopting different persona and accents and saying he felt like he was in a movie. He began calling his parents and threatening them. He threatened to burn their house down. Mr. Kopperson was frequently homeless and would occasionally end up in jail.
Mr. Kopperson was admitted to various units of CAMH on several occasions for assessment: the BAU (“Brief Assessment Unit”) in 2017 and the FEIS (“Forensic Early Intervention Service”) in 2019 and 2020. He refused to cooperate with the assessors’ requests. He showed no evidence of psychosis or major mood disorder throughout those interactions. In November 2019 he was found unfit to stand trial due to his inability to instruct counsel. It was noted that his presentation was “likely superimposed on an unspecified psychotic disorder.” In 2020 Mr. Kopperson was defiant and aggressive and was placed in seclusion.
In September 2020 at the conclusion of the assessment Mr. Kopperson was deemed fit to stand trial. The finding was that although uncooperative and irritable, he did not appear to suffer from a major mental illness. Mr. Kopperson was admitted to Waypoint (Waypoint Centre for Mental Health and Care) in October 2020 following the index offences and was found unfit to stand trial by the court in November 2020 and at a subsequent court date in January 2021 was found fit to stand trial. As noted, earlier Mr. Kopperson was ultimately found unfit to stand trial on August 26, 2021, on the index offence charges.
During his stay at Waypoint from October 2020 to September 2021 Mr. Kopperson’s behaviour was very problematic. He refused to eat, threw his food, referred to beliefs his food was being tampered with and refused medication. He was uncooperative and aggressive with staff attempting to assault two staff members resulting in him being placed in locked seclusion. When antipsychotic medication was administered Mr. Kopperson’s mental state gradually improved. He became easier to engage with. After release from seclusion Mr. Kopperson moved through the privilege system in a smooth uninterrupted fashion.
On a whole during his stay at Waypoint Mr. Kopperson’s status and behaviour vastly improved as far as discussing and showing insight into his circumstances and reaching out and maintaining contact with his ex-partner and children almost daily. It was thought that placement at CAMH would be preferable for this ongoing contact. Mr. Kopperson expressed an interest in completing his GED and in obtaining a disposition to the community.
Mr. Kopperson was admitted to a secure forensic unit at CAMH in November 2021 where he remained until January 2023 when he was transferred to a general forensic unit where he remains to the present.
Looking back, the period from November 2021 to July 2022 was a relatively good period for Mr. Kopperson. The following factors point in his favour: he was cooperative and easily directable; he followed unit rules and expectations; he was compliant with his medication; he remained calm and stoic in his presentation with minimal adverse reactions; he expressed willingness to remain on his medications; he engaged in programming and walks on the unit; he was eager to start utilizing passes; and there were no management issues.
On the less positive side Mr. Kopperson indicated that he disagreed with the schizophrenia diagnosis; had a limited level of engagement with staff which became more profound; stopped communicating with his family with no known or apparent reason; he made some odd statements such as he would rather “stay in jail beaten on by correctional officers than stay in hospital.”
During the reporting year October 2022 to September 2023 Mr. Kopperson presented with some problems. He ceased taking his medication and exhibited a steady decline in his mental status which he did not recognize and showed a decline in his level of engagement in his rehabilitation.
The following evidence reflects some adverse factors during that period: Mr. Kopperson became withdrawn from his supports; he attended fewer programs; his psychotic symptoms slowly started to re-emerge by the end of the reporting year; he reported that he did not need the medications because he did not have a psychiatric diagnosis; and his level of hygiene and appearance also deteriorated.
The reporting period from September 2023 to January 2025 was much more positive. The following factors reflect Mr. Kopperson’s progress: he resumed his medication at the beginning of the reporting year; he exhibited consistent engagement in his treatment plan; he improved social interactions; he progressed in his rehabilitation; he moved steadily through the pass ladder; he received strong support from his family throughout the year; there were no significant incidents, rule violations or instances of substance use reported; and he made significant progress in his rehabilitation. Mr. Kopperson’s parents became his SDMs (“Substitute Decision-Makers”) and he began receiving injectable antipsychotic medication.
By November 2024 Mr. Kopperson continued advancing through the pass ladder enthusiastically utilizing Level 7 passes. He also worked toward housing goals and began exploring longer term objectives. His family members remained highly engaged and were pleased with the care he received.
The Current Reporting Period – January 2025 to January 2026
At the beginning of the current year Mr. Kopperson resided in the LGUB (inpatient rehabilitation unit) at CAMH, before being transferred in August 2025 to THRP2 (“Transitional Housing Rehabilitation Program 2”), (a 24-hour-supervised, high-support program providing on site case management, medication administration support, urine drug screening collection and programming).
