Re Christopher Ducharme, 2026 CanLII 56719

Re: Christopher Ducharme

ORB File No: 7202

Hearing held on: Monday, May 4, 2026

Place of hearing: Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care

Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code

Before: Alternate Chairperson: Mr. P. Capelle Members: Dr. P.L. Darby Dr. L.O. Lightfoot Ms. C. Murray Ms. M. McKinnon

Parties Appearing: Accused: Christopher Ducharme (via Zoom) Counsel: Mr. M. Schloss (via Zoom) Person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. J. Lefebvre Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. S. Curry

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated May 21, 2026)

Introduction

1. On March 2, 2015, Mr. Christopher Ducharme was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (“NCR”) on charges of fail to comply with a promise to appear, fraudulently obtaining food, possession of property obtained by crime, dangerous driving, failure to stop at the scene of an accident, and uttering threats (x2), contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (“Criminal Code”). Further, on December 5, 2016, Mr. Ducharme was found NCR on a charge of assault with a weapon, contrary to the Criminal Code. Mr. Ducharme is currently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (“ORB” or “Board”) dated May 8, 2025, detaining him at Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care – High Secure Provincial Forensic Programs Division, Penetanguishene (“Waypoint” or the “hospital”). He has privileges up to and including hospital grounds privileges, beyond the secure perimeter, escorted by staff. He is subject to a recommendation of the Board to be transferred to the Province of Quebec to the Institute national de psychiatrie légale Philippe-Pinel (“Philippe-Pinel”).

2. On May 4, 2026, a panel of the Board convened to review Mr. Ducharme’s Disposition pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Ducharme attended the hearing via Zoom. He was represented by Mr. Michael Schloss who also attended the hearing via Zoom.

3. The Hospital Report dated March 26, 2026, was marked as Exhibit 1. A letter from the hospital’s counsel to Dr. Dufour and Ms. Stemkowski at Philippe-Pinel dated April 10, 2026, was entered as Exhibit 2.

4. The issues to be decided at the hearing were whether Mr. Ducharme continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public as set out in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code, and, if so, what is the necessary and appropriate Disposition to manage that risk having regard to the criteria set out in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.

Position of the Parties

5. At the outset of the hearing, the parties were asked for their initial without prejudice positions. On behalf of the hospital, Ms. Lefebvre took the position that Mr. Ducharme remains a significant threat to the safety of the public, and that a Detention Order with no change to the terms was necessary and appropriate.

6. Ms. Shannon Curry supported the position of the hospital on behalf of the Attorney General.

7. Mr. Schloss conceded the issue of significant threat. He agreed with the hospital’s recommendations.

8. The parties maintained their respective positions in closing submissions. Mr. Schloss requested that the Board provide guidance regarding his client’s request for a change of doctor.

Findings

9. For the reasons set out below, the Board found that Mr. Ducharme continues to pose a significant threat to public safety. The Board concluded that the necessary and appropriate Disposition, which is also the least onerous and least restrictive in the circumstances, is a continuation of the existing Detention Order without change. The Board continues its recommendation for a transfer of Mr. Ducharme to Philippe-Pinel.

Index Offences

10. The multiple index offences occurred on two separate occasions: 1) November 24, 2014; and 2) September 22, 2016. The circumstances of the index offences are outlined in detail in the Hospital Report.

11. The description of the first set of index offences in 2014 is extracted from last year’s reasons as follows:

" The following was informally translated from the Service de Police de la Ville de Montreal (SPVM) summary of facts:

In this case, the accused showed up at restaurant The KEG on Ia rue St-Paul E. on November 24, 2014 and left the restaurant without paying. The accused also stole a steak knife. The witness Mr. Simptinidis, employee at the KEG, noticed the accused leaving without paying and followed him outside. He stopped following him when the accused started to run. The witness later heard that the accused was arrested shortly after.

After leaving the KEG, the accused entered the back of a taxi of PLV Naciri around 2205 after stopping him close to the streets Notre Dame/St-Sulpice. When the PLV asked him where he was going, the accused ordered him to get off by putting a knife in his throat.The PLV obeyed, got out of the taxi, and saw the accused coming out of the back of took the wheel. The accused drove few meters but found himself trapped behind vehicles stuck in traffic near the 420 St-Sulpice. Unable to move forward, the accused backed up the vehicle at high speed and hit the witness Mr. Risione's vehicle that was driving on StSulpice around South despite the attempt to avoid him. The accused wasn't worried about the accident and attempted to start again to turn around St-Sulpice. In doing so, it hits the wall of 418 St- Sulpice with full force. The PLV Naciri who was watching the whole incident, went straight to the taxi and attempted to open the taxi door in order to control the accused.

