Ontario Review Board
Re: Luke L. Robicheau
ORB File No: 5319
Hearing held on: Wednesday, April 22, 2026 Place of Hearing: Brockville Mental Health Centre Via Zoom Videoconference
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code
Before: Alternate Chairperson: Mr. C. Flanagan Members: Dr. R. Sheppard Dr. L. Lightfoot Ms. A. La Viola Ms. R. Chopra
Parties Appearing: Accused: Luke L. Robicheau Counsel: Mr. J. Gilbert The person in charge of hospital: Representative: Dr. R. Linthorst Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. C. Breault
REASONS FOR DECISION
(Dated May 22, 2026)
Introduction
1On April 6, 2009, Luke Robicheau was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (“NCR”) on charges of assault, and fail to comply with a probation order, both contrary to the Criminal Code.
2Mr. Robicheau is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board (“ORB”) dated July 2, 2025, detaining him at the Secure Forensic Unit of the Brockville Mental Health Centre (“BMHC”) with privileges up to and including to live in the community within a 50km radius of the BMHC in accommodation approved by the person in charge.
3Pursuant to s.672.56(2)(b) of the Criminal Code, the Board was notified by letter dated February 12, 2026, from BMHC regarding Mr. Robicheau restriction of liberty.
4On April 22, 2026, a panel of the Board convened, through Zoom audio video technology, to conduct a review of Mr. Robicheau’s restriction of liberty, pursuant to s. 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Robicheau counsel, Mr. J. Gilbert attended the hearing, as did Mr. Robicheau.
5There were three exhibits filed at the hearing which included a Notice of Restriction of Liberty letter from BMHC, dated February 12, 2026, a Board Response letter, dated February 12, 2026, and a Hospital Report, dated April 13, 2026, filed as Exhibits 1-3 respectively at the hearing.
6The sole issue to be considered at the hearing is whether the restriction on liberty imposed on Mr. Robicheau was necessary and appropriate, and the least onerous and least restrictive intervention in the circumstances, both initially and throughout its duration.
7For reasons set out below, this Board concluded that the restriction on liberty imposed on Mr. Robicheau was necessary and appropriate, and the least onerous and least restrictive in the circumstances, both initially when imposed and throughout its duration to the hearing date.
Initial Position of the Parties
8At the outset of the hearing, the parties were canvassed for their initial recommendations to the Board.
9Dr. Linthorst, on behalf of the Hospital, submitted that the restriction of liberty imposed on Mr. Robicheau from January 12, 2026, ongoing at the time of the hearing was warranted, necessary and appropriate, and represented the least onerous and least restrictive measure taken by the Hospital.
10Ms. Breault, on behalf of the Attorney General of Ontario, supported the Hospital's position.
11Mr. Gilbert, on behalf of Mr. Robicheau conceded the restriction was warranted.
12The parties maintained their initial positions at the end of the evidence.
Index Offence
13The circumstances giving rise to the index offences are taken from last year’s Reasons for Disposition, dated August 7, 2025, as follows:
“On February 28, 2009, Mr. Robicheau was a patient at the Ottawa Hospital (General Campus) under a Mental Health Act Form 1. His treating Doctor had given instructions that Mr. Robicheau was not to leave the hospital. At 7:15 that morning Mr. Robicheau decided to leave the hospital to go for a smoke. He was told by the security guard, [victim’s name] that he could not leave but Mr. Robicheau walked out in any event. The [security guard] grabbed his arm, however Mr. Robicheau managed to release himself and took off running through the Emergency Room. The [victim] followed and grabbed him by his jacket. The accused elbowed the [victim] in the nose and continued to try and hit and scratch him until he was restrained by other security guards who arrived. He was sedated by medical staff.”
Background/ Psychiatric History
14As the only issue before the Board was the restriction of Mr. Robicheau’s liberty, there is no need in these Reasons to detail the circumstances of his personal and/or psychiatric history, which is extensively set out in the Hospital Report filed as Exhibit 3 at the hearing.
Current Diagnosis
15Mr. Robicheau’s current diagnoses are schizophrenia-multiple episodes, currently in remission, antisocial personality disorder, cocaine use disorder-in forced remission and cannabis use disorder-in forced remission.
Evidence at the Hearing
16The Hospital’s evidence was presented through the oral testimony of Dr. R. Linthorst to supplement the Hospital Report, filed Exhibit 3, at the hearing. Dr. Linthorst adopted and relied on the Hospital Report in his evidence.
17On January 6, 2026, Mr. Robicheau was discharged to the Murray Street accommodation, an 8-hour supervised group home in Brockville. During the first weekend, staff at the group home requested an emergency assessment due to Mr. Robicheau violating boundaries. As reported in the Hospital Report at page 78:
“Mr. Robicheau had been seen standing in the shared bathroom with his door open, in the nude, by a female staff member. When asked to put his clothing on and close the door, he had remained in the doorway while holding eye contact for a prolonged period. After eventually putting his clothes back on, he was reported by the staff member (who was on shift overnight alone) to have followed her around the building, asking whether they were alone together. He repeatedly asked what time the other residents of the house would be returning.”
