Ontario Review Board
Re: Mathew Lachance
ORB File No: 7159
Hearing held on: Tuesday, April 14, 2026
Place of hearing: Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care 401 Sunset Drive, St. Thomas
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Ms. S. Kert
Members: Dr. S. Simpson Dr. S. Wiseman Ms. K. Tomaszewski Ms. C. Plyley
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Mathew Lachance Counsel: Mr. S. Gehl
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. J. Zamprogna
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. J. Huber
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated May 5, 2026)
Overview
On June 15, 2017, Mathew Lachance was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCR) on a charge of breaking and entering into a home. That charge arose out of an incident that occurred on the night of March 5, 2017, when Mr. Lachance broke into his 93 year old grandmother’s house. When his grandmother woke the next morning, she found Mr. Lachance sitting in her kitchen and eating her food. At the time, Mr. Lachance was subject to a trespass notice prohibiting him from attending at his grandmother’s home. He was arrested without incident while still sitting at the kitchen table.
Mr. Lachance is currently subject to an Ontario Review Board disposition detaining him at the Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care (Southwest Centre), with privileges extending to living in the community of Southwestern Ontario in accommodation approved by the person in charge. He has been living in the same group home in Elgin County since his discharge from the hospital in early 2024.
On April 14, 2026, this panel of the Review Board convened at the Southwest Centre to hold a hearing and review that disposition. Mr. Lachance was present and was represented by his counsel, Mr. S. Gehl.
The issues to be decided at this hearing are whether Mr. Lachance continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public and, if so, what is the necessary and appropriate disposition, considering the four factors in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
The hearing proceeded on the basis of a joint submission in respect of both issues. None of the parties contested a finding of significant threat, and the parties submitted that a conditional discharge is the necessary and appropriate disposition, including (among others) conditions requiring that Mr. Lachance: i) immediately attend at the Southwest Centre and participate in a psychiatric assessment if directed to do so by the person in charge of the Southwest Centre or their designate (the assessment condition); and ii) immediately submit to admission at the Southwest Centre, and remain admitted until discharged, if directed to do so by the person in charge of the Southwest Centre or their designate (the admission condition). The parties also jointly submitted that neither a residence nor an abstinence condition should be included in the new disposition.
Having had the opportunity to carefully consider the evidence and the relevant caselaw, we agree with the parties that the test for significant threat is met, and that the necessary and appropriate disposition is a conditional discharge, with most of the recommended conditions. However, as we do not feel it is necessary, we have not included a condition requiring that Mr. Lachance submit to admission. These are our reasons.
Background
Mr. Lachance is 37 years of age. His current diagnoses are schizophrenia and substance use disorder (by history).
Mr. Lachance has a significant history of substance use. During his NCR assessment conducted by Dr. Komer in May 2017, Mr. Lachance advised that he started drinking alcohol at 12, and that he had a history of daily alcohol use. He started using cannabis at 11 and progressed to other drugs, including cocaine and crystal methamphetamine. He had numerous attendances at emergency departments related to substance use and intoxication, and was routinely diagnosed with substance use disorder. In September 2015, he attended for residential treatment at Brentwood.
Mr. Lachance has reported that for about 25 years, off and on, he lived with his grandmother, the victim of the index offence. He told Dr. Komer that in the two years preceding the index offence he had repeatedly forced his way into his grandmother's home, despite her telling him that he was not welcome there. During that time, the police removed Mr. Lachance from his grandmother's house numerous times, eventually leading to the trespass order.
It appears that in the three years leading up to the index offence, Mr. Lachance lived a transient lifestyle. He has a significant criminal record, including convictions for assault bodily harm (in February 2017), mischief and being unlawfully in a dwelling. He also has multiple convictions for failing to comply with court orders. While he had no psychiatric admissions before the index offence, his family reported that from 2015 onward, he frequently presented as suspicious and delusional. In 2015, he was diagnosed with anxiety, but it was not until he was detained at the South West Detention Centre (in Windsor) in April 2016 that he was reported to display frank psychosis, involving ideas of reference, thought broadcasting and persecution. He also admitted to hearing voices at that time. In the fall and winter of 2016 and 2017 (just prior to the index offence), while he was in custody at the South West Detention Centre, Mr. Lachance continued to present with psychotic symptoms.
Following his initial Review Board hearing in October 2017, Mr. Lachance was detained as an inpatient at the Southwest Centre. He was diagnosed with schizophrenia and exhibited both positive and negative symptoms of his illness for several years. In May 2018, he was found incapable in respect of treatment and his mother became his substitute decision maker. He was started on clozapine in July 2018. After his mother became an approved person in 2019, she started bringing Mr. Lachance's daughter with her to visit him. Mr. Lachance's grandmother died in February 2020, however, he had telephone contact with her prior to her death.