On the other hand, the witness Mr. Comtois also witnessed the accident while he was working at the hotel reception. When he saw the PLV struggling with the accused, he went to help him. At the moment he was trying to remove the ignition key, he noticed the knife in the accused hands and he took it from him. He then gave the knife to his coworker, Mr. Mathieu Lalance, who in his turn gave it to CST Dufort # 5855.

During the altercation, the PLV Naciri had his right index finger cut but was able to remove the ignition key and get away from the taxi. The witness Mr. Comtois ordered the accused to stay in the vehicle while waiting for the police but the accused tried to flee on foot. The witness then took him down and was able to handle him until the police arrived.

CST Dorais #6533 (21-1 with CST Plante# 6303) arrested the accused at 2216 for robbery. When he attempted to identify him verbally, the accused said to him "You are lucky, I should have cut your throat and killed you" The CST Dorais informed him that he is being arrested also for death threat. The CST took the knife from the CST Duffort and the police officers went to the C.O. South. Once at the C.O., the accused told the CST Plante "I want to kill you" and repeat the same thing several times. He was identified by obtaining his fingerprints.

The CRPQ checks indicated that the accused cannot leave Ontario under conditions laid down in a file where he was accused of simple possession "(DOS: 2014-3036208.D52, Toronto Police, EXP: 2015-10- 03). Therefore there is breach of condition.”

12. A summary of the index offence of 2016 is summarized as follows. On September 22, 2016, Mr. Ducharme was taken to the Montreal General Hospital by the police as he was in crisis. While on a psychiatric unit his handcuffs were removed. While a hospital attendant attempted to change Mr. Ducharme into a hospital gown, Mr. Ducharme punched the attendant in the face.

Background

13. The Hospital Report describes Mr. Ducharme’s background in detail and need not be repeated here. In summary, Mr. Ducharme is a 34-year-old single man raised in Toronto. His father now lives in a remote area of northern Quebec.

14. Mr. Ducharme reported that he was on his own and looking after himself from the age of 14. He reported living in foster homes. Documentation notes that he was frequently in juvenile detention during his adolescence. He committed many thefts and presented with an oppositional disorder and behaviour disorders at an early age.

15. Mr. Ducharme has a history of using alcohol, cannabis, and LSD when living in the community or in less structured settings.

16. Mr. Ducharme has the following diagnoses:

• Unspecified Schizophrenia Spectrum and Other Psychotic Disorder; and
• Cannabis Use Disorder (in remission in a controlled environment).

17. Mr. Ducharme has a criminal offence history commencing in November 2014, including charges for fail to comply with appearance notice, uttering threats, possession of a weapon, theft under $5000, assault peace officer (x2).

18. Mr. Ducharme has an extensive history of psychiatric admissions and presentations to hospital commencing in 2013 at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health.

19. Mr. Ducharme has frequently challenged his finding of incapacity to consent to psychiatric treatment. His most recent Consent and Capacity Board finding of incapacity was on November 7, 2025. The Public Guardian and Trustee is his substitute decision maker.

20. During the entirety of the reporting year, Mr. Ducharme resided on Beckwith A in seclusion; notably the Beckwith Program contains units that are highly structured and supervised. Mr. Ducharme made several veiled threats toward staff, usually in the context of refusing seclusion relief, where he would indicate that he was “too dangerous” and “violent” and staff should stay away from him in case he had urges to harm them. He attributed his medication as the reason for his dangerousness. There were no incidents of violence or environmental aggression in the reporting year.

21. Mr. Ducharme was offered seclusion relief almost daily. He accepted seclusion relief 60 times and declined seclusion relief 264 times during the reporting period. The Hospital Report notes multiple occasions that Mr. Ducharme claims to have had violent urges to harm staff arising from the use of his medication.

