Re: Jordan J. Langelier
ORB File No: 7787
Hearing held on: January 30, 2026
Place of hearing: St. Joseph’s Health Care, Hamilton, West 5th Campus, 100 West 5th Street Hamilton, Ontario
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. J. Weinstein
Members: Dr. A. Kerry
Dr. Karen Hand
Hon. A. Sosna
Mr. A. Mete
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Jordan Langelier
Counsel: Mr. M. Schloss
The Person in charge of Hospital: Counsel: Ms. L Barney
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. B. Adsett
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated: March 19, 2026)
Introduction:
On September 30, 2020, Jordan Langelier, was found not criminally responsible on account of a mental disorder on a charge of second-degree murder, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada.
He is currently under the jurisdiction of the Ontario Review Board (“ORB”) pursuant to a Disposition dated February 3, 2025, whereby he is detained at the Forensic Psychiatry Program at St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton, West 5th Campus (“St Joseph’s”) subject to conditions.
A panel of the Ontario Review Board (the “Board”) convened an annual review hearing on January 30, 2026, at St. Joseph’s to review the current disposition pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code.
Mr. Langelier was present at the hearing and was represented by counsel Mr. Schloss.
Dr. Yuri Alatishe testified at the hearing. Introduced into evidence is Exhibit 1, the Hospital Report dated January 9, 2026. Dr. Alatishe adopted the contents of the report.
The issue at this hearing is whether Mr. Langelier is a significant threat to public safety, as defined in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code. 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, the Board concluded that Mr. Langelier represents a significant threat to the safety of the public. The Board further concluded that his risk can be properly managed at St. Joseph’s on terms and conditions set out in a Detention Order. The Board concluded that this is the necessary and appropriate, least restrictive and least onerous Disposition in the circumstances.
Current Psychiatric Diagnosis:
- Substance Induced Psychosis Disorder, in full remission;
Cannabis Use Disorder;
Stimulant Use Disorder, in sustained remission, in a controlled environment;
Borderline Personality Disorder.
Position of the Parties:
At the commencement of the hearing, the parties were asked for their initial without-prejudice positions. Counsel for the hospital submitted that Mr. Langelier represents a significant threat to the safety of the public and recommended a continuation of the terms provided in the previous Detention Order.
Counsel for the Attorney General adopted the hospital’s position.
Counsel for Mr. Langelier did not contest that Mr. Langelier continues to present a significant threat to public safety, and the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a Detention Order.
However, Counsel requested that paragraph 4 (a) in the previous 2025 Disposition be amended to allow Mr. Langelier to use cannabis. Counsel proposes paragraph 4 (a) to read: “abstain absolutely from the use of alcohol or the non-medical use of drugs or any other intoxicant.”
Counsel further requested that the word “drugs” be deleted from paragraph 4 (b) in the previous 2025 Disposition and read as follows: “submit samples of his urine and/or breath to the person in charge of the St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton, West 5th Campus, or his or her designate, for the purposes of analyzing whether the accused has ingested alcohol or any other intoxicant.”
Counsel for the Hospital and Attorney General oppose the amendments sought by counsel for Mr. Langier.
Dr. Yuri Alatishe, Mr. Langelier’s psychiatrist since November 2024, testified. Dr. Alatishe adopted the contents of the Hospital Report dated January 9, 2026. The Hospital Report was entered as Exhibit 1 in these proceedings.
Index Offence:
- The details surrounding the index offence are summarized from last year’s Reasons for Disposition:
On January 15, 2020 the victim was working in Guelph as a security guard at the Guelph Via Rail Transit Station. For reasons unknown, while outside the station, Mr. Langelier attacked the victim striking him in the head. The victim was knocked to the ground and was rendered unconscious. Mr. Langelier then struck the victim about the head with up to 30 more blows.
Mr. Langelier briefly left the scene but returned to continue to punch and stomp the victim multiple time about the head. He left again and quickly returned to continue to stomp on the victim’s head and chest.
The police were called and found Mr. Langelier with blood on his hands and shoes a short distance from the victim. Mr. Langelier was arrested.
