Re Luke Armstrong, 2026 CanLII 34200

Re: Luke Armstrong

ORB File No: 5751

Hearing held on: Wednesday, April 1, 2026

Place of hearing: Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care

Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code

Rule 8.6 – Schedule A, Review Board Rules of Procedure

Before:

Alternate Chairperson: Ms. S. Clapp

Members: Dr. P. Darby Dr. S. Wiseman Ms. C. Murray Ms. B. Little

Parties Appearing:

Accused: Luke Armstrong (self-represented) Amicus Curiae: Ms. C. Whillier Person in Charge of Hospital: Counsel: Ms. J. Lefebvre Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. S. Curry

REASONS FOR RULING AND DISPOSITION

(Dated April 8, 2026)

Introduction:

1. On November 26, 2010, Luke Armstrong was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (“NCR”) on a charge of second degree murder, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (“Criminal Code”), and has been subject to the jurisdiction of the Ontario Review Board (the “ORB” or “Board”) since then. Mr. Armstrong is currently subject to a Disposition of the Board dated November 28, 2024, detaining him at the High Secure Provincial Forensic Programs at the Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care (“Waypoint” or the “hospital”), with privileges up to and including grounds privileges beyond the secure perimeter, escorted by staff. Mr. Armstrong is also required to abstain from substances, refrain from possessing weapons, and refrain from communicating with certain individuals.

2. On April 1, 2026, a panel of the Board convened in the gymnasium at Waypoint to review Mr. Armstrong’s Disposition pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. The panel also heard Motions brought by Mr. Armstrong. Mr. Armstrong was present for the hearing and represented himself. Ms. C. Whillier was appointed as Amicus Curiae during a Pre-Hearing Conference on January 8, 2026, and was present. Ms. J. Lefebvre, counsel for the hospital, and Ms. S. Curry, counsel for the Attorney General, were also present.

3. In addition to the documents which formed the Record for the hearing, the following documents were marked as Exhibits: 1) Hospital Report dated September 22, 2025 (“Hospital Report”); 2) Update to Hospital Report dated January 30, 2026 (“Update”); and 3) Consolidated Motions Record filed by Mr. Armstrong.

Findings:

4. For the reasons set out below, the panel dismissed all three of Mr. Armstrong’s Motions. The panel also concluded that Mr. Armstrong continues to pose a significant threat to public safety, and that the necessary and appropriate Disposition, which is also the least onerous and least restrictive in the circumstances, is a continuation of the existing Detention Order.

Index Offence:

5. The circumstances of the index offence are outlined in detail in the Hospital Report (at pages 3-12). In summary, on the evening of April 30, 2010, Mr. Armstrong violently attacked and killed his mother while they were driving in their car. The postmortem examination documented the extreme force involved and the severity of the injuries to Mrs. Armstrong, with significant blood loss from extensive wounds caused by multiple sharp force stabbing and incisions, and blunt force blows. In the days immediately after the index offence, Mr. Armstrong was noted to be severely thought disordered and paranoid, with bizarre and disorganized behaviour.

6. Mr. Armstrong’s last annual hearing was held on November 1, 2024¹ and the most recent Disposition was issued on November 28, 2024. His next annual hearing was scheduled for October 31, 2025. The Reasons for Adjournment from that date state that the panel was advised that Mr. Armstrong had fired his counsel (S. Kadiri) and indicated that he wished to retain a lawyer that he trusted. The hearing was therefore adjourned to a Pre-Hearing Conference (“PHC”). The Reasons for Adjournment from October 31, 2025, state that the social worker at the hospital would be asked to assist Mr. Armstrong with retaining counsel, and that the Board should appoint Amicus Curiae (Reasons for Adjournment dated October 31, 2025).

7. A PHC was convened by the Board by telephone on January 8, 2026. The PHC Report states that Mr. Armstrong did not attend the PHC and had advised Ms. Whillier that he was not available at the scheduled time. When Ms. Whillier had inquired if Mr. Armstrong had retained counsel, he declined to answer. Ms. Whillier advised that the hospital’s Patient Advocate had met with Mr. Armstrong to assist with retention of counsel and noted that he was seeking counsel who would “bring a motion.” It appeared at that time that Mr. Armstrong would be self-represented at the annual hearing. Ms. Whillier was appointed as Amicus Curiae at this PHC as she acted in this role at Mr. Armstrong’s last annual hearing (PHC Report dated January 8, 2026).

8. The delivery of the relevant hearing documents to Mr. Armstrong was also discussed at the PHC. Ms. Lefebvre advised that the hearing documents had been provided to Mr. Armstrong in advance of the October 31, 2025, hearing date. It was agreed that the Board would provide the hearing documents to Mr. Armstrong again, including the Update to the Hospital Report, through the social worker at Waypoint, as had been requested by Mr. Armstrong. The annual hearing was scheduled for a half day on February 25, 2026 (PHC Report dated January 8, 2026).

9. At the beginning of the hearing on February 25, 2026, Mr. Armstrong presented a Motion in which he sought various relief, including access to a number of items to allow him to prepare for the hearing and disclosure of certain information. He represented himself. After the parties and the panel had an opportunity to review the Motion materials, the panel heard the Motion. This took most of the allotted half daytime frame that had been scheduled for the annual hearing. As such, the annual hearing could not proceed and needed to be adjourned (Reasons for Adjournment dated February 25, 2026).

10. The Reasons for Adjournment from February 25, 2026, state that: “Mr. Armstrong had earlier expressed his concern for any delay of his annual hearing. At the same time, he was also concerned about having sufficient computer time to prepare for his hearing. The panel gave him a choice – to adjourn to February 26^th [the next afternoon] or the next available hearing day (April 1^st). Mr. Armstrong declined to choose between them. The panel decided to adjourn to February 26, 2026, for a half day at 1:00 p.m.” (Reasons for Adjournment dated February 25, 2026).