On May 21, 2021, Mr. Lachance was discharged to the Steele Street rehabilitation residence. Very shortly after, in early June 2021, Mr. Lachance’s mother informed him that his twin brother had died of a drug overdose. While the tragedy of his brother’s death was understandably destabilizing for Mr. Lachance, he said it was also a motivator for him to remain abstinent.
Mr. Lachance settled into the Steele Street residence well and participated in all CMHA and other programming at the home. He also volunteered at a cat shelter twice a week for a few hours. He was increasingly independent with his activities of daily living and accessed the community without issue.
In early October 2022, Mr. Lachance moved from Steele Street to a group home with less staff supervision. Soon after he began demonstrating prominent negative symptoms and his functioning deteriorated. He stopped volunteering and attending programs. He was readmitted to hospital in November 2022, as he was unable to cope and function in the less supervised setting, despite intensive support. His urine drug screens were negative but he had increased his smoking, which affected his clozapine levels.
After some medication adjustments in hospital, Mr. Lachance showed gradual improvement. At the request of the Review Board, a cognitive assessment was completed in December 2022, which concluded that Mr. Lachance’s general cognitive ability was in the borderline range.
In January 2024, Mr. Lachance began a leave of absence to reside at his current group home, an adult assisted living facility under the Community Homes for Opportunity (CHO) program. Following a brief readmission for physical health issues, he was discharged to the home in late January 2024. The services provided there include personal care, meals, housekeeping, social/recreational programs, and transportation. The facility is staffed 24/7 and staff administer medications for all residents. Mr. Lachance has not required readmission to hospital since that time.
Course Since the Last Hearing
At Mr. Lachance’s last annual hearing (in April 2025), the Review Board heard evidence that the clinical year had been a good one for Mr. Lachance. He did not experience any positive symptoms of his illness and his mood remained stable. He demonstrated good motivation and follow-through, attended programming, got along well with his peers, and easily engaged with the treatment team. Numerous passes to his mother’s home had gone well. Despite other residents in his group home engaging in substance use, Mr. Lachance remained abstinent.
At the time of his last hearing, Mr. Lachance was on the waitlist for a group home in a small town close to Chatham, where his mother and daughter live. He was considering the move to be closer to family. The treatment team had also submitted an application for Mr. Lachance to be assessed for eligibility for Developmental Services Ontario (DSO) funding, and further psychological and cognitive testing had been requested.
At the current hearing we received evidence in the form of an updated hospital report, as well as the oral testimony of Dr. Mokhber, Mr. Lachance’s attending psychiatrist. That evidence revealed as follows: Over the past reporting year, Mr. Lachance remained stable, complied with his treatment plan, and was well engaged with his residential and community supports, including his mother, older brother and the outreach team. He interacted well with peers in his group home and staff there consistently described him as one of their most polite tenants. He continued to be engaged in rehabilitative and supportive programming, including regular participation in CHO and CMHA activities. He was also abstinent, despite ongoing drug use by others living at the group home.
In oral testimony, Dr. Mokhber confirmed the view of the treatment team that a conditional discharge is the necessary and appropriate disposition for the coming year. She said that Mr. Lachance’s insight into his mental illness and his need for treatment improved significantly this past year, and that he is compliant with medication. All of his medications are oral (Mr. Lachance doesn’t like needles), but there is no reason to change to injectable medication as Mr. Lachance has been cooperative. He also has insight into the warning symptoms of relapse, knows when he is beginning to experience an episode and is open with the treatment team about this. Given this progress, in February 2026, Dr. Mokhber reassessed Mr. Lachance and found him capable of making treatment decisions. He has continued to be adherent since that time.
During the year, Mr. Lachance successfully completed five one-week community passes to stay with his mother and her partner. During these visits, his older brother and 14-year old daughter visited frequently, something that Mr. Lachance identified as meaningful and motivating for him. As well, the treatment team received confirmation of Mr. Lachance’s eligibility for DSO services and funding. Among other things, this will allow him to potentially travel independently to see his mother this year.
Dr. Mokhber testified that the plan for the coming year is to build on the gains that Mr. Lachance has achieved to date, including establishing community supports to transition him out of the forensic system in the future. To that end, the treatment team will involve the Complimentary Mental Health Group who can continue to prescribe his medication and take over his clinical care going forward.
Analysis and Conclusion
None of the parties contested a finding of significant threat, and we agree that the threshold test is met. We also find that, considering public safety (which is paramount), as well as Mr. Lachance’s mental condition, his reintegration into the community and his other needs, the threat posed by Mr. Lachance can be adequately and appropriately managed under a conditional discharge.