The victim was transported to the hospital where he was pronounced deceased. The preliminary cause of death was determined to be blunt impact head and face trauma.
Background:
Mr. Langelier is 27 years old. He is single. He has no previous criminal record. He is estranged from his family. He has a previous history of mental health challenges and hospitalizations.
Course Since Last Disposition:
- Mr. Langelier’s course since the last Disposition is set out in the Hospital Report. The following extracted paragraph from page 71, Inpatient Clinical Course, is relevant to this hearing:
Mr. Langelier continues to demonstrate difficulty with rule adherence, especially with substance abuse and the submission of daily urine screens ..Mr. Langelier has been known to engage in argumentative or challenging behaviour, mainly due to the belief that cannabis does not impact his mental health and that he should be permitted to use cannabis freely…Mr. Langelier continues to challenge his psychiatric diagnosis and is of the firm belief that he does not suffer from a mental health disorder…
Although Mr. Langelier agrees that stimulant use (specifically crystal methamphetamine) increases his risk for violence, as he contends it did in the index offence, he persistently disputes his risk for violence is associated with cannabis use. Staff at St. Joseph’s have observed Mr. Langelier to present objective signs consistent with cannabis intoxication, and have him observed more irritable and emotionally reactive in the days following cannabis use. Those observations were temporally associated with confirmed positive urine drug tests provided by Mr. Langelier.
The Hospital Report acknowledges that Mr. Langelier has not demonstrated frank psychotic decomposition when he uses cannabis. Over an eight-month period from March to December 2025, Mr. Langelier tested positive for cannabis uses on 52 occasions.
However, Dr. Alatishe opines that the absence of psychosis is not attributable to resilience to cannabis, but rather to intensive monitoring, daily urine drug screening, and prompt suspension of privileges following relapse. As such, Mr. Langelier has not had the opportunity to engage in sustained cumulative cannabis use, which would have a destabilizing effect on his mental state and significantly increase the risk of psychotic relapse and associated violence in an individual with a history of a substance-induced psychotic disorder.
When counsel for Mr. Langelier suggested that if Mr. Langelier were put under strict monitoring, strict supervision, and daily drug screen testing while permitted to use cannabis over an extended uninterrupted period, it could then be determined whether cannabis is as benign to Mr. Langelier’s risk of violence as he contends. Dr. Alatishe strongly and categorically dismissed that proposition. He testified in no circumstances would it be appropriate to permit an individual with a history of a substance-induced psychotic disorder to use cannabis and thereby put that individual at risk of a recurrence of psychosis and the public at large and staff at St. Joseph’s at risk of harm.
In that regard in the Reasons for Disposition dated February 26, 2025, it was noted that when Mr. Langelier was admitted to CAMH in 2016 and 2017, he presented with psychotic symptoms, including paranoia. His discharge diagnosis at the time was cannabis-induced psychosis.
In response to a question from a board member, Dr, Alatishe reported that Mr. Langelier’s previous diagnosis of Attention Hyperactive Disorder (ADHD) is legitimate and should continue to be included on his current list of diagnosis.
Assessment and Findings:
Counsel for Mr. Langelier does not contest that his client continues to pose a significant a threat to the public. Counsel maintained however, use of cannabis is a non-factor in that threat. Accordingly, counsel seeks that paragraphs 4 (a) and 4(b) in the present Disposition Order be amended to permit cannabis use.
In the Clinical Risk Summary, the Hospital Report notes the following:
[Mr. Langelier’s] risk for reoffending is considered to be in the Low to Moderate range while under strict supervision of the ORB’s Detention Disposition, with his level of risk increasing to the Moderate-High or High range if formal legal and medical oversight was lessened or removed.
Mr. Langelier’s risk flows from his diagnosis of substance abuse disorders (cannabis use-active stimulant use-in remission), substance induced psychosis, co-occurring personality disorders and an index offence involving extreme violence resulting in death…
…Throughout the reporting period, Mr. Langelier, has demonstrated repeated rule non-adherence, particularly in relation to substance use ...He continues to minimize and dispute the relationship between substance use and psychiatric destabilization reflecting limited insight. His responses to perceived injustice or restriction frequently involve verbal aggression, rumination, withdrawal, or non-compliance.