11. On February 26, 2026, Mr. Armstrong raised a number of objections to proceeding with the annual hearing, including: he did not have enough time to prepare for the hearing; he had not received a copy of the PHC Report from January 8, 2026; he thought that the February 25, 2026 date was for a PHC not the annual hearing; and he wanted to bring two more motions and he did not have time to prepare them. The specifics of what occurred on February 26, 2026, are outlined in detail in the Reasons for Adjournment. Mr. Armstrong ultimately stated that he wanted the annual hearing to be adjourned to April 1, 2026, so that he could prepare his motions. Although counsel for the hospital and the Attorney General opposed an adjournment, Mr. Armstrong’s request was acceded to with the following explanation provided in the Reasons for Adjournment dated February 26, 2026:

“The panel retired to deliberate on the request. Although we were reluctant to grant a further adjournment of this matter, and suspected that Mr. Armstrong was being somewhat disingenuous (for instance insisting he needed a printed copy of his own materials to tell us what the motion was for but when Mr. Thomson offered a pragmatic alternative, refusing), we were also cognizant that (a) Mr. Armstrong is unrepresented and operating with limitations on his access to a computer and other resources (many of which were limitations resulting from his own decisions) and (b) only yesterday the panel had offered to adjourn this matter to April 1st. We concluded that on balance it was appropriate to grant Mr. Armstrong one further adjournment so that he could prepare his motion(s) in advance of his annual review.”

12. The panel requested that Mr. Armstrong provide his motion materials by March 13, 2026, at 4:00 p.m., and it was explained that the panel would hear his motions as well as the annual hearing on April 1, 2026. The Reasons for Adjournment stated that this schedule was carefully explained to Mr. Armstrong (Reasons for Adjournment dated February 26, 2026).

13. Mr. Armstrong let the Board know that he had some difficulty delivering his motion materials by March 13, 2026, and he was then given until March 27, 2026, to deliver them. Mr. Armstrong’s Consolidated Motions Record was received by the Board on March 24, 2026.

14. The Reasons for Ruling related to Mr. Armstrong’s Motion that was heard on February 25, 2026, were issued on March 20, 2026. The Motion was dismissed.

Process for the Hearing:

15. Given the history of this matter, and because the panel had three hours to hear Motions brought by Mr. Armstrong and to conduct the annual hearing, a process as to how the hearing would be conducted was presented to the parties at the outset of the hearing. The panel advised the parties that it had carefully reviewed Mr. Armstrong’s Consolidated Motions Record as well the Hospital Report and Update (all of which were marked as Exhibits). Submissions on the Motions and evidence on the annual hearing were an opportunity to provide any highlights and/or updates. As such, the parties were given time limits for their submissions on the Motions (15 minutes for Mr. Armstrong, and 5 minutes for each of the other parties) and for the evidence of Dr. Hudson and Mr. Armstrong (15 minutes direct testimony, and 10 minutes for each of the other parties and the panel to ask questions). If required, time limits would be placed on the parties for their final submissions.²

16. The parties were also advised that it was likely that the panel would reserve making decisions on the Motions so that the annual hearing could be completed within the time allotted and without taking time for the panel to deliberate. Mr. Armstrong strenuously objected to this, as he stated in his Motion materials that the Motions were to be heard in sequence, such that only if the one before it is dismissed would the next one be heard. Mr. Armstrong also objected because his first and primary Motion was an argument that the Board had lost jurisdiction. It was explained to Mr. Armstrong that this was being done for efficiency given the history of these proceedings, and to ensure that all matters that were before the panel were completed in the allotted time. It was also noted that the panel is entitled to control its own process. Finally, it was made clear that the panel would only consider the evidence received on the annual hearing after considering and deciding upon Mr. Armstrong’s Motions, including the issue of jurisdiction. Mr. Armstrong repeatedly objected to this process and his objection was noted on the record multiple times.

Mr. Armstrong’s Motions:

17. Mr. Armstrong submitted three Motions, and provided Notices of Motion, Affidavits, Facta, and Authorities for each. He relied on all of these materials in support of his Motions.

18. Prior to the hearing, the panel carefully reviewed Mr. Armstrong’s Consolidated Motions Record, as well as the Reasons for Ruling related to the February 25, 2026, Motion (dated March 20, 2026). The panel determined that all of the issues raised in Motion #3 (pages 34-45 of the Consolidated Motions Record) were either the same as the Motion that had been heard and decided on February 25, 2026, or were repetitive of issues raised in Motion #2 submitted for this hearing. The Reasons for Ruling dated March 20, 2026, and the reasons with respect to Motion #2 below are full answers to all of the issues raised. Motion #3 was therefore dismissed at the outset of the hearing.

Motion #1: Loss of Jurisdiction (pages 6-17 of the Consolidated Motions Record)

19. Mr. Armstrong submitted that the Board had lost jurisdiction because of its failure to hold a hearing within the mandatory 12 month period described in s. 672.81(3) of the Criminal Code (which uses the word “shall”), and the matter should be returned to the Ontario Court of Justice pursuant to s. 672.83.³ He further argued that the unreasonable delay was in violation of sections 7 (the right to life, liberty, and security of the person) and 11(b) (the right to be tried within a reasonable time) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the “Charter”).

20. Mr. Armstrong stated that his last annual hearing was conducted on November 1, 2024, and it was now 17 months since then. Mr. Armstrong maintained that he had never consented to any adjournment and had not waived his right to a timely hearing. Mr. Armstrong submitted that scheduling of a hearing for April 1, 2026, did not retroactively cure this statutory violation, and further, that the Board cannot use its own procedural failures to extend the time frame or revive jurisdiction. He submitted that the Board’s failure to hold a timely hearing prolonged his detention at Waypoint.

