Ontario Review Board
Re: L. (M.J.)
ORB File No: 8876
Hearing held on: Wednesday, February 11, 2026
Place of Hearing: Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre
Pursuant to: Section 672.47(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Ms. M. Labrosse Members: Dr. S. Lessard Dr. C. Kraznik Mr. D. Sandor Ms. B. Naegele
Parties Appearing:
Accused: L. (M.J.) Counsel: Ms. M. Lord Person in charge of hospital: Representative Dr. M. Strike Attorney-General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. M. Dufort
*Pursuant to s. 672.501(1) of the Criminal Code, the Ontario Review Board prohibits the publication, broadcasting, or other transmission of any information that could identify a victim in this matter or a witness who is under 18 years of age.
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated March 18, 2026)
Introduction
On October 3, 2025, the accused, L. (M.J.), was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on charges of assault, assault with a weapon, assault against a police officer and committing indecent acts, all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada. At the time of the finding of not criminally responsible, the Honourable Court did not make a disposition and referred the matter to the Ontario Review Board (“ORB”).
On February 11, 2026, the ORB convened at the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre, hereinafter referred to as the hospital, to conduct an initial hearing for L. (M.J.) pursuant to s. 672.47(1) of the Criminal Code. L. (M.J.) attended his hearing and was represented by his counsel, Ms. Mélanie Lord. Dr. Strike, on behalf of the hospital, attended virtually. The psychiatrist member of the Board hearing panel, Dr. Kraznik, also attended virtually.
The following documents were entered as Exhibits at the hearing:
Disposition Hearing Outcome
Criminal Record
NCR Report dated December 10, 2025
Charge Sheet
Clerk Package
Hospital Report dated January 18, 2026
The issues for this hearing are whether L. (M.J.) poses a significant threat to the safety of the public, and if so, to determine the necessary and appropriate disposition for the coming year.
At the outset, the parties provided their preliminary without prejudice positions for this hearing at which time all parties indicated their likely support of the hospital recommendation that L. (M.J.) represents a significant threat to the safety of the public, and secondly, that a detention order with community living in supervised accommodation is the necessary and appropriate disposition. In closing submissions, the parties maintained their initial positions.
For the reasons set out below, the Board finds that L. (M.J.) represents a significant threat to the safety of the public and that a detention order, with permission to reside in the community in supervised accommodation approved by the person in charge of the hospital, is the necessary and appropriate, least onerous, and least restrictive disposition. Additional terms and conditions shall be listed in the Analysis and Conclusion section of these Reasons.
Index Offences
- The circumstances of the index offences have been extracted from the hospital report and are summarized as follows:
“On the 7th of May 2025, in the Ontario Court of Justice, the Honorable Judge M. Dumel placed the accused, L. (M.J.) on a probation order to abide to the following conditions
- Ne pas troubler 1'ordre public et avoir une bonne conduite
- Breach of probation
The accused has a history of displaying aggression and violence, having been charged on multiple offences but not limited to, assaults, assault with a weapon, mischief, possession for the purpose and causing disturbance. The accused has a total of 37 interactions with the Ottawa Police, with most of these resulting in charges.
On the 24th of June 2025, in the City of Ottawa, the accused was present at 690 Borthwick Ave. The complainant D.A. reported to the Police as he observed the accused masturbating when he was spoken to, subsequently departing to a different location.
-Commit an indecent act in a public place
The accused relocated to 646 Cummings Ave, which is situated in close proximity to the previous incident.
He was unclothed and possibly engaging in drug use. The complainant, S.M., who is a service repair technician was present at this location to carry out service tasks. He observed the accused by the commercial green trans bin, where he indicates that the accused was engaged in drug use.
While preparing his tools and equipment, the complainant observed the accused approaching an elderly Asian female. The accused was angry and agitated, he began
yelling and shouting at the elderly female as this was an unprovoked random and unexpected incident. The elderly female appeared terrified and moved away, attempting to ignore the accused.
-Cause disturbance by shouting/yelling
The complainant was shocked as to why a person would carry out such a horrible act, particularly towards an elderly female. He continued to gather his tools from his service truck.
He noticed that the accused was advancing towards him. He was sweating and appeared very angry, his facial expression showed aggression and hostility. The complainant described the accused as having a distinct appearance of a predator. “He was like a predator; his eyes were locked.”
The accused approached the complainant, who was positioned next to his service vehicle. The accused punched the victim targeting the back of his head followed by another strike to his abdomen. The complainant was visible shaken. He reached for a pipe wrench and advised the accused to stop, or he would strike him.
