Ontario Review Board
Re: Maurice Lefebvre
ORB File No: 8164
Hearing held on: Monday, February 23, 2026
Place of Hearing: Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre
Pursuant to: Sections 672.81(1) and 672.48(1) of the Criminal Code
Before: Alternate Chairperson: Mr. J. Weinstein Members: Dr. R. Kunjukrishnan Dr. G. Boulais Mr. P. Hageraats Mr. R. Rainboth
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Maurice Lefebvre Counsel: Mr. M. Davies
Person in charge of hospital: Representative Dr. F. Wood
Attorney-General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. J. Wright
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated March 12, 2026)
Introduction
1On September 29, 2022, Mr. Maurice Lefebvre, was found unfit to stand trial on account of mental disorder on seven charges of sexual assault, all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (“Criminal Code”). He was similarly found unfit at all subsequent annual hearings.
2Mr. Lefebvre is currently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the “Board”) dated March 3, 2025, detaining him at the Secure Forensic Unit of the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre (“Royal Ottawa”). This Disposition requires that he live in the community in a locked all-male accommodation approved by the person in charge.
3On February 23, 2026, the Board convened a hearing to conduct the annual review of the current disposition.
4Mr. Lefebvre appeared by video conference with his daughter and his social worker, Mr. Robins. Mr. Lefebvre was represented by his counsel, Mr. M. Davies, who appeared in person.
5A Hospital Report, dated February 2, 2026 (the “Hospital Report”), was entered as Exhibit 1.
6In accordance with s. 672.48(1) of the Criminal Code, the Board must decide whether Mr. Lefebvre is unfit to stand trial on the day of the hearing, within the meaning of s. 2 of the Criminal Code. Specifically, is Mr. Lefebvre unable, on account of mental disorder, to understand the nature, and the possible consequences of the proceedings and to communicate with counsel? The other issues before the Board were whether Mr. Lefebvre is permanently unfit, and if so, whether he remains a significant threat to the safety of the public.
7If Mr. Lefebvre is found fit, he must be sent back to court. If he is found unfit, but not permanently so, the Board must make a Disposition that is necessary and appropriate, considering the criteria set forth in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code. Similarly, if he is found to be both permanently unfit and a significant threat, the Board must determine the appropriate Disposition. If he is not found to pose a significant threat to public safety, he must be returned to court.
8For the reasons set out below, and based on the evidence before us, the Board concluded that Mr. Lefebvre is unfit to stand trial. The Board further found that Mr. Lefebvre is both permanently unfit and a significant threat to the safety of the public.
9The Board also found that the necessary and appropriate Disposition required to manage the threat Mr. Lefebvre poses to the public is a continuation of the existing Detention Order.
Current Diagnoses
Major Neurocognitive Disorder (dementia), vascular disease and alcohol-induced, severe
Alcohol Use Disorder, severe, in a controlled environment
Outstanding Charges
10The circumstances giving rise to the outstanding charges are accurately summarized in last year’s Reasons as follows:
Mr. Lefebvre, who was 77 at the time of the index offences, was living in a mixed-gender long-term care home. He had been diagnosed with dementia in the mid-80s. Between April 13, 2021, and August 30, 2021, he sexually assaulted four female residents ranging in age between 65 and 89 by touching their breasts or other parts of their bodies. Two had been assaulted on more than one occasion. The assaults are described in the police synopsis.
Since the incidents, Mr. Lefebvre had been transferred to a locked all-male unit in another facility.”
Course since Last Disposition
11Mr. Lefebvre’s course since last Disposition is detailed in the Hospital Report. The following extracted paragraphs are relevant to this hearing:
“Mr. Lefebvre has continued to reside in the locked male dementia unit at the Glen Stor Dun Lodge in Cornwall, Ontario. Mr. Lefebvre, nonetheless, has been stable and has not been to hospital in the past year.
Over this recording period Mr. Robins visited with Mr. Lefebvre monthly and met regularly with nursing staff on the locked all-male unit at his long-term care home, Glen Stor Dun Lodge in Cornwall, Ontario.
Mr. Robins was informed by Mr. Lefebvre’s Nurse of two episodes of sexually inappropriate behavior toward female staff. “Staff had reported on March 6th that Mr. Lefebvre was sexually inappropriate with female staff. Staff explained that Mr. Lefebvre was touching and grabbing the female staff's chest and body while she assisted him to stand up from hallway chair to walker. Redirection given with short effect. Mr. Lefebvre later came to dining room, another female staff assisted him to sit down to dining room chair. Mr. Lefebvre touched and grabbed the female staff's buttocks. Redirection made by the female staff with effect.”
Medication management was reviewed on several occasions, with staff reporting challenges related to medication refusal.
Mr. Lefebvre was referred to the outreach geriatric psychiatry program at The Royal in early-2025. Although he has been assigned a geriatric psychiatrist, he has yet to be assessed by the team.”
Position of the Parties
12Dr. Floyd Wood, on behalf of the hospital and most responsible treating physician, and counsel for the Attorney-General and Mr. Lefebvre advised that this was a joint recommendation; all agreed that Mr. Lefebvre is permanently unfit and remains a significant threat to the safety of the public; and the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a continuation of the Detention Order.