While placed at LGUB Mr Kopperson participated in one full group session and three full one-to-one sessions of Substance Relapse Prevention programming. He volunteered at Trinity Café on a weekly basis, preparing food and doing dishes from February 2025 until he was transferred to THRP2. He entered a cooking program at George Brown College which he left after two weeks but did not advise the clinical team of this for a week. He indicated he had secured a cooking job with a previous employer for April 2026 and indicated he would not look for employment in the meantime.
Mr. Kopperson continued showing progress during the 2025/2026 reporting year. Overall, he had a stable year. His psychotic illness continued to be well-controlled on his injectable antipsychotic medication. There were no major safety or behavioural concerns. He was adherent with his long-acting injectable antipsychotic medication. He denied any side effects from his medication. There was no violence or absconding behaviour, and his urine drug screens were all negative throughout the year. Mr. Kopperson did not report any positive symptoms of schizophrenia; he was not observed responding to internal stimuli; and his behaviour and speech were organized.
However, Mr. Kopperson experienced negative symptoms of schizophrenia, such as blunted affect, decreased ability to initiate in self-directed purposeful activities and a lack of motivation to engage in social interaction. After he was transferred to THRP2 he withdrew from most structured activity. Mr. Kopperson showed limited insight into his mental illness and need for medication indicating he did not believe he had schizophrenia. He showed no insight into the index offences believing that he was wrongly convicted and did not commit the offences.
On the risk to re-offend the Hospital Report states at page 30:
Mr. Kopperson would experience a relapse of psychotic symptoms as a result of medication non-adherence, substance use, psychological stress, or spontaneously without obvious triggers. His thoughts and behaviour would become disorganized and he would develop persecutory delusions and auditory hallucinations. Given his negative symptoms, guardedness, and lack of insight, he would not be able to identify signs of mental deterioration, would not seek help proactively, and would decompensate further. He would be at risk of engaging in disorganized violence, as was the case during the index and previous offenses. The people most likely to be victimized would be those in his vicinity, or anyone who became enmeshed in his delusional system.
Oral Evidence of Dr. Brian Robertson
Dr. Brian Robertson, a Forensic Psychiatrist Fellow with CAMH, who has been Mr. Kopperson’s staff psychiatrist since July 2025, indicated there were no updates to the Hospital Report prepared on January 23, 2026. He was involved with Mr. Kopperson’s treatment in association with forensic psychiatrist Robert McMaster while he was an inpatient at CAMH and after Mr. Kopperson’s discharge six months ago in August 2025 to THRP2 transitional housing. He noted Mr. Kopperson’s desire for a conditional discharge and the independent living that comes with that disposition.
Regarding future housing plans he testified that the trajectory for Mr. Kopperson is to progress to developing the skills for independent living while in the high support environment at his THRP2 residence. Dr. Robertson spoke of the supports offered in transitional housing designed to assist in developing skills for independent living, in particular, on-site case management, medication administration support, urine drug screening and structured therapeutic activities.
Dr. Robertson cited factors he felt hinder Mr. Kopperson’s readiness for independent living. He testified about Mr. Kopperson’s fall away from structured activity after moving to the community. He reduced his inpatient involvement in programming to only the weekly walking group and cooking group. He tended to be isolative spending considerable time in his room. Also of concern was that Mr. Kopperson withdrew from a cooking program at George Brown College after two weeks and delayed a week before advising the staff.
Another unfavourable factor referred to by the doctor is Mr. Kopperson’s poor insight into his schizophrenia which vacillates between demonstrating minimum insight while at other times expressing an absence of insight. Mr. Kopperson has not shown an ability to explain his condition or why he needs medication saying at times he could go off his medications.
A further concerning issue mentioned by Dr. Robertson is Mr. Kopperson’s guardedness He tends to be guarded, dismissive and superficial with staff during assessments which impedes the team’s ability to assess his mental state outside of observing external behavioural manifestations. The doctor spoke of the difficulty in knowing what his needs are. The clinical team therefore looks forward to progress in terms of Mr. Kopperson disclosing more information about his internal mental state and participating in more structured activities. There is reference in the Hospital Report to Mr. Kopperson having a job lined up to work as a cook in a restaurant where had previously worked, to start in April 2026. But this has not been confirmed by the Hospital.
In response to a query about the team’s recommendation for a continuation of the detention order rather than a conditional discharge, the doctor testified that the Mental Health Act would not be the appropriate avenue to be followed if Mr. Kopperson became unwell in the community. Dr. Robertson explained that the Mental Health Act is insufficient to manage his risk at this time. A factor in this opinion is Mr. Kopperson’s superficiality and guardedness in responding to questions during assessments which as noted earlier create barriers to assessing his mental state.