Assault
-Causing disturbance by fighting
His demeanor changed when I had the pipe wrench, he knew exactly what he was doing? The accused stated that his expression changed, indicating that he was no longer enraged. Subsequently the accused proceeded to the back of the complainant's truck and struck the truck, breaking the rear back-up camera.
-Mischief to property.
The complainant entered his vehicle and called 911. He was concerned about the possibility of the accused in engaging in an unprovoked attack on another individual. He followed the accused and observed a tenant, who is described as a black male attempting to gain entry to his residence. The accused threw a plastic water bottle and tried to gain entry into the apartment building but was unsuccessful.
Subsequently, the accused began rolling on the lawn, displaying movements that were
unusual.
Cst Saunders and Cst ODURO-BONSU arrived at the scene. They recognized the accused as L. (M.J.) from a previous incident. They began talking with the accused. The accused threw his shoes at the Police vehicle.
Cst Saunders who was the passenger, attempted to open her door, but the accused kicked the door preventing the door from opening further. The officers hand got caught between the door and the door frame. The accused delivered a series of closed fist strikes at the door and pushing the door shut, preventing the officer from opening the door.
-Assault with a weapon
-Forcible confinement
Cst Oduro-Bonsu exited from the driver's seat and attempted to arrest the accused. The accused positioned himself in a combative posture, with his arms raised. He was in a posture that indicated his readiness to engage in a fight with the officer. Cst Oduro- Bonsu secured the accused in a restraining position by bear hugging the accused.
The accused began to resist by trying to pull his arms out from the officer's restraint. Cst Saunders exited from the passenger seat to assist and secure
the arrest. The accused refused to comply with the officers demands. The accused was pulling and pushing, attempting to free himself.
Cst Saunders fell with the accused landing on her arm, causing it to sustain a possible fracture.
While on the ground, the accused continued resistance, Cst Saunders sustained significant abrasions to her face.
Distractionary techniques were utilized, such as applying pressure to the shin to induce compliance. Ultimately, they were able to secure the arrest. Despite the accused continued resistance, the officers were finally able to secure the arrest.
-Assault Peace officer x 2
-Assault causing bodily.
-Resist arrest x 2.
The officer was transported to the hospital, where she was diagnosed with a possible concussion and a possible broken arm. Additionally, she also sustained numerous cuts and abrasion to her face and bruising of the abdomen.”
Background History
The details of L. (M.J.)’s personal, legal, and psychiatric history are set out in detail in the hospital report. Briefly summarized, L. (M.J.) is 46 years of age and was born in Ottawa. He grew up in a close-knit family. His parents are still together and live in Embrun, a town just east of Ottawa.
Around the age of five, L. (M.J.) started playing hockey and reportedly played competitively until about 15. In terms of schooling, he left school one credit short of his Grade 12 diploma. He says he took a course at the Academy of Natural Sciences and educated himself using YouTube. The family lived in the countryside. He worked with his parents on the farm.
At the age of 18, L. (M.J.) went to Vancouver to work for his uncle as a construction worker. He stayed there for a few months before returning to Ontario. After that, he lived between downtown Ottawa and his parents' home. He says he worked for 10 years for an independent contractor laying foundations. He has not worked in several years and is supporting by the Ontario Disability Support Program.
More recently, L. (M.J.) has been living a life of homelessness. He lived in a group home (Résidence Limoges) between August and September 2024 and was evicted due to aggressive behavior.
Legal History
- The criminal record entered as an exhibit to this hearing indicates that L. (M.J.) has convictions in 2018 for possession of Schedule I substances for which he received a 90-day intermittent sentence, probation of one year and mandatory weapons prohibition. The criminal record also notes that in 2000 and 2002, L. (M.J.) was charged with theft and mischief offences which offences were ultimately withdrawn.
Psychiatric History
L. (M.J.)’s psychiatric history, as documented in the hospital report, goes back to 1996. He was first diagnosed with a primary psychotic illness at the age of 17 years, having had a severe psychotic episode with paranoid delusions.
Over the years, L. (M.J.) has had several outpatient psychiatrists and numerous admissions to hospital while experiencing psychosis, frequently diagnosed as substance induced.
Current Diagnoses
Schizophrenia
Amphetamine/Methamphetamine Use Disorder
Cocaine Use Disorder
Evidence at the Hearing
The hospital’s evidence was presented through its report as well as through the oral testimony of Dr. Melanie Strike, who has been L. (M.J.)’s attending psychiatrist since his admission to the hospital. This evidence is summarized below.