In my opinion, Mr. Langelier continues to meet the threshold of significant threat to the safety of the public... The risk is not hypothetical; it is grounded in a history of psychosis-driven violence (index offence) and a demonstrated pattern of recurrent substance relapse, [and] poor rule adherence.
Although the above comments generally address “substance abuse”, “substance induced psychosis” and “a demonstrated pattern of recurrent substance relapse” and not specifically cannabis, the uncontradicted evidence is that during the reporting period from November 2024 to December 2025 while under forensic supervision, Mr. Langelier tested positive for cannabis use on 52 occasions There is no evidence of any other banned substances in the urine drug screens.
Hospital staff have observed objective signs consistent with cannabis intoxication, leading to behavioural changes temporally associated with confirmed positive urine drug tests.
In the February 26, 2025 Reasons for Disposition Detention, it was noted that when Mr. Langelier was admitted to CAMH in 2016 and 2017, he presented with psychotic symptoms, including paranoia. His discharge diagnosis at the time was cannabis-induced psychosis.
Although Mr. Langelier did not testify in the present hearing, he did in the 2025 Disposition Hearing. Mr. Langelier’s course since the last Disposition is set out in Exhibit 1, the Hospital Report. It notes in part that Mr. Langelier “continues to challenge his psychiatric diagnosis and is of the firm belief that he does not suffer from mental disorder.” During the 2025 Disposition Hearing Mr. Langelier similarly testified that he has not been accurately diagnosed, he does not suffer from a mental disorder, but suffers from depression.
The Hospital Report notes that Mr. Langelier acknowledged that crystal methamphetamine increases his risk for violence as it did in the Index Offence, but expresses the belief his risk for violence is unrelated to cannabis use. Similarly, during the 2025 Disposition Hearing Mr. Langelier testified that crystal methamphetamine is not good for his mental state, and he was not using cannabis at the time of the Index Offence.
The Hospital Report notes that Mr. Langelier believes that “cannabis does not impact his mental health and he should be permitted to use cannabis freely.” Similarly, during the 2025 Disposition Hearing Mr. Langelier testified that he has been using marijuana quite regularly since he has been at St. Joseph’s, and he has not engaged in any violent behaviour.
However, despite Mr. Langelier’s opinions, the paramount reasons why Mr. Langelier should not use cannabis are the negative effect it would have on his mental stability and the increase in the risk he would pose to others; in the short term to those at St. Joseph’s and in the long-term to the safety of the public. As noted in the Clinical Risk Summary:
[Mr. Langelier’s] risk for offending is considered to be in the Low to Moderate range while under strict supervision of the ORB’s Detention Disposition, with his level of risk increasing to the Moderate-High or High range if formal legal and medical oversight was lessened or removed…. He continues to minimize and dispute the relationship between substance abuse and psychiatric destabilization reflecting limited insight. … Mr.Langelier continues to meet the threshold of significant threat to the safety of the public. The risk is not hypothetical; it is grounded in a history of psychosis-driven violence (index offence) and a demonstrated pattern of recurrent substance relapse, [and] poor rule adherence.
In the 2025 ORB hearing, Mr. Langelier’s submission that paragraph 4(a) in the Disposition be amended to allow cannabis use was dismissed. He makes the same argument in this hearing, but provided no other evidence or submission in support of his position.
The panel has no problem concluding that the requirement for Mr. Langelier to abstain from cannabis use and be screened for drugs must remain in the current Disposition. It would be an error to amend paras. 4(a) and 4(b) set out in the 2025 Disposition based on Mr. Langelier’s ill-understood, limited and misguided notion that if permitted to use cannabis, the frequency of his use would not significantly impact his mental stability and cause him to experience another substance-induced psychotic state.
For the above reasons, the panel accepts the recommendation of the Hospital and treatment team that the necessary and appropriate Disposition, which is also the least onerous and restrictive, is a continuation of the present Detention Order with the same terms and conditions as set out in the previous 2025 Detention Order.
DATED this 19th day of March 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.
Alexander Sosna
Legal Member
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board