Mr. Lachance had another good year in the community, with continued improvements in his insight and socialization. To date, this has occurred while he been subject to a detention disposition, with a significant level of supervision and support provided by the treatment team. As described by Dr. Mokhber, the upcoming year will be a test period for Mr. Lachance – the recommendations of the treatment team/hospital include the removal of the abstain clause and a reduction in his reporting frequency – and we agree that the ongoing oversight of the forensic team is necessary to assist in ensuring that Mr. Lachance maintains his improvement and stability during this period of transition toward greater independence.
For the most part we also agree with the joint recommendations of the parties regarding the conditions to be included and/or omitted from the proposed conditional discharge, including:
i) Mr. Lachance does not want to move to independent living in the future. He likes and is happy where he is living, values his relationship with staff at his group home and has decided he does not want to move closer to Chatham, or at all. Should that change, he is likely to rely on his team to support him in finding appropriate housing. As such, a residence condition is unnecessary;
ii) While Mr. Lachance has a significant history of substance use and abuse, his last known substance use was in 2017. He has remained abstinent since that time, including while living in the community with others who are using and, on occasion, offering drugs to him. It seems that Mr. Lachance has internalized the importance of maintaining abstinence for the long-term, and the removal of the requirement that he abstain will allow him to prove this over the coming year while he remains subject to a Review Board disposition;
iii) Mr. Lachance no longer needs the same level of “check-in” with the treatment team. He is living in a group home where staff will contact the treatment team should they notice any signs or symptoms of decompensation or relapse, and the addition of the requested report for assessment condition will allow the team to be proactive in addressing any concerns. Additionally, a reduction in his reporting frequency will allow Mr. Lachance some greater independence and the ability for the team to observe how he does with reduced forensic oversight; and
iv) In her testimony Dr. Mokhber confirmed that Mr. Lachance has been cooperative and has maintained compliance with medication, that he is internally motivated to stay well, and that he is likely to maintain adherence even without a consent to treatment condition. As a result, we find that, as agreed by the parties, a consent to treatment condition is unnecessary.
Where we disagree with the parties is in respect of the proposed admission condition. We are well aware of our obligation when presented with a joint submission. While a Review Board panel may reject a joint submission on disposition, the Board must give the parties an opportunity to be heard on the issues of concern. This can occur in several ways, including through the questions of the Board. In this case the Board's concerns were communicated, and the issue was fully canvassed in evidence and the parties' submissions: see Osawe, 2015 ONCA 280; and Cole, 2025 ONCA 899 at para. 37.
Dr. Mokhber testified that if Mr. Lachance uses drugs again his mental status will deteriorate quickly and he may lose insight. If the treatment team noticed any deterioration, Mr. Lachance would have to come back into hospital and stay until he was treated and restabilized. The position of the hospital is that the admission condition is necessary to ensure that readmission occurs under those circumstances, and that the Mental Health Act would not be sufficient to maintain him in hospital.
We disagree. As outlined by the Ontario Court of Appeal in Campbell, 2018 ONCA 140 at para. 54, “Consistent with the Board's need to safeguard liberty as much as possible, the conditions included in Board dispositions must also conform to the least onerous and least restrictive standard.” It follows, therefore, that if we are considering a situation that might require an individual to be returned, admitted and kept in the hospital until discharged (a significant increase in restrictions on liberty while under a conditional discharge disposition), there should be some likelihood of that situation occurring.
That is not the case here. First, the hospital report describes that Mr. Lachance “has abstained from using substances since 2017 and encountered highly triggering situations at his current home, demonstrating insight, coping capacity and continued adherence to his recover goals.” (p.160). He is motivated to maintain ongoing abstinence and there is little to suggest that he is likely to return to drug use even without a condition requiring his abstinence.
Additionally, Mr. Lachance has lived in the community without incident, and without the need for readmission, since January 2024. Were his treatment team to be of the view that he required admission, there is a good chance that he would come in voluntarily if asked to do so. In response to a question from the Board as to whether Mr. Lachance would come back to hospital if staff asked him, Dr. Mokhber said that he would, noting that he has always been very cooperative with team recommendations and that he trusts his team. The last time he required readmission in 2022, he was cooperative with returning despite being disappointed by his readmission and not having insight into the reasons for it. The inclusion of the assessment condition will also ensure that Mr. Lachance is seen and assessed quickly, in the event that is necessary. In the circumstances, we do not view the requested admission condition as necessary or in accordance with the least onerous and least restrictive requirement.
In the result, we agree that a conditional discharge is necessary and appropriate, with conditions as set out in the Board’s formal written disposition.
DATED this 5th day of May, 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.
Ms. S. Kert Alternate Chairperson
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board