21. Ms. Lefebvre noted that the October 31, 2025, annual hearing was adjourned because Mr. Armstrong did not want the lawyer that had been appointed for him and wished to retain another lawyer. The hearing was adjourned in order to respect Mr. Armstrong’s right to have counsel. In any event, it was Ms. Lefebvre’s position that the proceedings had commenced on October 31, 2025, in accordance with s. 672.81(1), and within the 12 month time frame. Ms. Lefebvre submitted that there was no evidence of any prejudice resulting from the delay. Finally, Ms. Lefebvre relied on Rules 5 (Effect of Non-Compliance), 10 (Time and Place of Hearing), and 32 (Adjournment Requests) of the Board’s Rules of Procedure.

22. Mr. Armstrong objected and stated that he did not have the Board’s Rules of Procedure. Ms. Whillier took some time to show Mr. Armstrong the Rules that were being relied upon on her computer. In any event, given that Mr. Armstrong was not familiar with the Rules, the panel did not consider them in making our decision on this issue.

23. Ms. Curry took the same position as the hospital on Motion #1 and did not provide any further submissions. Ms. Whillier referred to the chronology and timeline of this matter and the efforts that had been made to schedule to the annual hearing.

24. In responding submissions, Mr. Armstrong stated that a lawyer never spoke to him before the October 31, 2025, hearing, and he did not know that he had a lawyer.

25. When first considering this issue, the panel noted that Mr. Armstrong’s annual hearing which had been scheduled for October 31, 2025, was scheduled within the 12 month time frame required by s. 672.81(1) (the prior annual hearing was held on November 1, 2024). A panel of the Board commenced the hearing that day and ultimately determined that an adjournment was required. It was this panel’s opinion that this did not take away from the fact that a hearing was convened within the 12 month time frame, and that this was sufficient to dispose of this issue. However, we felt it important to consider the issue further in light of Mr. Armstrong’s submissions.

26. From a review of the history of this matter (outlined above in these Reasons under “History and Timeline of the Proceedings”) it was clear to the panel that the adjournments of Mr. Armstrong’s annual hearing were either to protect his rights, or as a result of his requests or actions. The October 31, 2025, hearing did not proceed because Mr. Armstrong did not have a lawyer of his choosing. There was no indication in the Reasons for Adjournment that Mr. Armstrong objected to the adjournment for this purpose. A PHC was held on January 8, 2026 (although Mr. Armstrong did not attend) in order to determine if Mr. Armstrong had a lawyer, and to organize the documents and other administrative aspects of the hearing. On February 25, 2026, Mr. Armstrong brought a lengthy Motion (without notice) that required the full half daytime slot to hear. Finally, on February 26, 2026, Mr. Armstrong requested an adjournment because he required more time to prepare for the annual hearing and further motions.

27. Although Mr. Armstrong took the position that he did not consent to any of the adjournments, the Reasons for Adjournment from the three attendances did not reflect that. In any event, the panel concluded that the adjournments were required in order to protect Mr. Armstrong’s procedural rights and right to a fair hearing, especially since he was self-represented.

28. While the cases relied upon by Mr. Armstrong related to the NCR regime generally, they did not specifically address the issue of the mandatory time frame set out in s. 672.81(1). The panel relied on the cases of Martin v. Director, Adult Forensic Psychiatric Services, 2000 BCCA 341 (leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada refused [2000] SCCA No. 412), R. v. Runnalls, 2007 ONCA 65 , and Starz (Re), 2015 ONCA 318 for the principle that the Board does not lose jurisdiction over an accused for missing or failing to abide by a statutory time limit (including the one in s 672.81(1)) where there is no prejudice to the accused. For the reasons stated above, we concluded that there was no prejudice to Mr. Armstrong between October 31, 2025, and April 1, 2026, and in fact, the adjournments were required as a result of his requests and actions and in order to protect his rights.

29. Motion #1 was dismissed, and the panel proceeded to consider Motion #2.

Motion #2: Removal for Bias/Misconduct/Exclusion of Tainted Clinical Team (pages 18-33 of the Consolidated Motions Record)

30. Mr. Armstrong sought the following relief in relation to Motion #2 (at pages 19-20 of the Consolidated Motions Record):

“1. Removal of all panel members who presided over the November 1, 2024, hearing on the basis of reasonable apprehension of bias;

2. Removal of Julia Lefebvre as hospital counsel on the basis of conflict of interest and failure to discharge her professional duties;

3. Removal of Carla Whillier as Amicus Curiae on the basis of failure to fulfill her role and protect the Applicant’s interests;

4. Exclusion of Dr. Craig Hudson; Dr. Mishra; Dr. Mara Muraven, and all Beausoleil A unit staff from any clinical involvement in the Applicant’s care or from providing evidence in these proceedings, on the basis of falsified records and active regulatory investigations;

5. An order directing the immediate return of all legal notes; documents, and materials seized from the Applicant on November 1, 2024;

6. A declaration that a non-psychiatrist physician (general practitioner) is legally qualified to oversee the Applicant’s care and to provide clinical reports for these proceedings.

