Ontario Review Board
Re: Alexandre Desmarais
ORB File No: 8376
Hearing held on: Thursday, February 12, 2026
Place of Hearing: Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. D. Sandor
Members: Dr. S. Lessard
Dr. R. Cormier
Ms. M. Labrosse
Ms. B. Naegele
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Alexandre Desmarais
Counsel: Mr. J. Boss
Person in charge of Hospital: Representative Dr. S. Gulati
Attorney-General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. E. Davies
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated April 7, 2026)
Introduction
On August 23, 2023, Alexandre Desmarais, was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on charges of assault causing bodily harm, mischief – damage to property, and robbery, all contrary to the provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada. Mr. Desmarais is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated January 3rd, 2025, detaining him at the Secure Forensic Unit of the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre (hereinafter referred to as “the Hospital”) with privileges up to and including to live in the community in accommodation approved by the person in charge.
On February 12th, 2026, the Board convened a hearing at the Hospital, to review the provisions of that disposition. Mr. Desmarais was present and assisted by his lawyer Mr. Jonathan Boss.
The record for the hearing included the Revised Notice of Hearing dated January 2nd, 2026, the most recent Disposition dated January 3rd, 2025, and the Reasons for that Disposition dated February 27th, 2025. On the consent of all parties a Hospital Report dated December 3, 2025, was entered into evidence as Exhibit No. 1.
The parties were canvassed for their initial positions at the beginning of the hearing. Dr Gulati, Mr. Desmarais’ treating psychiatrist, spoke for the Hospital. He took the position that Mr. Desmarais continued to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public as that term is defined in section 672.5401 of the Criminal Code and as it has been explained by the Supreme Court of Canada in Winko v. British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute), 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625. He further took the position that, having regard to the primary objective of ensuring the safety of the public, the necessary and appropriate disposition to manage the current level of risk, is that Mr. Desmarais now be conditionally discharged. The representative of the Attorney General was ad idem with the Hospital.
Counsel for Mr. Desmarais indicated that the threshold issue of significant threat was not conceded. He indicated that, if significant threat were established, a conditional discharge would be the appropriate disposition, having regard to the objectives set out in section 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
For the following reasons, the Board has concluded that while Mr. Desmarais has made good progress, building on the positive progress he made at the time of last year’s review, he continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. This finding is driven by his major mental illness, his ongoing cravings and anxieties associated with decompensating substance use, and the need for ongoing support as he rounds out his reintegration into the community in order to protect the public from the type of decompensation of symptoms that followed his use of substances in the commission of the index offence and other acts of violence against members of his own family. The Board has also concluded that it is necessary and appropriate for a conditional discharge to issue, with conditions that include testing to monitor Mr. Desmarais’ commitment to abstinence from the use of substances in a context of increasing liberties and stressors associated with community reintegration.
Evidence at the Hearing
The evidence for the hearing came from the Hospital Report mentioned and the live testimony offered by Dr Gulati.
Turning first to the Hospital Report, it contains a summary of the index offences that brought Mr. Desmarais under the jurisdiction of the Ontario Review Board. These are consistent with those incorporated into last year’s Reasons for Disposition.
[On May 2, 2023] at about 13h45 PM, police received a 911 call stating that a male was being assaulted at the area of 490 Rideau Street. Officers arrived on the scene and observed Mr. Desmarais on top of the victim, punching him in the facial area while also yelling “give me my wallet.” Officers interjected in the assault, removing Mr. Desmarais and arresting him for the charges. It was noted that the victim was elderly and smaller in stature than Mr. Desmarais, and that he appeared dazed and confused while also suffering a laceration to his forehead and the beginnings of a black eye. The victim received medical attention from paramedics on the scene prior to being transported to hospital due to his injuries.
The victim reported that his cellphone was broken beyond repair from the assault. The victim also explained that he entered the Quickie store to take cash from the ATM when he was approached by Mr. Desmarais, who demanded his wallet. The victim added that he went outside to the bus shelter, and Mr. Desmarais followed him and began assaulting him while continuing to demand his wallet. There was no stolen property located on Mr. Desmarais upon his arrest.”
Personal Background
- Mr. Desmarais’ personal history is set out in detail in the Hospital Report. It is summarized in last year’s Reasons for Disposition. As such, it is not necessary to repeat what has been indicated already on the record. For the purposes of these Reasons, it is sufficient to note the following:
Mr. Desmarais was born in Quebec to a family that consisted of him, his mother, his father, and two brothers. Medical records indicate that Mr. Desmarais was the victim of several forms of child abuse through to 2003. He has a strained relationship with his mother but has been supported as to his mental health in the past by one of his brothers. He is currently unemployed though he has worked on and off in roofing for the brother mentioned. He was laid off by that brother owing to his mental instability, poor work performance and use of cannabis while on the job. He has a history of homelessness and of noncompliance with recommended medications.