It is Dr. Robertson’s view, under circumstances where Mr. Kopperson’s mental status is unknown, that in the event he decompensates, a Warrant of Committal would be necessary to quickly hospitalize Mr. Kopperson. Under the Mental Health Act Mr. Kopperson could be found uncertifiable under the criteria in Box A of the Act. Under those criteria it is possible for Mr. Kopperson to be discharged from the hospital, particularly if he masks his symptoms by not being forthcoming about his mental state, whereas in a forensic system he would be assessed as posing a risk to public safety. The further problem is that were he admitted under the civil system he would not be seen by doctors familiar with his specific psychiatric needs and would lack the necessary information to guide Mr. Kopperson.
In the doctor’s opinion, without the authority of a Warrant of Committal, Mr. Kopperson would not attend the hospital voluntarily. For those reasons it is the doctor’s further view at this time that housing must be approved by the Hospital because he still requires high support accommodation. Dr. Robertson indicated that the current THRP2 housing where Mr. Kopperson has resided for six months from August 2025, is temporary and the trajectory for those housed at THRP2 is for one to two years to obtain independent housing.
Dr. Robertson testified that for Mr. Kopperson to attain a conditional discharge, the clinical team would have to be more attuned to his internal mental status and for him to become more engaged in transitional programming directed specifically to preparing him for increased independence in the community. The doctor explained that if Mr. Kopperson were to participate in and have difficulty with structured activities the team could support him in addressing any stress related to the activities. The problem from the doctor’s perspective is that Mr. Kopperson has not been tested on his abilities in this area and as such from a risk perspective he is not ready to live in the community.
In answer to a query about what the Hospital is doing to advance Mr. Kopperson’s move toward more independence, Dr. Robertson testified that the team is attempting to build more rapport with him and encourage him to get involved in more structured activities. However, he explained the limitation on progress when the internal factors are unknown. For that reason, the fear is that if Mr. Kopperson were granted more independence, he could be decompensating unknown to the clinical team. The doctor indicated that Mr. Kopperson is currently not on a wait list and there is no plan for community housing in place.
In answer to a query about drug use, and the fact that there have been no concerns about this, the doctor spoke about Mr. Kopperson’s lack of insight. It is critical in the doctor’s view that the clinical team be in place to monitor him when he goes into the community and returns so if he does decompensate, unlike the slower Mental Health Act process, he can be admitted to the Hospital immediately. The doctor agreed that if Mr. Kopperson’s insight into drug use and the importance of his medications improved his risk would be lower.
The Parties’ Positions
The joint view of the Hospital and Crown is that Mr. Kopperson remains a significant threat to public safety and that the appropriate disposition that is the least onerous and least restrictive that mitigates risk to public safety is to maintain the detention order on the existing conditions including residing in approved accommodation.
This position is based on the view that Mr. Kopperson lacks the capacity to reside independently in the community at this time owing to his limited insight into his illness, need for medication, risk of future violence and substance use, his guardedness during assessments and his reluctance to structure his time. That position is based on the view that a conditional discharge would be premature and insufficient to manage his risk in the upcoming year.
Due to his lack of structured activity Mr. Kopperson has yet to be tested as to whether he is able to maintain mental stability, cope with stress and remain compliant with treatment recommendations in a less supported setting. Moreover, on this view it is critical that the Hospital maintain the ability to quickly re-admit Mr. Kopperson to the Hospital should he experience mentally decompensate in the community.
Mr. Kopperson concedes significant risk for purpose of this proceeding but takes the position that a conditional discharge is the appropriate disposition. He indicated that the abstinence clause and drug testing clause should be maintained and that there should also be a reporting clause and no address stipulation.
Mr. Kopperson’s counsel pointed to several factors that obviate risk if granted a conditional discharge. He pointed to the lack of violence in his index offence, being more characterized by property offences, involving entering premises unlawfully, damaging property, uttering threats without violence and breaching probation. Counsel also submitted that the factors of Mr. Kopperson’s medication compliance, drug abstinence and absence of troubling behaviour during this reporting year bode in favour of a conditional discharge.
Counsel submitted that while the nature of the index offence and any lack of insight regarding medication and substance use may be risk enhancing those factors do not necessarily rise to the level of significant threat. Mr. Kopperson’s counsel further contended that since risk is the principal concern, having a pro-social life, while a positive feature, should not be required for discharge to independent living.
Given there is no future housing arrangement made, Mr. Kopperson’s counsel requested whether, if Mr. Kopperson was found to have the capacity to live independently and there is no housing arrangement, would Mr. Kopperson be able to remain at his THRP2 residence until such independent housing is arranged. Dr. Robertson responded with input from Dr. Robert McMaster, who was present as an observer at the hearing, that Mr. Kopperson could stay at his residence until housing is arranged.
