Re W (L.D.), 2026 CanLII 45684

Re: W (L.D.)

ORB File No: 5793 & 6460

Hearing held on: Thursday, April 9, 2026

Place of hearing: Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre

Pursuant to: Sections 672.48(1) and 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code

Before:

Alternate Chairperson: Mr. M. Segal

Members: Dr. H. Bloom

Dr. P. Wright

Mr. J. Goldenberg

Ms. R. Chopra

Parties Appearing:

Accused: W (L.D.)

Counsel: Mr. G. Iwasiw

Person in charge of Hospital: Representative: Mr. J. Cooper

Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. R. Derouard

*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 May 11, 2026)

Introduction:

1. W (L.D.), age 49, was, on January 18, 2011, found unfit to stand trial on charges of sexual interference (x 4), assault (x 2), and sexual assault (x 4) contrary to the Criminal Code. On November 5, 2013, he was found unfit to stand trial on charges of sexual interference and sexual assault contrary to the Criminal Code.

2. On April 9, 2026, W (L.D.) appeared before the Ontario Review Board (“the Board”) from the Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre (“the Hospital”) for his annual hearing related to fitness. W (L.D.) is on a conditional discharge with privileges up to and including living in accommodation supervised by family in Northwestern Ontario.

3. W (L.D.) lives with his family in Slate Falls First Nation territory. At the hearing at the Hospital, W (L.D.) joined remotely from Slate Falls, accompanied by his mother and sister. Mr. G. Iwasiw, patient’s counsel, Ms. R. Derouard, the Assistant Crown Attorney, and the case manager also attended remotely. An Ojibwe interpreter, Mr. Fred Jacob, was helpful in interpreting.

4. The hospital report dated March 25, 2026, was made Exhibit 1.

Position of the Parties:

5. In preliminary positions, the Hospital stated its position that the patient continued to be unfit and that the current disposition was appropriate. Mr. Iwasiw agreed. Crown counsel indicated probable support.

6. By the end of the hearing, the Board concluded that W (L.D.) continues to be unfit, that significant threat to the safety of the public is present, and that the current disposition remains appropriate.

Psychiatric History:

7. Diagnoses:

• Developmental delay (mild mental retardation)

• Pedophilia

Background Information Regarding the Accused:

8. W (L.D.)’s background is fairly reviewed in the hospital report.

Evidence at Hearing

9. Dr. R. Sheppard, the patient’s psychiatrist, indicated that the last year has been a good one. W (L.D.) receives health care from the local nursing station in the small community where he lives. He is on antipsychotic medication and various other medications for medical issues.

10. He appears to be taking his medication regularly. W (L.D.) receives quite a lot of support in the community. Workers assist him to go out.

11. W (L.D.) is not permitted to be alone with children. The family and community workers are aware of that requirement.

12. W (L.D.)’s mother Dorothy has health issues of her own. When she has been away in hospital. W (L.D.)’s siblings have stepped in to care for their brother. Because of Dorothy’s health issues, a plan will be needed for when she is no longer able to provide the necessary support. The Hospital would first look to siblings. Another possibility is to look at a supported home in Sioux Lookout.

13. Recently, W (L.D.) became fixated on his female home caseworker. W (L.D.)’s anxiety had increased. He was getting agitated. That state may have been prompted by concerns about his mother’s health. W (L.D.) was pestering the caseworker excessively. He once followed her in the community to the point where she felt uncomfortable. As a result, the Hospital increased the daily use of Risperidone from one half milligram to one milligram. The concerning conduct appears to have subsided. The conduct, according to the doctor, may be more related to agitation than of a sexual character.

14. In Dr. Sheppard’s view, W (L.D.) has been unfit for many years and that is unlikely to change. Because of ongoing serious safety concerns regarding potential harm to children, a Detention Order continues to be necessary.

15. W (L.D.) is currently being reassessed by Developmental Services Ontario (D.S.O). If successful, that could result in special needs housing. Because of a very lengthy D.S.O. housing waiting list and few available spots, it is unlikely that the reassessment will assist. If a place was found, it would require dislocation from family.

16. Whether the concerns about sexual behaviour stem from a developmental delay, hormones, or a true sexual disorder would not impact, according to Dr. Sheppard, the treatment approach that is being afforded. Dr. Sheppard’s belief is that the pedophilia diagnosis, posited some time ago following a consultation with a reputed sexological expert, is accurate and continues to be valid. W (L.D.) has been on Lupron for several years, administered through Dr. Marshall, the community physician. Bloodwork is regularly taken to monitor effectiveness. And potential adverse effects.

17. Previous persecutory and paranoid ideation were probably the result of anxiety and preoccupations. They have not surfaced in a while.

Analysis:

18. The Board finds that W (L.D.) continues to be unfit, endorsing what is found at page seven of the hospital report:

“On each occasion when W (L.D.) was seen by videoconference, an attempt was made to explore the issues relevant to his fitness to stand trial. On each occasion, he was able to communicate no understanding whatsoever with respect to the nature and object of the proceedings or the possible consequences. It should be stated that the obstacles to a thorough assessment of these issues are significant threat. W (L.D.) is, of course, cognitively impaired. He is known also to be a non-verbal, reticent, and anxious individual. There is also something of a language barrier. Finally, the videoconference arrangement itself may be intimidating and certainly contributes to difficulties with engagement and difficulties in really assessing the extent of W (L.D.)’s understanding. Nevertheless, based on available information, we can see no evidence that W (L.D.)’s understanding of the issues relevant to fitness to stand trial is substantially different than when the Court found him Unfit on January 18, 2011.”

19. The disposition is designed to permit W (L.D.) to remain in the community. The family has pitched in when the patient’s mother has been away in hospital sometimes for weeks at a time. No doubt the Hospital will be having discussions with the siblings at some point to see what a contingency plan might look like should it become necessary. The current disposition is necessary and appropriate and satisfies both community safety and W (L.D.)’s needs.

DATED this 11th day of May 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.

Murray D. Segal

Alternate Chairperson

Office of the Registrar

Ontario Review Board