Evidence at the Hearing:
13The Board had available to it the evidence and documents forming the Record, the Exhibits, and oral evidence from Dr. Wood. Dr. Wood co-authored the Hospital Report and testified as follows:
a) There were two incidents of sexually inappropriate behaviour which happened in March of 2025.
b) Mr. Lefebvre is well managed in his current accommodation, being The Glen Stor Dun Lodge in Cornwall (“Glen Stor”).
c) Glen Stor have indicated that they are considering changing their policies to allow co-ed dining. The treatment team needs to liaise with Glen Stor to make sure that if this change happens that appropriate accommodations are made to make sure that Mr. Lefebvre does not engage in any inappropriate sexual behaviour with female residents. Mr. Lefebvre has had inappropriate behaviour with female staff at Glen Stor.
d) The treatment team will be meeting with a geriatric psychiatrist in the next couple of weeks to ensure a proper handover and supervision of Mr. Lefebvre’s care.
e) The treatment team needs a Detention Order so that if Mr. Lefebvre does engage in any inappropriate sexual behaviour in any co-ed dining area he can be brought back to hospital as opposed to being held in custody in a jail.
f) The treatment team also will be investigating the possibility of having his daughter made a substitute decision-maker for placement decisions for Mr. Lefebvre.
g) Part of the treatment plan going forward is the involvement of the geriatric psychiatrist which shall happen in the next couple of weeks.
14In response to questions from counsel for Mr. Lefebvre, Dr. Wood testified:
a) Mr. Lefebvre is doing much better now since they reduced his dose of Risperidone. Mr. Lefebvre was experiencing sedation and that is why they are currently adjusting his dose of Risperidone.
b) Mr. Lefebvre is doing well physically.
c) There are no medical or therapeutic options available to render Mr. Lefebvre fit for trial. He assesses Mr. Lefebvre’s fitness for trial on an ongoing basis, and it is his opinion that Mr. Lefebvre does not understand why he is under the auspices of the Royal Ottawa or the Ontario Review Board, nor does he have the ability to meaningfully communicate with counsel.
d) Mr. Lefebvre’s daughter is an excellent substitute decision-maker for treatment with anti-psychotics. She is very involved in Mr. Lefebvre’s care and management. She has good insight into Mr. Lefebvre’s condition and communicates on a regular basis with the treatment team.
e) Mr. Lefebvre still remains a significant threat to the safety of the public as indicated by the two recent incidents of sexually inappropriate behaviour. As well if Glen Stor does transition him to a co-ed dining, this too will increase his risk to the safety of the public and is an ongoing concern.
f) Should Glen Stor institute co-ed dining and Mr. Lefebvre be able to access the co-ed dining with appropriate measures for the safety of others, this could then allow the team to recommend a stay of the proceedings.
g) The treatment team plan is not to bring Mr. Lefebvre back from Glen Stor if they do not have to but if they do need to a Detention Order will allow them to bring him back to hospital as opposed to him having to go into custody for any potential inappropriate behaviours and as such a conditional discharge is not appropriate.
15In response to questions from the panel, Dr. Wood testified:
a) Moving forward the treatment team needs to have a proper handover of Mr. Lefebvre’s care to a geriatric psychiatrist associated with Glen Stor; optimize his medication regimen and to ensure that if Glen Stor does decide to institute co-ed dining, that his risk can be safely managed.
b) Mr. Lefebvre is not very mobile, but issues arise when there are not male staff to manage Mr. Lefebvre’s activities of daily living and female staff must be employed in their place. While this does not meet the protocol of Glen Stor , at times staffing issues mean there is no choice but to have female staff involved. This presents a risk to female staff.
c) Mr. Lefebvre cannot meaningfully communicate with counsel.
d) Mr. Lefebvre does not understand the nature or the role of the proceedings or the parties in any proceedings.
e) Mr. Lefebvre could not meaningfully participate in his defence.
f) Mr. Lefebvre suffers from dementia and as such his mental disorder cannot be described as transient.
g) For the treatment team to recommend a stay of the proceedings and no longer consider Mr. Lefebvre a significant threat to the safety of the public, the following matters must happen:
i) His daughter becomes the substitute decision-maker for placement decisions;
ii) There is a proper handover of his care to the proposed new geriatric psychiatrist associated with Glen Stor;
iii) His medication regimen becomes optimized; and
iv) Should the Glen Stor allow co-ed dining it must make sure that appropriate policies and accommodations and procedures are in place to make sure that Mr. Lefebvre does not engage in sexually inappropriate behaviour with female patients and staff at Glen Stor.
h) The reason there have been no incidents since March of 2025 is because of the introduction of Seroquel. The treatment team is hoping with the change to his medication regimen this will keep Mr. Lefebvre on his positive trajectory of not engaging in any sexually inappropriate behaviour.
i) Female staff are considered members of the public and sexually inappropriate behaviour to female staff is considered a significant threat to the safety of the public.