7. An order directing the hospital to immediately provide a licensed social worker pursuant to the Social Work and Social Service Work Act, 1998, and specifically to direct social worker support to Blair Bridge, the Unit Manager of Beckwith A, given Stacey Gaines’ confirmed unwillingness to work with the Applicant — as corroborated by accounts from both Waypoint management and Waypoint staff — with a binding and enforceable date for commencement of that support;

8. An order directing the hospital to cease withholding the Applicant’s mail and to provide a full accounting of all mail withheld to date, on the basis that Mail Claim SC-26-00000008-0000 is in default status and the hospital is deemed to have admitted the allegations of unlawful mail withholding;

9. An order preserving all evidence related to the Property Loss Claim, including the hospital’s Amended Defence filed February 17, 2026 (which violated PHIPA), and the Applicant’s Amended Claim, noting that the Settlement Conference held March 10, 2026, was adjourned for 60 days and all evidence must be maintained intact during that period;

10. A declaration that the hospital’s default status in Mail Claim SC-26-00000008-0000 constitutes deemed admissions binding on these proceedings;

11. A declaration that the hospital’s Amended Defence filed February 17, 2026, violated the Personal Health Information Protection Act, SO 2004, c 3, Sch A (“PHIPA”) by publicly disclosing the Applicant’s confidential mental health diagnoses and NCR status without consent;

12. A declaration that the hospital’s use of the Applicant’s mental health diagnoses to defend against a property claim constitutes bad faith, discrimination, and an abuse of process contrary to ss. 7 and 15 of the Charter and s. 1 of the Ontario Human Rights Code;

13. An order referring the hospital’s PHIPA violation to the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario;

14. An order directing the Ontario Review Board to disclose immediately all emails, records, and communications between Gavin MacKenzie (ORB’s lawyer) and the unverified third party known as “Frank” regarding the Applicant, for the period July 1-31, 2025;

15. An order directing an independent investigation into Gavin MacKenzie’s disclosure of the Applicant’s confidential information to “Frank”;

16. A declaration that the Board’s refusal to investigate its own lawyer’s misconduct creates an irrebuttable reasonable apprehension of bias that taints the entire proceeding;

17. An interim stay of all proceedings pending provision of all relief; and

18. Such further and other relief as is just.”

19. Mr. Armstrong reiterated these points during his submissions. He had a number of complaints about the November 1, 2024 annual hearing, including: he was only given three minutes to speak; the panel deliberated privately in his absence; he was excluded from the hearing without a formal exclusion order pursuant to s. 672.5(10)(b); he was stripped of his pants and placed in seclusion; and his legal notes were seized. He stated that Ms. Lefebvre, Ms. Whillier, and members of the panel watched it all and did nothing.

20. Mr. Armstrong also repeated the following points: the Board’s lawyer had disclosed confidential information about him to a third party (“Frank”) in July 2025 and refused to conduct an investigation into it; he was secluded for seven days without any clinical justification or a Restriction of Liberties Notice or hearing; he has experienced a lack of fresh air; he has not been given an opportunity to properly address the Board panel; the Board has done nothing about his Mail Claim and the violation of PHIPA; and the social worker has been unwilling to work with him so he remains without a social worker.

21. Ms. Lefebvre submitted that the Reasons for Disposition from the November 1, 2024, hearing (dated November 28, 2024) were a full answer to the issues that Mr. Armstrong raised in relation to that hearing. She also noted that there was no appeal from that Disposition. Ms. Lefebvre submitted that the other issues raised in Motion #2 were either dealt with in the Board’s Reasons for Ruling dated March 20, 2026, or the Board is not the appropriate place for them (i.e. requests related to civil litigation).

22. Ms. Curry took the same position as the hospital on Motion #2 and did not provide any further submissions. Ms. Whillier also referred to the Reasons for Disposition from the November 1, 2024, hearing and submitted that Mr. Armstrong may have misunderstood or misinterpreted them.

23. As noted above, the panel had carefully reviewed Mr. Armstrong’s Consolidated Motions Record in advance of the hearing and considered it in addition to Mr. Armstrong’s oral submissions. The panel concluded that all of the issues raised in Motion #2 were either more properly the subject of an appeal, beyond the jurisdiction of the Board, or already addressed by the Board.

24. Specifically, points 1 to 3 which are related to people who participated in the November 1, 2024, hearing, are more properly the subject of an appeal of the November 28, 2024, Disposition. No appeal was undertaken by Mr. Armstrong.

25. Points 4 to 7 are beyond the jurisdiction of this Board. The Board’s jurisdiction is clearly outlined in the Criminal Code, and it does not include: excluding health care staff from participating in Mr. Armstrong’s care or presenting at Board hearings; ordering the return of documents; declaring what type of practitioner may oversee Mr. Armstrong’s care; or ordering the hospital to provide a social worker or support a specific staff member.

26. Points 8 to 13 deal with civil litigation that appears to be before the courts in matters Mr. Armstrong calls a “Mail Claim” and a “Property Loss Claim.” An ORB hearing is not the place to raise these issues, and the Board does not have any control or jurisdiction over them.

27. Points 14 to 16 were addressed and decided upon during the February 25, 2026, Motion.⁴

The Reasons for Ruling dated March 20, 2026, state the following at paragraphs 23 and 24 as follows:

“23. Mr. Armstrong sought disclosure of certain Board policies and procedures relating to the Board’s privacy obligations to an accused. Mr. Armstrong also sought disclosure of any “records, notes, or internal communications” between the Board, and someone named “Frank,” between July 7 and 21, 2025. Mr. Armstrong did not reveal what information he had about these communications or the source of the information he did have.

24. The panel agreed with the other parties that these materials were not relevant to the issues before us when conducting an annual review of his disposition. Mr. Armstrong may have other legal avenues available to him if he is concerned about a breach of his privacy.”

25. For all of these reasons, Motion #2 was dismissed. The panel proceeded to consider the issues raised in relation to the annual hearing.

Annual Hearing:

41. The issues to be determined were whether Mr. Armstrong continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public as set out in section 672.5401 of the Criminal Code, and, if so, what is the necessary and appropriate Disposition to manage that risk having regard to the criteria set out in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.

42. The parties were asked for their initial without prejudice positions. On behalf of the hospital, Ms. Lefebvre took the position that Mr. Armstrong remains a significant threat to the safety of the public, and that a Detention Order with the same terms and conditions as the November 28, 2024, Disposition was necessary and appropriate. Ms. Curry supported the position of the hospital on behalf of the Attorney General.

