Re Lanny Mekanak, 2026 CanLII 45691

Re: Lanny Mekanak

ORB File No: 7848

Hearing held on: Wednesday, April 8, 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. J. Goldenberg Members: Dr. H. Bloom Dr. P. Wright Mr. M. Segal Ms. R. Chopra

Parties Appearing: Accused: Lanny Mekanak Counsel: Mr. U. Agostino Person in charge of Hospital: Representative: Dr. E. Leinonen Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. R. Derouard

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated May 5, 2026)

Introduction:

1. On January 28, 2021, Mr. Lanny Mekanak was found unfit to stand trial. Mr. Mekanak is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated May 14, 2025. At that time, the panel once again found Mr. Mekanak unfit to stand trial and directed that he be detained at the Secure Forensic Unit of the Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre (“the Hospital”) with a number of prohibitions and privileges. One of the privileges included the ability to live in the community in 24-hour supervised accommodation approved by the person in charge.

2. On Wednesday, April 8, 2026, the Ontario Review Board convened a hearing at the Hospital and conducted the annual review of Mr. Mekanak’s disposition.

Position of the Parties:

3. At the outset of the hearing, the parties were canvassed as to their recommendations to the Board.

4. Dr. Leinonen appeared as the Hospital’s representative as well as Mr. Mekanak’s most responsible physician. Dr. Leinonen advised the Hospital’s position that Mr. Mekanak remains unfit to stand trial, and if the Board agrees, the Hospital is asking for a continuation of a Detention Order at the Hospital with the exact terms set out in last year’s disposition.

5. Ms. Derouard appeared for the Attorney General. She anticipated supporting the Hospital’s recommendation.

6. Mr. Agostino appeared for Mr. Mekanak. Mr. Agostino accepts that at the current time, his client is unfit to stand trial. Mr. Agostino advised that he has no instructions to make submissions on the issue of the necessary and appropriate disposition.

Outstanding Charges:

7. The allegations giving rise to the outstanding charges are set out in last year’s disposition as follows:

“On February 6, 2019, Mr. Mekanak, while intoxicated, took the nursing station medical van from the Nishnawbe-Aski Nation. Police pursued him and he stopped and surrendered without incident. A four litre open plastic milk jug was found on the passenger seat of the medical van with approximately 1/5th of its contents of ‘homebrew’ remaining.

On March 20, 2019, Mr. Mekanak entered the bedroom of his young niece and nephew, cornered his niece between the wall and her mother’s bed, and struck her with considerable force in the forehead with an axe. He ran from the residence, leaving the axe inside. His niece died of her injuries a short time later.”

Evidence at the Hearing:

8. The Board admitted into evidence the hospital report dated March 9, 2026. The hospital report provides a great deal of information concerning Mr. Mekanak , his personal history, his mental health history and Mr. Mekanak’s course in hospital since the original finding of unfitness. As the hospital report was made an exhibit in this hearing, it is not necessary to reproduce the information contained in the hospital report in these reasons. We do note, however, the stated diagnoses of:

• Schizophrenia
• Intellectual Disability

9. In addition to the documentary evidence, the Board heard from Dr. Leinonen. Dr. Leinonen has been following Mr. Mekanak for approximately two years. It is Dr. Leinonen’s opinion that Mr. Mekanak remains unfit to stand trial. Dr. Leinonen advised that Mr. Mekanak has been working with a member of the clinical team and with Dr. Leinonen with respect to fitness issues.

10. Dr. Leinonen last assessed Mr. Mekanak for fitness the day before the hearing. In response to a question from the Alternate Chair, Dr. Leinonen provided details of that assessment. Dr. Leinonen testified that he asked Mr. Mekanak about the outstanding charges and Mr. Mekanak advised the charges included murder and a driving offence. Dr. Leinonen asked about possible sentences should Mr. Mekanak be found guilty. Mr. Mekanak answered that he would have to go to prison if found guilty. Dr. Leinonen then asked, “How much time?” and Mr. Mekanak said, “one year.” Dr. Leinonen then asked Mr. Mekanak about the role of defence counsel and Mr. Mekanak replied, “He helps me.” When asked about the role of the judge, Mr. Mekanak said that the judge would find him guilty or not guilty. Dr. Leinonen asked Mr. Mekanak about the available pleas and Mr. Mekanak responded that he would plead not guilty. Then Dr. Leinonen asked why he would be pleading not guilty and Mr. Mekanak stated something to the effect of “drop charges.” Mr. Mekanak did not seem to have any understanding of the role of a Crown Attorney.

11. Dr. Leinonen noted that Mr. Mekanak communicates with one or two words and does not make any fulsome replies. Dr. Leinonen noted his concern that Mr. Mekanak simply would not be able to instruct counsel in a meaningful manner nor would he be able to participate in a trial in a meaningful manner.

12. When asked about the amount of fitness instruction Mr. Mekanak receives, Dr. Leinonen noted that a particular nurse, Mr. Balyk, meets with Mr. Mekanak approximately once per month, In addition, Dr. Leinonen discusses fitness with Mr. Mekanak also approximately once per month. Dr. Leinonen noted that frequently, Mr. Mekanak will choose not to attend for any fitness meeting with Mr. Balyk.

13. Ms. Derouard directed Dr. Leinonen to a notable incident set out in the hospital report. Dr. Leinonen acknowledged that Mr. Mekanak was on an outing with family members when Mr. Mekanak excused himself for a minute or two. Apparently, Mr. Mekanak was able to find a bottle of liquor and became extremely drunk. Subsequently, Mr. Mekanak’s mother contacted the Forensic Unit.