Mr. Desmarais has a limited criminal record. He was incarcerated in December 2021 and has been on probation for assault and other charges from around that time. There is some indication that his mother was the victim of the assault.
Mr. Desmarais’ first record of struggle with major mental illness dates to 2014 when he was diagnosed with schizophrenia. He presented to the Ottawa Hospital with psychotic episodes that year and again in 2015 when he was made the subject of a Community Treatment Order. He has indicated past diagnoses of paranoid schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. His current diagnosis is:
· Schizophrenia- in remission
· Cannabis use disorder- severe, in early remission
· Amphetamine use disorder- severe, in early remission
- Mr. Desmarais is currently capable of consenting to treatment and of managing his finances.
The Hospital Report’s update begins at page 24. It notes that Mr. Desmarais has had a very good year. He has been goal oriented and has maintained suitable employment. He has managed well with the stresses associated with this step-forward in reintegrating into the community and has not shown any signs of psychosis or mood disorder. He has been cooperative with the treatment team and continues to engage with vocational supports. He has participated in programming such as Bakeology to build skills and has exercised principles of good money management. He has been prosocial and attended groups and therapy through the Grove Satellite programs and through individual meetings with a Grove key worker. He has been treatment compliant and has abstained from the use of any substances.
The Hospital Report includes a risk assessment, employing the HCR V3, an instrument commonly relied upon in the forensic community whose sufficiency and manner of use was not brought into question over the course of this hearing. While noting Mr. Desmarais’ historical risk factors, including the presence of a major mental illness, extensive history of substance use and violence that included violence towards both strangers and family, it also details clinical and risk management factors that are largely positive. Mr. Desmarais’ housing and finances appear stable. He denies any symptoms of psychosis or mood disorder. He has been engaging well in programming. His insight continues to show signs of positive progress. He has strong therapeutic alliance and receives good personal support from his brother. While he remains vulnerable to the effects of cannabis, he remains committed to abstaining from substances. Though the Risk Assessment does not specify this, it is noted that all of this is in the context of a detention disposition that has provided an amount of external motivation as Mr. Desmarais transitioned into early stages of independent living.
The Hospital Report sets out important next steps to be undertaken over the course of the next reporting period. These include testing of insight and independent management of stresses in the context of a lesser disposition, as well as strengthening connections between Mr. Desmarais and community supports such as the ACCT team or a psychiatrist in the community.
In last year’s Reasons, the panel noted the progress that Mr. Desmarais had made towards the latter end of that period of review. In his update to the panel this year, Dr. Gulati confirmed that Mr. Desmarais maintained that progress. He began living independently in July 2025. He complies with programming and is actively engaged in volunteering. He is adherent to his medications and has not used any substances. While there are areas that require ongoing support and work, most of this is in terms of supporting him as he maintains employment, volunteering and seeks further education. It also involves supporting him in abstaining from the use of substances that Mr. Desmarais continues to crave. Mr. Desmarais expresses anxiety over the possibility of relapsing. He continues to rely on strong levels of supportive oversight and psychiatric services to manage augmentation of stress and management of triggers that lead to his use of substances and risk the rapid aggravation of psychotic symptoms that have plagued Mr. Desmarais in the past.
Dr. Gulati explained that transition planning is important for Mr. Desmarais. Some of this has been undertaken, but none of it is at the point it needs to be if Mr. Desmarais is going to be successful in the context of an absolute discharge. Over this next period of review, it is expected that the community psychiatric supports will be put into place and Mr. Desmarais will have had a chance to exercise internally motivated insight to abstain from the use of substances. It is hoped that his craving will decrease and the therapeutic alliance he enjoys with the treatment team will be duplicated with community supports.
In response to questions from the panel, Dr. Gulati confirmed that Mr. Desmarais is engaged with the CMHA who provides support in the community in terms of Mr. Desmarais’ addictions. It is expected that he will engage with further addiction supports in the community. In commenting on this, Dr. Gulati warned of the hazards boredom, stress and destabilization pose for Mr. Desmarais. These risk a return to substance use and a rapid decompensation that threatens the safety of the public.