43. Mr. Armstrong stated that the hearing should not proceed at all in light of his Motions.

44. One of the documents listed as part of the Record was a Victim Impact Statement dated October 12, 2025 (by T. Lasiuk) (“VIS”). Mr. Armstrong stated that he did not have a copy of it. Ms. Curry had an extra paper copy and provided it to Mr. Armstrong at the hearing. Mr. Armstrong was given an opportunity to review the VIS during a break (approximately 10 minutes). Mr. Armstrong continued to state that he had not had an opportunity to review the VIS. For the following reasons, the panel advised that it would not be considering the VIS when making the determination about the necessary and appropriate Disposition this year to avoid an adjournment or further delay of the annual hearing; it was noted that the index offence occurred more than 10 years ago; the VIS had likely been received and considered by prior panels of the Board; and Mr. Armstrong maintained that he had not had sufficient time to review it.

45. Mr. Armstrong’s attending psychiatrist, Dr. Craig Hudson, gave evidence at the annual hearing. Dr. Hudson assumed Mr. Armstrong’s care in December 2024.

Background:

46. The Hospital Report outlines Mr. Armstrong’s personal background in detail and need not be repeated here. In summary, Mr. Armstrong is a 34 year old single man. He has one sister. As a young boy he enjoyed sports and had numerous friends; however, he was moody and prone to losing his temper. He challenged rules and often took “teasing” behaviour too far. Tension in the family home and in Mr. Armstrong’s parents’ marital relationship developed over Mr. Armstrong’s behaviours and parenting styles. Mr. Armstrong’s parents separated in 2007 but remained living together in the family home.

47. Following Mr. Armstrong’s arrest for charges involving an assault on his mother in March 2009, Mr. Armstrong moved to a new home with his father. Mr. Armstrong maintained his interests in music and sports, as well as automobiles, motors, and pyrotechnics.

48. Mr. Armstrong was diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (“ADHD”) in grade 10. He experienced both success and failure at school over the years. He changed schools multiple times due to family relocation or because of social issues including bullying.

49. Mr. Armstrong reported that he smoked cannabis regularly since grade 10 and also sold cannabis for a short period of time when he was 17 years old.

50. At the time of the index offence, Mr. Armstrong was living with his father and sister and saw his mother fairly regularly.

Criminal History:

51. The Hospital Report stated that Mr. Armstrong had no prior criminal convictions; however, he had been involved with the criminal law system. There were three reported calls for police assistance to help manage Mr. Armstrong’s conduct at home and aggression towards his mother. There was a charge of assault causing bodily harm to his mother in March 2009 where he allegedly broke her finger. This charge was withdrawn in December 2009. There were also charges for minor drug offences which were either withdrawn or subject to an unconditional release.

Psychiatric History:

52. Mr. Armstrong’s psychiatric history, and course following the index offence and while subject to the ORB, is discussed in detail in the Hospital Report and will only be briefly summarized here. Mr. Armstrong did not have any contact with psychiatric services prior to the commission of the index offence. However, as a child he was assessed by a psychologist for school-related difficulties, and as an adolescent he attended anger management as directed by the court in response to his 2009 assault against his mother.

53. Following the index offence, Mr. Armstrong was admitted to hospital on a Form 1 for psychiatric evaluation. He was described as religiously preoccupied, delusional, disorganized, and scattered in his thought process. His urine drug screen was positive for cannabis. The diagnostic impression was “Psychosis Not Otherwise Specified, Marijuana Abuse, Rule out Acute Psychotic Disorder and Rule out Substance-Induced Psychosis.”

54. Following the NCR finding, Mr. Armstrong was detained at the Mental Health Centre Penetanguishene, Oak Ridge (now Waypoint) from December 2010 to January 2013. During that time, he was not taking medications and did not exhibit any symptoms of psychosis; however, he was uncooperative and broke rules. There was a period of deterioration and seclusion in August 2012 due to aggressive behaviour toward staff.

55. Mr. Armstrong was transferred to the Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences (“Ontario Shores”) on January 14, 2013. He was described as being dismissive and guarded with a lack of insight or remorse. Mr. Armstrong refused medications and was found incapable of consenting to psychiatric treatment on at least two occasions. On both occasions, the finding was upheld by the Consent and Capacity Board and Mr. Armstrong appealed those Decisions. Mr. Armstrong’s father was initially designated as his substitute decision-maker; however, the Public Guardian and Trustee took over in May 2016.

56. The Hospital Report stated that Mr. Armstrong took antipsychotic medication from 2017 to 2018 and was transferred to a general unit in September 2018. He had independently supervised hospital and grounds privileges, as well as community privileges for up two hours. He worked at a distribution centre and participated in many group programs. Mr. Armstrong was found capable of consenting to treatment during this time and subsequently stopped taking all medications as of September 2019. While Mr. Armstrong’s symptoms were in remission, he continued to challenge unit rules.

57. Mr. Armstrong received a community living provision in his Disposition in 2019; however, numerous significant incidents occurred following this. In 2020, there were numerous unit transfers and what was described as a dramatic regression in Mr. Armstrong’s mental state due to COVID restrictions, poor coping skills, and limited frustration tolerance. Mr. Armstrong was disrespectful to peers and staff and lost his job for not following COVID rules. Due to escalating and aggressive behaviours, as well as contraband found in his room, Mr. Armstrong was transferred to a secure unit at Ontario Shores.

58. Mr. Armstrong required mechanical restraints and/or seclusion on a number of occasions in early 2021 as a result of threatening behaviours and agitation. He was found incapable of consenting to treatment in April 2021 by Dr. K. DeFreitas at Ontario Shores, and the Consent and Capacity Board upheld the finding in 2022. Mr. Armstrong appealed that decision and it has yet to be heard by the court.