L. (M.J.) was admitted to the Forensic Assessment Unit (FAU) of the hospital on October 30, 2025, pursuant to a Warrant of Committal following his NCR finding on October 3, 2025. It was acknowledged during the hearing that administrative issues (not on behalf of the hospital) caused delays in setting L. (M.J.)’s initial hearing before the ORB.
According to Dr. Strike, since being on the FAU, L. (M.J.) has not presented any management problems. He has respected the unit rules and has been cooperative with hospital staff. He has adapted to life on the unit, likes to be helpful and enjoys doing tasks on the unit, including snow removal in the interior yard.
L. (M.J.) has been psychiatrically stable though he initially presented with residual symptoms, namely thought disorder and expressing bizarre beliefs. These symptoms have not been problematic. The hospital believes that they may be related to neuro-degenerative symptoms brought about by the prolonged use of stimulant drugs.
Dr. Strike explained that L. (M.J.) has had difficulties understanding the ORB process and was disappointed to find out that he would not be receiving a fixed term to remain under the jurisdiction of the ORB. The treatment team has made efforts to explain the ORB system in greater detail, including the fact that he would be having an annual review of his disposition. He now seems content with those further explanations.
L. (M.J.) participated in a neuro-psychological assessment conducted by the hospital Neuropsychologist Ginette Marcil, and the report was just received by Dr. Strike prior to the hearing. Dr. Strike summarized the results of the assessment report as stating that L. (M.J.) does not exhibit any major cognitive issues, such as dementia, but that he may have some deficits with executive functioning which affect organization and planning. L. (M.J.) also demonstrates some deficits with respect to auditory comprehension and in her report, Dr. Marcil sets out a plan for addressing these deficits. Dr. Strike agreed that the report should be made available for L. (M.J.)’s next ORB hearing.
Another notable update relates to L. (M.J.)’s engagement in addictions counselling for his severe polysubstance use disorder. His use of stimulants has been linked to the decompensation of his illness and has triggered secure psychotic episodes. Shortly after his arrival at the hospital, L. (M.J.) met with one of the hospital’s addiction counsellors, Iman Babul, but was unable to engage with her in a meaningful way. He is now working with Terry Bleakley-Brown, who speaks French. L. (M.J.) has so far refused to attend three out of four individual sessions with Ms. Bleakley-Brown and has not yet acknowledged that he has a serious substance use issue. L. (M.J.) was noted to be romanticizing the use of drugs, demonstrating a considerable lack of insight on the deleterious effects of substances on his major mental illness.
Dr. Strike explained that she recently met with L. (M.J.) and specifically spoke with him about the risks associated with his consumption of drugs and how this may severely impact his privileges on the unit and his eventual discharge into the community. Once L. (M.J.) starts accessing privileges, he will likely be faced with offers for drugs and he will need to develop a will and ability to refuse them. L. (M.J.) has told Dr. Strike that he plans to abstain from drugs. According to Dr. Strike, L. (M.J.)’s insight is not yet fully developed, and he tends to verbalize unrealistic ideas regarding how difficult it will likely be for him to abstain from substances.
According to the historical information available, there is a clear link between L. (M.J.)’s use of drugs and severe decompensation of his psychotic illness.
In response to questions posed to her by counsel for the Attorney General, Ms. Dufort, Dr. Strike agreed that there should be a condition prohibiting any contact with the second victim of the index offences, Mr. Daniel Allaire, who is one of the people who witnessed L. (M.J.) masturbating in front of his home.
With respect to eventual discharge, Dr. Strike confirmed that the hospital is not considering anything other than a 24/7 supervised accommodation for L. (M.J.), in addition to planning to connect him with an ACT team in the community.
The hospital is recommending that community living be within 150 kms of the hospital to include the Region of Prescott-Russell where there is likely to be more French-speaking group homes. Dr. Strike noted that L. (M.J.) had been in a supervised group home in Prescott-Russell some years ago where he was evicted because of aggression linked to drug use. This may prove to be a barrier to finding appropriate residence for him.
Dr. Strike believes that it is not necessary to include the “24/7 supervised” wording to the disposition as this could limit the housing options; however, there is no air of reality to the fact that L. (M.J.) would be discharged to anything but a supervised group home.
In response to questions posed to her by counsel for L. (M.J.), Ms. Lord, Dr. Strike expects reporting to the hospital to be done through Mr. Richard Robins, the hospital social worker, who travels to Prescott-Russell and speaks French. L. (M.J.) will also have contact with an ACT team which may also serve to fulfill his reporting requirements.