Elena Shalaev, a social worker from Grove Transitional Housing also testified. She explained that, over the course of this review period, it is expected that Mr. Desmarais will be moved into a forensic supplement program that will ensure financial aid for housing for the rest of his life, regardless of whether he is involved with the Ontario Review Board.
Submissions
At the conclusion of the hearing the parties renewed their submissions as set out at the beginning. On the contested issue of significant threat to the safety of the public, the Hospital highlighted the seriousness of the index offence and emphasized the importance of considering both the clinical and static risk factors together as set out in the Hospital Report. The Hospital acknowledged the progress Mr. Desmarais has made but framed it in the broader context lengthy historic periods of noncompliance with treatment and substance use that figured prominently in the commission of violent offences. The Hospital highlighted Mr. Desmarais’ need for support, supervision and monitoring. It suggested that good community supports require expansion beyond that provided by his brother, friends, the CMHA and support from the Grove Transitional Housing program. Specifically, the Hospital emphasized the need for a community psychiatrist, community programming to support Mr. Desmarais’ abstinence from the use of substances, particularly in the face of increasing liberties and stresses. The Hospital highlighted the need for connections to be made with the ACT team.
On the issue of disposition, the Hospital argued that the objectives of section 672.54 of the Criminal Code warranted the granting of a conditional discharge. It noted Mr. Desmarais’ sustained course of increase in insight into the need for treatment and to abstain from substances. It highlighted his positive therapeutic alliance with the treatment team and engagement in prosocial activities. While Mr. Desmarais continues to experience upsetting cravings for substances that cause him anxiety, the Hospital supported a disposition that does not impose a condition of abstinence but that obliges testing to monitor his ability to not use substances of his own volition in the context of increasing stresses.
The representative of the Attorney General agreed with the Hospital and suggested that the granting of an absolute discharge was premature. She too framed Mr. Desmarais’ progress in the broader context of a difficult history dating back to 2014 of struggles with major mental illness, substance use and treatment noncompliance leading to serious criminal behaviour. She noted historic patterns where Mr. Desmarais, though well, succumbed to cravings, used substances, became noncompliant with treatment and decompensated. She argued that this history supported the continuation of Board oversight. She too noted important elements of community care that needed to be in place before an absolute discharge would be appropriate. These included a community psychiatrist and established connections with community group programming that addressed Mr. Desmarais’ addiction to substances. While she took nothing from the growth Mr. Desmarais has made, she argued that the growth was still in its infancy. She worried that stresses attending independent living, particularly in the fields of education, employment and life stresses fueled the anxiety Mr. Desmarais appropriately feels as associated with the likelihood of relapse if he is not moored into community supports prior to the granting of an absolute discharge. She suggested such mooring should include a community psychiatrist, increased connections and participation with the CMHA, and transition from the treatment team to community psychiatric and counseling supports. She agreed that a conditional discharge deleting the abstain condition but maintain monitoring would provide both support and encouragement for Mr. Desmarais. More importantly, she suggested that this would satisfy the objectives of section 672.54 of the Criminal Code, assuring the safety of the public while providing for Mr. Desmarais’ mental health and other needs, including that of his reintegration into the community.
Counsel for Mr. Desmarais did not suggest that his colleagues’ positions were unreasonable. He did however highlight the heavy onus upon the Board when it comes to the threshold finding. He rightly pointed to important touchstones that must be borne in mind prior to making any finding of significant threat. A significant threat to the safety of the public cannot be founded solely on the fact that an individual struggles with a major mental illness. Great caution should be exercised when weighing static, or historic risk factors against current progress that can be noted in clinical or risk management factors. A principled approach to a determination of significant threat must be undertaken.
Counsel for Mr. Desmarais noted that it is hard to imagine Mr. Desmarais doing anything more for himself than what he is doing. He is medication compliant. He has maintained 2 years of abstinence form the use of substances. He has been open with his cravings and anxieties. He is highly engaged. Certainly, if there is a finding of significant threat, this is a case that warrants the granting of a conditional discharge, removing the abstain condition but maintaining testing so as to monitor the efficacy of supports in the context of decreasing Board oversight.
Analysis and Conclusion
At the outset of our analysis, the Board wants to highlight for Mr. Desmarais the progress that he has made. As his counsel pointed out, it is difficult to imagine him doing anything more than he is doing at this time to address the risk posed to the public by a major mental illness that he did not ask for. His engagement with treatment, his level of therapeutic alliance with the treatment team, his volunteering and engagement with employment and family represent real effort and capacity that is encouraging in the context of a lengthy history of struggle. None of this is diminished by our determination that continuation in this vein is required as community supports are put into place to fill important voids.