59. At the end of 2021, the treatment team at Ontario Shores recommended a transfer to another facility. The following was the reasoning stated in the Hospital Report (at page 131):

“It was the unanimous recommendation by the treatment team that, 1) Mr. Armstrong could no longer be risk managed on a general forensic unit, and 2) that there was a treatment impasse that warranted consideration of his transfer to a different facility.

With respect to the first issue, and as noted above under “Notable Incidents,” it was the clinical team’s opinion that there was very strong evidence for repeated, sustained, and escalating behaviours that directly compromised the safety of the public. Numerous attempts to engage with Mr. Armstrong were unfruitful, and it became clear that not only was he not making any progress in his rehabilitation, he was actively engaging in increasing aggressive and antisocial behaviours that further increased risk concerns. In this regard, it was the team’s opinion that his transfer to a secure forensic unit was necessary and appropriate.

With respect to the second issue, similarly, it was the clinical team’s opinion that there was very strong evidence that a treatment impasse had been reached. Mr. Armstrong himself has voiced escalating acrimony, resentment, and hostility towards all levels of hospital staff. For all intents and purposes, he also began refusing to engage with his clinical team, and refused to even speak to his psychiatrist. Since his 2013 transfer from Waypoint to Ontario Shores, he has been managed on both secure forensic units and all three general forensic units, and it is no longer realistic that a transfer to another clinical team will provide a “fresh start”; rather, any transfer within the hospital would only likely further fuel his resentment and distrust towards the hospital. Although his severe characterological deficits will almost certainly present as a significant challenge at any other facility, it would at least present him an opportunity to establish a new working relationship in furtherance in his rehabilitation, an opportunity that Ontario Shores, unfortunately, can no longer reasonably provide.”

60. Following this recommendation, Mr. Armstrong was disorganized, agitated, and made threats to kill others. He was placed in seclusion. Two Code Whites were called while he was in seclusion. One involved Mr. Armstrong speaking with staff at the seclusion door while naked, then running past them into the day area where he hit and kicked a nurse and pulled his hair. Mr. Armstrong was required to be pulled off of the nurse by another staff member. Mr. Armstrong also smeared feces in his room and flooded the toilet.

61. Mr. Armstrong was transferred to Waypoint on May 20, 2022. Mr. Armstrong maintained his position that he had no intention of taking antipsychotic medication. He continued to test limits, break rules, challenge staff, exhibit inappropriate behaviours, and have contraband on the unit. He also refused urine drug screens. Two periods of seclusion occurred in late 2023 and a Restriction of Liberties hearing was held in December 2023.

62. In May 2024, Dr. Muraven found Mr. Armstrong capable of consenting to treatment; however, on November 5, 2024, Dr. Muraven made a fresh finding of incapacity. Mr. Armstrong attempted to contest the finding; however, since the outstanding appeal from 2022 had not been dealt with, the Consent and Capacity Board would not accept the application.

63. The Hospital Report lists Mr. Armstrong’s diagnoses as (at page 185):

64. Schizophrenia spectrum disorder and other psychotic disorder

65. Cannabis use disorder, mild to moderate, in sustained remission in a controlled environment

66. Antisocial personality disorder

67. Unspecified personality disorder

68. (V Code) Problems related to crime or interaction with the legal system; imprisonment or other incarceration and problems related to other legal circumstances

69. Attention Deficit Disorder (by report as a child)

Evidence at the Hearing:

64. The Hospital Report stated that Mr. Armstrong’s affect continued to be variable, ranging from euthymic to blunted and/or irritable over the review period. He presented as guarded and measured in his speech. His thought process ranged from disorganized to perseverative to goal oriented. Mr. Armstrong continued to express an intense mistrust and suspicion of staff and sometimes co-patients. He believes that he has been mistreated and disrespected by staff members and that they have stolen from him.

65. The Hospital Report also stated that Mr. Armstrong presented with management problems throughout the review period, such as an unwillingness to follow direction, demanding behaviours, and attempts to receive special treatment. There were instances where he intruded on the personal space of staff, coming up behind them to "scare" them, jumping out at staff, and shaking chairs upon which staff were seated. He made several calls to 911 as well as the police non-emergency phone line. He would often challenge unit/hospital protocols and procedures and would try to circumvent direction by approaching alternative staff members for different answers or to complain about staff he perceived to have wronged him.

66. Mr. Armstrong was secluded from October 18 to 22, 2024 and November 1 to 8, 2024.

67. Mr. Armstrong has refused to engage with Dr. Hudson since he took over his care in December 2024. He refuses to speak or make eye contact with Dr. Hudson despite efforts made both in person and virtually to facilitate contact. Mr. Armstrong also refused to provide urine samples for the purposes of drug screening in October and December 2025.

68. The following was included in the Hospital Report as part of the Risk Management Report dated August 12, 2025, provided by the unit psychotherapist under the HLCR20-V3 Historical Item of “Treatment or Supervision Response” (at page 182):

“Historically, Mr. Armstrong has denied that he has a mental illness, has failed to recognize factors that influence his propensity for violence, such as substance use or lack of medication adherence. He has minimized or denied his violence, failed to accept responsibility for his actions, and has failed to develop working relationships with others attempting to provide service to Mr. Armstrong. He continues to present with symptoms related to his major mental disorder, namely social withdrawal, paranoia, and unusual beliefs. He presents treatment interfering behaviours and while he attends some programming, he is often disruptive, fails to implement the lessons taught, presents with superficial engagement and is resistive towards health teaching.”

69. The panel also noted the following statements under the HCLR20-V3 Clinical Item “Violent Ideation” (at page 183):

“Mr. Armstrong has avoided physical and verbal forms of violence over the review period of approximately 12 months; however, this author would note that much of his violence appears driven by the symptoms of his mental illness. Due to his reluctance to engage with staff and express his thoughts, this risk factor is exceptionally difficult to assess. However, due to his lack of physical violence and lack of verbal violence, this risk factor is only partially present at this time. However, this author would note that due to his guardedness and ability to inhibit signs and symptoms of his mental illness, his lack of violence may be due to a reflection of his ability to control himself in the presence of staff rather than a genuine lack of violent thoughts.”