It is Mr. Kopperson’s submission that if the Board were to grant a conditional discharge and independent housing were not yet located, Mr. Kopperson could remain at the Hospital in the meantime. Counsel pointed out that if Mr. Kopperson were to find independent housing, the Board could be approached for an early hearing to determine the housing issue.
The Board’s Conclusion
Based on the evidence before us, the Board unanimously accepts the opinion, as stated in the Hospital Report, that Mr. Kopperson 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. Kopperson’s community re-integration, his mental condition and his other needs.
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 a detention order on the same terms as the existing disposition.
Mr. Kopperson concedes significant risk for the purposes of this hearing.
First, the Board wishes to commend Mr. Kopperson on the progress he has made earlier in this reporting year. His injectable antipsychotic medication continues to successfully control the symptoms of his schizophrenia so much so that he has not reported any positive symptoms. Mr. Kopperson endorsed having schizophrenia and talking to himself. He was not observed responding to internal stimuli. There were no significant behavioural concerns, and his behaviour and speech were organized. His urine drug screens were all negative during the year.
There were however some areas of regression during this reporting year. During the previous report year Mr. Kopperson was more socially engaged and involved in some rehabilitative programming. He participated in group and one-on-one substance relapse prevention programming and volunteered weekly at Trinity Café. But when he transferred to THRP2 high support housing he withdrew from structured activities in the community. The clinical team has tried to encourage his participation in structured activities designed to develop skills for community living and to further his reintegration process. Mr. Kopperson tends to be isolative and unmotivated to pursue activities. He has been forthright in saying he is only interested in the walking and cooking activities.
Of some concern is that Mr. Kopperson continues to have limited insight into his mental illness and need for medication. He has stated that he would “probably get sick” if he did not take his medication but could not elaborate on this. He was not firm on the question of the importance of continuing to take his medication. While Mr. Kopperson endorsed talking to himself, he reported that he was just talking out loud and not responding to internal stimuli. Furthermore, his insight into the index offences also remains limited in that Mr. Kopperson maintains that he was wrongly accused and convicted of his index offences.
Of further concern is Mr. Kopperson’s limited responsiveness. The clinical team is troubled by his guardedness, dismissiveness and superficiality during assessments. This presents barriers to assessing Mr. Kopperson’s internal mental state outside of observing his behaviours. This makes it difficult to assess and understand his mental state and to devise ways to support his rehabilitation needs.
The Board accepts the clinical team’s opinion that the combination of his insight deficits in relation to his medication, his mental illness and the index offences together with his guardedness and lack of experience with structured activity would present a significant risk to public safety were he to live independently in the community.
The Board also accepts that because Mr. Kopperson has declined participation in structured activities to aid in a transition to the community and is not forthcoming during assessment, he has not been tested as to his capacity for independent living. With Mr. Kopperman’s participation in structured rehabilitative programs the team would have the ability to prepare him for community living by being able to assess and address any stressors Mr. Kopperson might experience during the activities.
Regarding the appropriateness of a conditional discharge the Board is mindful of Mr. Kopperson’s history of decompensating and becoming aggressive and uncooperative particularly when he has consumed alcohol and resisted treatment. Given his limited insights, the lack of involvement in structured activities and his guardedness, Mr. Kopperson continues to require a level of support not available on a conditional discharge - approved housing, medication oversight, urine screens and case management. A detention order is best to manage Mr. Kopperson’s risk at this time.
In the event of destabilization in the community the clinical team will require the ability to intervene and admit him early to hospital for treatment and stabilization if he were to exhibit indicators of decompensation, treatment noncompliance or substance abuse. The Mental Health Act would not be sufficient in this regard as the timing of hospitalization under the Act is not amenable to urgent need. There is also the possibility that Mr. Kopperson would not be certifiable under the Act as he may not meet the criteria under Box A, especially the case with his guardedness during assessments.
The time trajectory for patients residing in THRP2 accommodation is one to two years. Mr. Kopperson has been a resident for some six months. While the Board does not find a conditional discharge suitable this reporting year, we are hopeful that he will develop more openness with his treatment team during assessments and accept the recommendations to participate in structured activities with the view to enhancing his chance of obtaining a conditional discharge next reporting year. In aid of this objective the Board recommends given the long wait times for suitable housing that the Hospital assist with putting a housing plan in place as soon as possible.
Based on the Hospital Report and the evidence added in Dr. Brian Robertson’s testimony the Board concludes, under s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code, that Mr. Kopperson remains a significant threat to public safety and that currently the necessary and appropriate disposition, that is the least onerous and the least restrictive to mitigate a threat to public safety, is to maintain detention on the existing conditions.
The existing disposition satisfies the paramount criterion under s. 672.54 of protecting the safety of the public and further meets Mr. Kopperson’s interests in community re-integration, support for his mental health and his other needs.
DATED this 16^th^ 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