14. In response to a further question from Ms. Derouard, Dr. Leinonen acknowledged that Mr. Mekanak receives funding for a Passport worker.

15. In response to questions from Mr. Agostino, Dr. Leinonen stated that he discusses fitness with Mr. Mekanak on a monthly basis and it is a one-to-one meeting.

16. Dr. Leinonen also advised that Mr. Mekanak takes part in Indigenous programming.

17. Finally, in response to a question from Mr. Agostino, Dr. Leinonen said that he is not prepared to find Mr. Mekanak to be permanently unfit. Dr. Leinonen then said that “there is a chance he could become fit.”

18. In response to questions from a panel members, Dr. Leinonen said that he is slightly less optimistic this year as compared to last year in reference to Mr. Mekanak becoming fit to stand trial. Dr. Leinonen noted Mr. Mekanak’s abbreviated answers to questions. The doctor testified, however, that Mr. Mekanak does have the ability to approach staff to make his needs known. Dr. Leinonen advised of a program that he was utilizing with respect to his working on fitness with Mr. Mekanak.

19. In response to questions from another member, Dr. Leinonen indicated that he would be interested in, and prepared to attempt any other program that might assist in having Mr. Mekanak return to fitness. One suggestion was utilizing multiple choices with respect to potential answers.

20. A member of the panel asked Dr. Leinonen whether Mr. Mekanak could provide the name of his counsel and Dr. Leinonen confirmed that Mr. Mekanak does know his counsel by name.

21. In response to a further question, Dr. Leinonen thought that his meetings with Mr. Mekanak on fitness last about 10 minutes, as the doctor stated that this is “all he can take.”

22. No other evidence was heard at this hearing.

Final Submissions

23. Dr. Leinonen submits that his patient is unfit, and if the Board so finds, the necessary and appropriate disposition is a continuation of the Detention Order with the exact terms set out in last year’s disposition.

24. Ms. Derouard agreed with Dr. Leinonen’s submissions.

25. Mr. Agostino repeated that he accepts that his client is presently unfit to stand trial. He repeated that he has no instructions with respect to the necessary and appropriate disposition.

Findings of the Board

26. The Board accepts the evidence that at the present time, Mr. Mekanak is unfit to stand trial. The board accepts at the present time, the necessary and appropriate disposition is a continuation of the current Detention Order disposition.

27. The Board is concerned that Mr. Mekanak does not seem to get significant fitness education. At best, it would appear to be sporadic, and we think it is appropriate to make some further comments. We do so with the hope that the clinical team will continue to search for programming that may be of assistance.

28. Although Mr. Mekanak’s diagnosis had been described as including moderate intellectual disability in the past, after testing and more prolonged assessment by the team, including psychological testing, his diagnosis was clarified on page 14 of the hospital report as actually being mild intellectual disability with specific limitations in language functioning. This implies a higher likelihood for potentially becoming fit for trial. Dr. Leinonen had described the team’s fitness coaching efforts as involving one session with nursing staff, utilizing a computerized fitness training program, and potentially one fitness assessment session with Dr. Leinonen a month. Upon further questioning, it became clear that this was a maximum frequency. In some months there were fewer fitness coaching sessions, In addition, these sessions were described as being 15 minutes or less depending on Mr. Mekanak’s tolerance. However, Dr. Leinonen acknowledged that Mr. Mekanak appears further from potentially becoming fit for trial than he was at the time of his 2025 hearing.

29. When Dr. Leinonen was asked if the team would consider alternative approaches to fitness coaching, he indicated that the team would be willing to try a range of alternatives. Given that “massed” rather than short teaching trials spread out over time would result in better retention, Dr. Leinonen expressed a willingness to try both lengthening the sessions and using alternative methodology rather than simply repeating the same approach, which at times irritates Mr. Mekanak. These included potentially using more visual materials and computer resources such as CAST-MR or court education materials targeting children. Given that fitness for trial information is not interesting to many individuals with intellectual disability, Dr. Leinonen acknowledged that making materials more interesting and experiential would also assist, and in the spirit of this, he acknowledged that a trip to the local courthouse could potentially assist Mr. Mekanak by making what is otherwise abstract material more interesting and concrete and applicable to him in real time.

30. Dr. Leinonen was asked about the implications of the psychological testing results, particularly in light of Mr. Mekanak performing in the low average range on some indicators of non-verbal comprehension and performing better on tests with multiple choice methodology rather than requiring him to produce a verbal response. Dr. Leinonen acknowledged that it may be of assistance to both use visual stimuli and require Mr. Mekanak to choose a correct answer when assessing his court knowledge rather than requiring him to generate verbal responses, given his reticence to communicate verbally in general. By extension, should he be viewed as fit for trial, such a method may assist counsel in getting instruction.

31. It is interesting to note that at this session of hearings at Thunder Bay, seven out of 12 hearings were fitness hearings. We were pleased when Dr. Leinonen indicated he would be prepared to consider other potential educational tools and we would expect that the clinical team will indeed do so. Given the importance of this issue to Mr. Mekanak and to other fitness patients under the Board, we think it appropriate to direct that a pre-hearing conference be ordered to take place approximately six months from now so that the Board can have the opportunity to review the fitness programming, and in particular, to review Mr. Mekanak’s progress.

32. As a result, we will continue with a Detention Order with the exact terms set out in last year's disposition.

33. In reaching our disposition, the Board has taken into consideration the safety of the public, Mr. Mekanak’s mental condition, his other needs, and his potential reintegration into society.

DATED this 5th day of May 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.

Mr. J. Goldenberg Alternate Chairperson

Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board