70. The Hospital Report stated that since February 2025, Mr. Armstrong has been engaging with the unit psychotherapist on both an individual and group basis, mostly as part of the Cognitive Behavioural Therapy for Psychosis (“CBTp”) skills group. It was Dr. Hudson’s impression that Mr. Armstrong has a good relationship with the psychotherapist and that his interactions are genuine. He also participated in the Healthy Habits group and individual music therapy sessions. On January 8, 2026, Mr. Armstrong participated in a grounds walk beyond the secure perimeter escorted by staff. He has also had in-person and virtual visits with his father. During his testimony, Dr. Hudson stated that although these programs and activities are helpful to Mr. Armstrong, it was his opinion that they did not reduce his risk to the public.

71. Mr. Armstrong has not received antipsychotic medication since 2019. Ms. Lefebvre advised that the appeal of the Consent and Capacity Board’s 2022 Decision confirming the finding of incapacity remained outstanding, but that it was her understanding that efforts were being made to schedule a case conference with the Superior Court in Oshawa. Dr. Hudson stated his opinion that antipsychotic medications continue to be recommended for Mr. Armstrong.

72. Dr. Hudson testified that Mr. Armstrong remains a significant threat to the safety of the public, citing the following factors: Mr. Armstrong suffers from a major metal illness, namely Schizophrenia (among others); the index offence was second degree murder; his appeal of the finding of incapacity from 2022 remains outstanding and he remains untreated; he remains psychotic to some degree; and he has a history of psychosis and serious violence.

73. Dr. Hudson stated that he has not been able to assess Mr. Armstrong because he refuses to engage with him at all. When asked how he knows that Mr. Armstrong is paranoid, Dr. Hudson responded that he relies on Mr. Armstrong’s behaviour on the ward. Mr. Armstrong has not left the ward for almost the whole time that he has been his psychiatrist because he believes that other patients plan to harm him. Although his privilege level allows him to leave the ward (including for up to one hour to use the computer lab) and he has been offered escorts off the ward, he has not left. Dr. Hudson stated that these are indicators of paranoid ideation. Dr. Hudson also testified that Mr. Armstrong’s difficulties following staff direction and limits placed on him continue and have been a “lifetime issue.”

74. When asked if Mr. Armstrong has access to fresh air, Dr. Hudson responded that there is a fenced outdoor area on the ward that is accessible to Mr. Armstrong. He also could have access to fresh air if he left the ward.

75. Dr. Hudson was asked why the High Secure Provincial Forensic Programs at Waypoint is the most appropriate placement for Mr. Armstrong. Dr. Hudson referred to the very serious nature of the index offence, the fact that Mr. Armstrong’s psychosis has not been treated for over six years, and his opinion that Mr. Armstrong’s risk to the public remains high. Dr. Hudson also spoke about the high staff to patient ratio which enables staff to intervene before assaultive or violent behaviour can begin, as well as Mr. Armstrong’s enhanced quality of life as a result of the groups and activities offered to him. Dr. Hudson also emphasized that there were violent events at Ontario Shores (a less secure environment) that required Mr. Armstrong’s transfer to Waypoint.

76. In response to a question about what would happen if Mr. Armstrong was not subject to the jurisdiction of the Board, Dr. Hudson stated that based on his past history, Mr. Armstrong would likely return to substance use, which would exacerbate his underlying psychosis, and he would harm others as a result of acute symptoms. Dr. Hudson did not know if Mr. Armstrong had a plan in the event that he was absolutely discharged, or if his father would allow him to live with him, because Mr. Armstrong will not engage with Dr. Hudson at all.

77. Mr. Armstrong repeatedly objected to the hearing proceeding. He stated that he did not have the resources he had requested, he did not have the transcript from last year’s hearing, and Ms. Whillier had not responded to a letter he sent by registered mail (Ms. Whillier stated that she had not received the letter).

78. During the period of time that Mr. Armstrong was allotted to ask questions of Dr. Hudson, Mr. Armstrong stated that Dr. Hudson is not his doctor, he has never spoken to him, and the information that the hospital provided was incorrect. Mr. Armstrong stated that Dr. Hudson’s testimony was skewed and was based on incorrect information. Mr. Armstrong stated that he had requested another doctor who does not have the capacity to inflict harm with the use of antipsychotic medications.

79. During the period of time allotted for his evidence (after being advised that there was no requirement that he testify), Mr. Armstrong questioned how Dr. Hudson could have opinions about him when he not had any dialogue with him. Mr. Armstrong stated that staff destroy and throw out his belongings, and this is not illusory, delusional, or the result of a mental illness.

80. Mr. Armstrong stated that: Dr. Hudson does not know his situation and does not understand him, so he is unable to predict if he will cause harm with intent; there is no premise for Dr. Hudson’s opinions, and his opinions are “illusionary and delusional”; it was unfortunate that Dr. Hudson was delusional because “he is supposed to be the one who is clear minded”; Dr. Hudson made a “non-sensical argument” and was trying to jusitify poisoning with antipsychotic medications; and Dr. Hudson is unfit to be a psychiatrist.

81. Mr. Armstrong testified that he is trapped on the unit without fresh air. His attempts to contact the Board about many issues have not been addressed. Mr. Armstrong stated that this was a serious concern because patient rights are not being upheld as a result of lazy staff. Finally, he stated that the Board had no jurisdiction to judge because it is biased.