A finding of significant threat must be made cautiously. It must not be fueled by the egregiousness of the index offence or be founded on static risk factors that will always form part of the fabric of a disposition. Undue attention to lingering shadows set out in historic factors cannot be permitted to diminish the importance of clinical and risk management factors. Similarly, clinical and risk management factors must be construed within a broad framework that incorporates consideration of static factors. Ultimately the question is this – does the individual before the Board continue to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public “today”?
For Mr. Desmarais, the progress he has made in abstaining from the use of substances for the past 2 years, as well as his adherence to treatment and formation of a good therapeutic alliance with the treatment team is placed in the context of his history of struggles with major mental illness and strong cravings for substances that decompensates and move him to the commission of serious criminal acts that pose significant threat to the safety of the public. Mr. Desmarais, over the last 6 months, has moved into a level of reintegration into the community that brings with it increasing stresses with all of its increasing opportunities. These are the same stresses and opportunities that existed prior to the commission of the index offences and that exposed him to worries and periods of monotony and boredom that brought on the use of substances. Subsequent deterioration and noncompliance with treatment followed.
Mr. Desmarais continues to feel anxiety and express worry associated with substances. He has abstained in the context of strong Board oversight – an order that, if breached, risked return to Hospital and a step back from the liberty and reintegration that is his goal. His ability to abstain needs to be tested in the absence of such a condition. More importantly, his insight into his need to engage proactively with community addiction supports and positive community programming must be strengthened and tested. Removing Board oversight, prior to those supports being put into place, in our view exposes Mr. Desmarais to a real likelihood of returning to substance use at a critical time in the process of his full reintegration into the community. That substance use itself risks decompensation, the rapidity of which is increased inasmuch as the substance use compromises treatment adherence. Mr. Desmarais requires more time, and more community support, failing which he remains, in our view, a significant threat to the safety of the public.
Turning then to the issue of disposition, the Board is obligated to impose that disposition that least intrudes upon the liberty interests of the person before it that satisfies the objectives set out in section 672.54 of the Criminal Code, the primary of which is the assurance of the safety of the public. The difference between a conditional discharge and a detention disposition must be borne in mind. An individual that is subject to a detention disposition is not permitted to exercise liberties only to the extent that a Board disposition permits that exercise. An individual that is subject to a conditional discharge is free to exercise all liberties save those that a disposition says they cannot exercise. To give effect to the liberty interest at issue in the formation of a disposition, the Board must ask itself whether a conditional discharge, with appropriate conditions, is sufficient to assure the safety of the public. It must also consider whether that disposition and its conditions address the mental health and other needs of the patient, including the ultimate objective of reintegration into the community.
For Mr. Desmarais, it is clear that the objectives of section 672.54 can be attained by the granting of a conditional discharge. Mr. Desmarais’ clinical and risk management factors show 7 months of sustained progress. He has abstained from substances for 2 years. He has been living in the community since July 2025. He has been adherent to medication and has a good therapeutic alliance with the treatment team. He has a supportive brother. He is employed and is volunteering. He has engaged to this point in programming and there is an expectation that he will continue to engage in programming, particularly that available in the community, over the course of this next reporting period. With his therapeutic alliance and increasing supports in the community, there is substance to the submission that any signs of decompensation will be noted by the treatment team, and that Mr. Desmarais will engage in such a way so as to ensure that increased risk to the safety of the public, or compromise of his own mental health and other needs, is not occasioned.
Mr. Desmarais expresses justifiable worry and anxiety associated with his ongoing cravings for decompensating substances, including cannabis. To this point his developing insight into his lifelong need to abstain from the use of substances has been bolstered by the external motivation of a prohibition against use of such. The time to strengthen by way of testing, and to assess factors associated with the assurance of the safety of the public, is while Board oversight is in place. Accordingly, it is in our view appropriate that the external motivator of a substance prohibition be removed. Mr. Desmarais wants to abstain from the use of substances. He wants to know that he will be able to abstain from the use of substances for the rest of his life. Monitoring will provide him with sufficient support and will permit the Hospital to increase attention to any indications of use and related decompensation. It will permit the Hospital to assess the impact of community sobriety supports on Mr. Desmarais. This approach both assures the safety of the public, addresses Mr. Desmarais’ mental health and other needs, including the ultimate objective of reintegration into the community.
An order will issue accordingly.
The Board thanks all involved in this hearing and encourages Mr. Desmarais’ progress over the course of the next reporting period.
DATED this 7th day of April 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Mr. D. Sandor Alternate Chairperson
__________________
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board