Oral Evidence at the Hearing

22. Dr. C. Hudson provided oral evidence at the hearing to supplement the documentary evidence, as follows:

a. Dr. Hudson has a meeting with Philippe-Pinel on May 5, 2026, to discuss the potential transfer, which remains dependant on approval of the Attorney General for each of Ontario and Quebec. The meeting will include Philippe-Pinel’s head psychiatrist, staff from Philippe-Pinel, and Mr. Ducharme’s treatment team at Waypoint. Dr. Hudson stated that he is not familiar with the interprovincial transfer process and, therefore, was unable to provide any estimate of a timeline for the transfer of Mr. Ducharme to Philippe-Pinel. Dr. Hudson stressed that any transfer remains contingent on approval of the Attorneys General of Ontario and Quebec.

b. Dr. Hudson stated that Mr. Ducharme had wanted to transfer to Philippe-Pinel in the past but has more recently said he does not want to go. Mr. Ducharme interrupted numerous times to tell the Board that Dr. Hudson is wrong, and he does want the transfer to proceed.

c. Dr. Hudson pointed out that Mr. Ducharme has been at Philippe-Pinel in the past and did well despite not being fluent in French. Dr. Hudson continues to recommend the transfer because Mr. Ducharme has been requesting a change in psychiatrists for several years and a transfer would provide him with a fresh start. Further, Mr. Ducharme has ties to Quebec, is a landowner next to property owned by his father in northern Quebec and would have the support of his father when community reintegration begins.

d. Mr. Ducharme remains in seclusion as of the date of the hearing.

e. Dr. Hudson testified that Mr. Ducharme fabricates symptoms. He threatens staff because he wants to remain in seclusion. Mr. Ducharme has stated that he will harm others if taken out of seclusion. Mr. Ducharme has stated for many years that he would rather stay in seclusion for the rest of his life rather than go on a long-acting injectable antipsychotic medication. The risk of violence that would arise from discontinuing seclusion is not currently related to his psychosis but rather his desire to discontinue his long-acting injectable medication.

f. Mr. Ducharme has engaged in seclusion relief. He has gone to the unit courtyard on several occasions.

g. There is an antisocial component to Mr. Ducharme’s diagnosis. However, there is not enough data to make a diagnosis of Antisocial Personality Disorder because there is missing information from Mr. Ducharme’s childhood years.

h. Mr. Ducharme has declined psychometric testing. He has refused genetic testing. Recommendations have been made to obtain serum levels of his medications, but this is impossible because Mr. Ducharme has refused venepuncture.

i. When off medication, Mr. Ducharme was thought disordered, cognitively impaired, grossly psychotic, thought he was in communication with God, was difficult to engage in conversation because of the thought disorder, smeared feces, urinated on the floor both in his room and outside his room. He has not had these symptoms since he has been on the long-acting injectable antipsychotic medication. His room is well organized when he is on the long-acting injectable medication.

j. Mr. Ducharme has good rapport with some of the treatment team, but not with Dr. Hudson. Dr. Hudson opined that Mr. Ducharme will be opposed to any psychiatrist who advocates for the use of long-acting injectable medications. Mr. Ducharme wants a new psychiatrist because he hopes a new psychiatrist would favour him not using a long-acting injectable antipsychotic.

k. Mr. Ducharme engages well in music therapy. The therapist is currently on maternity leave, but Mr. Ducharme continues to work on his music independently and intends to return to music therapy when the therapist returns. His treatment options are limited while he remains in seclusion.

l. In response to questions from Mr. Schloss, Dr. Hudson testified that Mr. Ducharme has always opposed taking long-acting injectable antipsychotics. He wants to avoid using long-acting injectable medication and uses violence or the threat of violence to achieve this goal. Mr. Ducharme appeals his finding of incapacity to consent to treatment every six months, the minimum time for challenges of this nature under the legislation in Ontario. He wishes to be declared treatment capable so that he can refuse long-acting injectable medication. The hospital will not consider discontinuing Mr. Ducharme’s treatment because every time a person discontinues medication the illness becomes more difficult to treat again. Mr. Ducharme has already been on and off medications for various reasons. One of the benefits of Mr. Ducharme having been at Waypoint is that he has been on a long-acting injectable antipsychotic medication without interruption.

m. If Mr. Ducharme is transferred to Quebec, his capacity will need to be reassessed since the legislation regarding capacity is different between provinces.

n. If Mr. Ducharme’s seclusion ended today, he would use violence to make the point that he should not be taking a long-acting injectable antipsychotic medication. The treatment team and hospital believe that Mr. Ducharme’s threats are not just bluster; he would engage in violence.