16No other evidence was called.
Analysis and Conclusions:
Fitness to Stand Trial
17The first issue for the Board to decide is whether Mr. Bruder remains unfit to stand trial.
Applicable Law
18The Supreme Court of Canada addressed the fitness test most recently in R v Bharwani, 2025 SCC 26 (“Bharwani”). In this decision, the Supreme Court emphasized the following:
a. Fitness to stand trial does not require an accused to make decisions in his or her best interests. Instead, “it requires making decisions based on an understanding of reality that is not overwhelmed by delusions, hallucinations, or other symptoms of their mental disorder.”1
b. The accused is fit to stand trial if (s)he can: “make and communicate reality-based decisions in the conduct of their defence or instruct counsel to do so”2 and can: “intelligibly communicate these decisions to counsel or the court.”3
c. Conducting a defence involves: “making decisions that an accused must always make personally and those which relate to the exercise of their right to full answer and defence, such as decisions about pleas,
the mode of trial, selection of counsel, whether to testify, whether to call or cross-examine witnesses, and closing submissions, among others.”4
d. The “capacity” required to make these decisions includes: “a reality-based understanding of the nature or object of the proceedings and their possible consequences, an ability to understand the available options and their consequences, and an ability to select between those options when making decisions.”5
e. “Transient” mental health symptoms do not necessarily compromise an accused’s ability to conduct a defence. The focus is: “always on assessing the extent to which an accused’s mental disorder impairs their understanding of reality when making and communicating decisions in their defence.”6
f. The fitness to stand trial test is “contextual,” and the inquiry: “focuses on the decisions that form part of an accused’s defence in a specific case, and not in the abstract.”7
g. The Court further stated, at paragraph 67 in Bharwani:
“The text of the statutory definition of “unfit to stand trial” provides some guidance on the requisite capacity threshold that an accused must possess. The definition notes “in particular” that an accused is unfit if they are unable to (1) understand the nature or object of the proceedings, (2) understand the possible consequences of the proceedings, or (3) communicate with counsel. The use of “or” between these requirements suggests that if the court is satisfied that the accused is unable to meet one of them, they are unfit to stand trial, as they lack the capacity to “conduct” a defence.”
Determination of Fitness
19Having heard and considered all the evidence and submissions from the parties, the Board agrees with their joint submissions that Mr. Lefebvre is unfit to stand trial. Mr. Lefebvre is unable to: understand the nature and object of the proceedings; understand the possible consequences of the proceedings; communicate meaningfully with counsel; or meaningfully participate, and instruct counsel, in a criminal proceeding. Mr. Lefebvre’s mental health symptoms cannot be described as transient.
20Mr. Lefebvre’s mental health disorder does compromise his ability to conduct a defence, and it would impair his understanding of reality when making, or communicating, decisions in his defence.
21In particular, the Board relies on the following extracted paragraphs, set out in the Hospital Report:
“As indicated above, Mr. Lefebvre’s cognitive deficits are severe. He is generally confused and disoriented. When questioned, he is not able to articulate the alleged offences, the roles and procedures of the Court, or the potential outcomes. It seems apparent that Mr. Lefebvre would not be able to communicate adequately with counsel, nor could he meaningfully participate in Court proceedings. He does continue to occasionally have periods of remarkable lucidity, during which he may be considered fit to stand trial. Unfortunately, these lucid periods only las a day or two, and occur rarely, in an unpredictable pattern.”
Necessary and Appropriate Disposition:
Determination of Permanent Unfitness
22The Board agrees with the joint recommendation that Mr. Lefebvre is permanently unfit, based on the doctor’s uncontroverted evidence and the Hospital Report. Mr. Lefebvre suffers from a major neuro-cognitive disorder, dementia, and vascular disease, all of which are untreatable, whether medically, pharmacologically, or psychotherapeutically.
23As set out in the hospital report, Mr. Lefebvre presents a moderate risk of future violence of a similar nature to his outstanding charges without the interventions currently employed to limit harm to others.
24Despite being moved to a locked male-only dementia unit, he has continued to display sexually inappropriate behaviours towards female staff when safety protocols were not followed.
25Mr. Lefebvre’s long-term acre facility is now under new management, which plans to make the dining facility co-ed with staff supervision. This proposed change raises concerns if the supervision is insufficient or if agency staff are not made familiar with his profile.
26Mr. Lefebvre’s overall impulsivity has improved with the optimization of his medication regimen. The combination of redirection by male staff and pharmacological interventions appears to be keeping him stable at this time.
27The Hospital needs to retain the ability to approve of Mr. Lefebvre’s housing, for both his own safety and that of the public. Mr. Lefebvre’s care is currently being adequately managed at Glen Stor. However, the new co-ed dining policy may not be appropriate for Mr. Lefebvre. If it were to put him in a position of becoming a threat to public safety, the hospital would require the ability to detain him, rather than having him arrested and placed in custody.
28In 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. Lefebvre, his reintegration into society and his other needs, the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a Detention Order.
DATED this 12th day of March 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.
Mr. J. Weinstein Alternate Chairperson
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board