82. No further evidence was called by the parties.

Submissions:

83. Ms. Lefebvre relied upon the Hospital Report and Update, as well as Dr. Hudson’s evidence for the submissions that Mr. Armstrong remains a significant threat to the safety of the public and that a continuation of the existing Detention Order remains necessary and appropriate. She submitted that Mr. Armstrong requires the High Secure programs at Waypoint to manage his risk which remains high because Mr. Armstrong is untreated and continues to experience psychosis and paranoia, and there are concerns about Mr. Armstrong’s posturing, failure to follow directions and rules, calls to the Ontario Provincial Police, and aggressive interactions with co-patients.

84. Ms. Lefebvre submitted that although Mr. Armstrong is afforded certain liberties while in the hospital, he chooses not to leave the unit and avail himself of fresh air and other resources. Ms. Lefebvre maintained that Mr. Armstrong’s current situation affords him the most liberty commensurate with his risk.

85. Ms. Curry took the same position as the hospital for the same reasons.

86. Ms. Whillier submitted that it appeared from Mr. Armstrong’s comments that he disagreed with Dr. Hudson’s evidence. He also stated very clearly that the Board has no jurisdiction over him. Ms. Whillier inferred that Mr. Armstrong did not believe that he was a significant threat to the safety of the public and was therefore requesting an Absolute Discharge.

87. Mr. Armstrong objected to Ms. Whillier speaking on his behalf. He reiterated his objections to the hearing that have been outlined above. He also outlined his difficulties in having his Motion materials delivered to the Board by the March 13, 2026 (despite being assured that they had been received in good time and there was no penalty to him) and stated that he still has no access to a social worker.

88. Mr. Armstrong stated that he does not have a mental illness, and it is the stressful environment of the hospital that makes it look as if he is mentally ill. It is a “stress-related response.” He submitted that if the hospital ensured his proper rights under Canadian law and the Charter, then he would have a better capability to be mentally and physically healthy. Mr. Armstrong stated that there is “no way to seek help here.”

Analysis and Conclusions:

89. After carefully considering the Hospital Report and Update, all of the oral evidence, and the submissions of the parties, the panel concluded that Mr. Armstrong continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. Although Mr. Armstrong did not exhibit any overtly violent behaviour or require seclusion over the last 12 months (there were seclusions in late 2024), concerning behaviours related to his Schizophrenia and other diagnoses persisted. While the panel considered that Mr. Armstrong has not allowed Dr. Hudson to assess him at all since December 2024, making his risk factors more difficult to assess, there was compelling evidence that Mr. Armstrong continues to present with symptoms of his major mental disorder including social withdrawal, paranoia, and unusual beliefs. He also presents with impulsive and labile behaviours, can easily become dysregulated, and makes inappropriate comments. He continues to consistently demonstrate challenging, oppositional, and defiant attitudes and behaviours. It was also noted that he fails to learn from past lessons and fails to develop positive coping strategies despite repeated psychoeducation and therapeutic programs available to him.

90. The panel also considered that the index offence was extremely violent and caused the death of his mother in the context of untreated psychosis. Mr. Armstrong’s mental illness has been untreated for over six years, which is a significant factor increasing his risk. There have also been multiple incidents of assaultive behaviours while detained in hospital over the years. Further, Mr. Armstrong does not believe that he has a mental illness and has failed to recognize factors that influence his propensity for violence or the serious and lasting harm that he has caused. The panel found that absent the oversight of the forensic system, Mr. Armstrong is at high risk to act out in a similar way to the index offence.

91. The panel decided that a continuation of the existing Detention Order was necessary and appropriate, and the least onerous and least restrictive Disposition for Mr. Armstrong at this time. Mr. Armstrong has had a long and complex course under the Board. He spent a number of years at Ontario Shores, and while he initially made some progress (and was treated with antipsychotic medication for approximately two years), he ultimately required transfer back to Waypoint as his risk and behaviours were not manageable at a less secure facility.

92. The High Secure Provincial Forensic Programs at Waypoint offer an increased staff to patient ratio and allow for Mr. Armstrong to participate in more activities. However, even within the High Secure environment at Waypoint, Mr. Armstrong’s behaviours have been challenging to manage, and seclusion has been required on a number of occasions. Further, due to the fact that Mr. Armstrong does not allow for assessments of his mental status, it is very difficult to assess his risk. Given the resulting increased unpredictability of his symptoms and behaviours, and the gravity of the index offence, it was clear to the panel that detention at a High Secure facility is required to protect the public.

93. It is hoped that some progress can be made in the coming year if Mr. Armstrong continues to work positively with the unit psychotherapist, utilizes his privileges, participates in more groups and escorted walks, and if the appeal of the finding of incapacity is finally disposed of. It is also hoped that Mr. Armstrong will engage with his attending psychiatrist and treatment team.

DATED this 8th day of April 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.

Ms. S. Clapp

Alternate Chairperson

__________________

Office of the Registrar

Ontario Review Board

Footnotes

1. 1Mr. Armstrong’s annual hearing was adjourned from July 2024 to November 1, 2024, because Mr. Armstrong did not have counsel and advised that he did not want Ms. Whillier to act as Amicus Curiae. He also refused to sit in the seat provided for him (Hospital Report at page 168).
2. 2These time limits were ultimately not required to be strictly followed at the hearing (although they were used as a guide). Mr. Armstrong was provided with approximately 30 mins for his Motion submissions, and the other parties used less time than they were allotted. There were also two breaks taken, and some periods where Mr. Armstrong collected his thoughts.
3. 3Note that it is s. 672.81(1) (not (3)) that requires the mandatory review of Dispositions every 12 months; and s. 672.83 does not say that the matter should be returned to the court.
4. 4Point 14 requests that the Board provide Mr. Armstrong with emails between the Board’s lawyer and an individual named “Frank” for the period July 1 to 31, 2025. The panel was advised in advance of the hearing that these emails had been provided to Mr. Armstrong on March 27, 2026.