23. Mr. Ducharme provided viva voce evidence at the hearing as follows:

a. He would like to transfer to Philippe-Pinel. It’s a bit scary because he doesn’t know what he is jumping into. When at Philippe-Pinel previously it was “good but messed up.” He stated that he was doped up beyond his wildest imagination. When his mother told the doctors to lower his dosages, they did. That was when his mental state started to stabilize. Once they had him on a tiny amount of medication, they started progressing him and giving him passes.

b. He has voices in his head that say, “bloody murder, kill, kill, kill.” He hears these voices every day. He stated he has urges to attack people. He stated that he cannot even go to his door to get his food because he is afraid that he will rip someone’s arm off.

c. He stated that as he builds up a tolerance to the medication, he gets moments when “this stuff isn’t in my head.” With medication his mind sits in one place, and he just stares at the wall and acknowledges his thoughts of violence. But when his mind can wander, he can ignore the voices and thoughts of violence.

d. The last time he felt safe to leave his room he was really doped up. He currently tries to come out of his room once every four days to shower due to a skin infection.

e. He stated that Dr. Hudson pressures him to take medications and it only makes it worse when they try to “extort me to take them.”

f. He states that when he was first transferred to Waypoint, he was stable and harmless. Ms. Lefebvre reminded him that his transfer followed an incident with a shank. Mr. Ducharme stated that this was a hostage situation because he was being tortured by people doing horrible things to him. He stated, “Just because I took a hostage doesn’t mean I was dangerous.” He states that after being transferred to Waypoint he was held in a seclusion chamber where he was starved, freezing, and beaten.

g. He stated that when not on medication he never had urges to attack people and did not hear voices in his head.

h. In response to a question of the panel, Mr. Ducharme stated that all of his psychiatrists have put him on antipsychotic medications. He stated that psychiatrists “worship medication. All they learned in school is to force medication. Of course, I’ve engaged in psychotic behaviour, but I don’t need to be locked up on medications the rest of my life.”

24. No further evidence was called by the parties.

Submissions

25. At the conclusion of Mr. Ducharme’s oral evidence, Mr. Schloss requested an adjournment of the hearing for the Board to be able to receive evidence regarding information and conclusions from the meeting taking place between Waypoint and Philippe-Pinel on May 5. The Board broke to consider the issue and returned with their decision denying the adjournment request. The Board relied on its specialized knowledge that interprovincial transfers can take several years. There is not a reason to adjourn to receive the information exchanged between Philippe-Pinel and Waypoint on May 5 because the possible transfer would be well into the future. Therefore, this will not impact the Disposition to be determined by this Board. Delaying the conclusion of the hearing will not benefit Mr. Ducharme.

26. The hospital submitted that no further evidence would come from the May 5, 2026, meeting with Philippe-Pinel that would affect the Disposition. Both Waypoint and Philippe-Pinel are high secure forensic programs. Mr. Ducharme continues to require a high secure program at this time. If the recommendation for the transfer is accepted by both Attorneys General, the treatment team will prepare Mr. Ducharme for transfer over the course of the next year. It is hoped that Mr. Ducharme will continue with music therapy when the therapist returns from maternity leave. Mr. Ducharme has not been physically violent this year.

27. Regarding Mr. Ducharme’s request for a new psychiatrist, the hospital submitted that Mr. Ducharme is hoping to find a psychiatrist who will discontinue his long-acting injectable medication. Any psychiatrist prescribing long-acting injectable medication will be in the position of receiving animosity from Mr. Ducharme. It is up to the hospital to determine the best course of action for Mr. Ducharme and determine who should be his psychiatrist.

28. Ms. Curry supported the hospital’s submissions.

29. Mr. Schloss reiterated that his client agrees with the recommended terms of the disposition. He stated that there is a treatment impasse and that the hospital has done nothing to move Mr. Ducharme forward in the forensic system for several years. The hospital could take him off medication to confirm whether Mr. Ducharme is correct that the medications are the cause of his violent thoughts. There are only upsides to the change of psychiatrists. There is animosity between Mr. Ducharme and Dr. Hudson. He stated that the Board has a duty to supervise the progress of the accused and there is no downside to a change in psychiatrists.