18Mr. Robicheau was assessed by a nurse who attended the residence and determined that Mr. Robicheau remained at baseline with no observed decompensation in his mental state. At the time, Mr. Robicheau reported that it was a misunderstanding. On January 12, 2026 (following Monday), Dr. Linthorst attended the Murray Street accommodation to conduct an assessment on Mr. Robicheau. During this assessment Mr. Robicheau appeared agitated and would not answer questions around the incident. Dr. Linthorst brought him into hospital.
19While in hospital, Mr. Robicheau disclosed to the treatment team that he had been struggling with longstanding issues around a very high sex drive. Dr. Linthorst advised that given Mr. Robicheau’s longstanding exhibitionistic tendencies, a referral was made to the Sexual Behaviour Clinic. The doctor also stated that over the past weeks, there has been some use of pornography. Mr. Robicheau’s sertraline medication was increased, and he has since reported a significant reduction in his sexual urges/cravings.
20The doctor advised there were additional concerns regarding impulse control. Mr. Robicheau reported a conflicting attitude towards being in the community, where a part of him was excited and wanting this outcome, while another part of him enjoyed the safety and security of the hospital. Dr. Linthorst stated that community living can create more distress, particularly for Mr. Robicheau. In this regard, Mr. Robicheau has engaged in three different therapeutic groups for substance use, anger, and impulse control. He has also engaged with a psychotherapist on a 1:1 basis.
21The doctor advised that over the past few months, Mr. Robicheau has shown a gradual improvement and has been quite transparent with the treatment team. He stated Mr. Robicheau has no current pass privileges. Given his improvement, the treatment team has recommended level 3 passes (indirect hospital grounds) which is awaiting approval. The doctor highlighted that at this point, only hospital grounds are being recommended.
22Dr. Linthorst was asked about Mr. Robicheau’s return to the community. He highlighted that management of sexual urges, ongoing medication adherence, therapeutic openness and insight and appropriate privilege progression are all relevant risk factors moving forward. He stated Mr. Robicheau still has additional units to progress through which may take up to 12 weeks, before a potential community discharge.
23Dr. Linthorst confirmed the Murray Street group home accommodation is not willing to take Mr. Robicheau back. The doctor explained however, that once Mr. Robicheau’s risk factors have been better managed, it may be that he can return to Murray Street. If not, the hospital can look at a discharge to the Forensic Intensive Treatment Team (“FITT”) accommodation with 24-hour supervision.
24No further evidence was called at the hearing.
Analysis and Conclusion
25Pursuant to the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Regina v. M.L.C.1, the Board must consider not only the reason for the restriction and the initial decision to impose a restriction, but also the ongoing circumstances of the person for the period that the restriction remains in place including up to the time of review. The initial restriction of liberty and ongoing restriction of liberty must be the least onerous and least restrictive, necessary for public safety and the NCR accused.
26This Board accepts the evidence of Dr. Linthorst and the evidence contained in the Hospital Report, regarding the restriction of liberty. Notwithstanding the joint position of the parties, this Board finds unanimously that the restriction of liberty imposed on Mr. Robicheau on January 12, 2026, ongoing at the time of the hearing was necessary and appropriate and represented the least onerous and least restrictive measure at the time it was imposed and throughout its duration.
27During the first weekend of his recent discharge to the community, Mr. Robideau, with a lone female staff member in the house, exhibited inappropriate sexual related behaviour. Despite remaining at baseline, when assessed by his psychiatrist he was agitated and refused to talk about the incident. Given the nature of incident, including his comment to the lone female staff member, his psychiatric history, and the fact that he refused to answer questions about the incident with his psychiatrist, his return to hospital was warranted, necessary and appropriate. This is further strengthened by Mr. Robicheau’s comment in hospital that he had been struggling with longstanding issues around a very high sex drive.
28This Board also finds that Mr. Robicheau’s ongoing restriction in hospital is warranted, necessary and appropriate to mitigate and mange his risk before a return to the community. In addition to concerns surrounding his sexual inappropriate behaviour at the group home, while alone with a staff member, there were concerns about impulse control. In this regard, it was necessary for Mr. Robicheau to engage in both group and individual therapy with a psychologist. Further, given his comment regarding his high sex drive, medication was prescribed to reduce sexual urges/cravings with a referral for a sexual behavioural assessment.
29Mr. Robicheau’s return to hospital resulted in the suspension of all passes. On a go forward basis, Mr. Robicheau still needs to progress through additional units, which will afford expansion of his passes. In this regard, management of sexual urges, ongoing medication adherence and therapeutic openness, and appropriate unit/pass progression, will all need to be monitored before Mr. Robicheau returns to a group home.
30To Mr. Robicheau’s credit, since his return to hospital, he has been transparent with his treatment team, engaged in several therapy programs and commenced individual 1:1 session with a psychotherapist. He has shown consistent gradual improvement and the increase in his sertraline medication seems to have reduced his sexual urges/cravings. Should Mr. Robicheau continue on this positive trajectory, and his risk properly managed, a return to Murray Street or in the alternative the Forensic Intensive Treatment Team (“FITT”) accommodation with 24-hour supervision, may be facilitated. In this regard, this Board wishes Mr. Robicheau well in a safe return to community living.
31In conclusion, this Board finds that the restriction of liberty imposed on Mr. Robicheau on January 12, 2026, ongoing at the time of the hearing was necessary and appropriate and represented the least onerous and least restrictive measure at the time it was imposed and throughout its duration.
DATED this 22nd day of May, 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Mr. C. Flanagan Alternate Chairperson
__________________
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board