Dr. Strike does not believe that L. (M.J.) has a family doctor where he could receive his injection, but if he is connected with the ACT team, a nurse could attend his residence to administer his long-acting antipsychotic injection, or it could be administered at a local pharmacy. Dr. Strike confirmed that this will be fully explored prior to L. (M.J.) receiving his discharge from hospital.
In response to questions posed to her by members of the Board hearing panel, Dr. Strike confirmed that only supervise residences will be considered for L. (M.J.) but that the hospital would like to ensure that there are no unnecessary barriers to accessing all appropriate residences of that kind. In Dr. Strike’s opinion, a supervised residence is required due to L. (M.J.)’s past aggression and violence in the context of severe decompensation triggered by drug use, as well as his lack of insight regarding the severity of his substance use issues.
Dr. Strike acknowledged that L. (M.J.) should also be required to abstain from all forms of cannabis, including cannabis that is prescribed medically and/or synthetic cannabis.
At the end of her evidence, Dr. Strike added that she is not recommending any travel provisions in the disposition but that she would like the disposition to include indirectly supervised community privileges within 150 kms of the hospital to allow for L. (M.J.) to go for walks by himself once he is discharged to a supervised group home.
Lastly, Dr. Strike asked to include accompanied passes to the community of Gatineau, to enable L. (M.J.) to participate in hospital outings which might take place in Gatineau.
No other evidence was presented.
Closing Submissions
- The parties maintained their joint position that L. (M.J.) represents a significant threat to the safety of the public and that a detention order with community living in supervised accommodation approved by the person in charge is the necessary and appropriate disposition, along with conditions to abstain from all substances, submit to random urine drug screens and prohibition of any contact with the victims of the index offences.
Analysis and Conclusion
Having considered all of the evidence tendered at the hearing, and the joint submission of the parties, the Board finds that L. (M.J.) poses a significant threat to the safety of the public as set out in s 672.5401 of the Criminal Code of Canada, and as further defined by the Supreme Court of Canada in Winko v. British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute), 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625.
According to R. v. Winko, a significant threat to the safety of the public means a real risk of physical or psychological harm to members of the public that is serious in the sense of going beyond the merely trivial or annoying. The conduct giving rise to the harm must be criminal in nature.
Our finding that L. (M.J.) meets the threshold of significant threat to the safety of the public is based on his long-standing major mental illness, schizophrenia, for which he has received intermittent treatment over many years but has been unable to maintain stability due to his non-compliance with treatment and persistent drug use. L. (M.J.) experienced homelessness for the last several years during which he had repeated interactions with Police because of his involvement with drugs.
The evidence persuades us that without a disposition L. (M.J.) would relapse into stimulant drug use and experience further psychotic decompensation. It is in those very circumstances that L. (M.J.) committed the index offences, which included a very serious assault against a police officer who sustained serious injuries.
L. (M.J.)’s rehabilitation is in its early stages. Though his mental health has stabilized and has adapted well to the hospital unit, L. (M.J.) has little insight into the severity of his substance use disorder and is currently poorly equipped to deal with the temptations that will present themselves once he is out in the community. The evidence demonstrates that L. (M.J.) is prone to rapid and severe decompensation when he uses drugs, particularly stimulants.
The hospital has made it clear that only supervised accommodation will be contemplated in terms of discharge planning.
We find that, for the above-noted reasons, only a detention can adequately manage the risk at this time.
Having considered the four factors set out in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code, namely the protection of the public, which is the paramount consideration, the mental condition of the accused, his reintegration into society and his other needs, the Board finds that a detention order, with permission to reside in the community in supervised approved accommodation within 150 kms of the hospital, is the necessary and appropriate, and is the least onerous and least restrictive disposition in the circumstances. The disposition shall also include the following conditions:
To abstain absolutely from the use of alcohol or drugs, including all cannabis products containing THC, or any other intoxicant;
To submit to random urine screening;
A weapons prohibition;
A non-contact provision with the victims of the index offences; and
To report not less than once every two weeks while living in the community.
- The hospital, joined by the other parties, requested an expedited disposition as L. (M.J.) has been ready for transfer to the FRU for several months, but this could not happen because of the delay in setting the initial hearing date. The Board will therefore expedite the disposition to enable a transfer to the FRU, as soon as possible, to allow L. (M.J.) to start accessing privileges.
DATED this 18th day of March 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Ms. M. Labrosse
Alternate Chairperson
__________________
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board