Analysis and Conclusions

30. Based on the Hospital Report and the evidence of Dr. Hudson, the panel concluded that Mr. Ducharme continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. Mr. Ducharme has a long history of psychiatric illness and violence that predates the index offences. His risk arises from his schizophrenia.

31. Mr. Ducharme engages with select staff only. Unfortunately, this precludes development of supports for his identified risk factors including drug use and symptom management. He has been secluded the entirety of the reporting year and has accepted seclusion relief occasionally.

32. Mr. Ducharme has expressed his disdain for medication on a repeated basis over a long period of time. He has no insight into his need for medication. He would not be medication compliant if given the opportunity to discontinue it. Without medication, he would use substances, the symptoms of his illness would resume, and he would become violent in a manner similar to the index offences.

33. The Board accepts and relies on Dr. Hudson’s Clinical Assessment of Risk at pages 172 through 174 of the Hospital Report, a portion of which is extracted below:

“Mr. Ducharme remains stable and free of psychotic symptoms, in my view.

He has challenged my finding of incapacity on an every six month basis since the original finding of incapacity including once during the last reporting period. The finding of incapacity has been substantiated by the Consent Capacity Board (CCB on each occasion. Mr. Ducharme continues to report that he has psychotic symptoms which I believe are fabricated. I have offered psychometric testing on several occasions to validate his concerns but he consistently refuses this testing. He complains that his current antipsychotic medication have made him worse, including homicidal and suicidal ideation.

As a result of his reported "side effects" I have offered pharmacogenetic

testing to determine if there is any heightened sensitivity to his current

On June 25, 2020 Mr. Ducharme was actively psychotic with a profound

thought disorder and spread feces on the wall of his room. I made a finding of Incapacity to consent to treatment with antipsychotic medications, a finding which was upheld by the Consent and Capacity Board but appealed by Mr. Ducharme. An interim treatment order issued on February 19, 2021 and a subsequent unsuccessful stay of motion on March 2, 2021 allowed treatment with antipsychotics to begin on March 2, 2021 and good resolution of psychotic symptoms on April 24, 2021 when a several month seclusion was discontinued. This response to antipsychotic mediation is consistent with past treatment successes. His deterioration off antipsychotic mediation was also noted when his mother then acting as Substitute Decision Maker

withdrew consent to treatment on March 11, 2022 and he deteriorated again.

A Form G Consent and Capacity decision determined that Ms. Blair (his

mother) was not complying with principles of Substitute Decision Making and treatment with Paliperidone was initiated under the auspices of the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee again with good resolution of psychotic symptoms.”

34. Absent the oversight of the ORB and the intensive structure and supervision at Waypoint under a Detention Disposition, Mr. Ducharme’s risk of harm to others would substantially increase. Dr. Hudson was clear in his Hospital Report, as follows:

“Only after a careful period of assessment, therapeutic interventions, and

rehabilitation, should a transition to the community be considered. I believe

Mr. Ducharme will do well in the community if he is maintained on a long

acting injectable medication as supported by his family and rehabilitation

efforts. Mr. Ducharme and his family remain opposed to long-acting injectable antipsychotic medications but are no longer in a position to stop this critical and integral part of his recovery.”

35. Dr. Hudson does not believe that there is a treatment impasse. Regardless, the hospital continues to advocate for the transfer of Mr. Ducharme to Philippe-Pinel, a facility where he previously engaged better with treatment. In her letter to Philippe-Pinel (Exhibit 2), Ms. Lefebvre states:

“Waypoint supports Mr. Ducharme’s transfer to Philippe-Pinel as it appears to be the closest and most appropriate facility to manage his risk to the safety of the public, including staff and co-patients, while attempting to break the impasse with a “fresh start”.

36. The Board notes that Mr. Ducharme has become increasingly resistant to Dr. Hudson as his psychiatrist. Mr. Ducharme interrupted the hearing at least twice to declare Dr. Hudson a liar. Mr. Ducharme was clear in his evidence that he believes psychiatrists “worship medication” and all they know how to do is force medication on him. Mr. Ducharme has not considered the possibility that he is very ill and the gains he has made are attributable to the long-acting injectable medication. The Board accepts Dr. Hudson’s evidence that Mr. Ducharme is fabricating symptoms for the purpose of having his long-acting injectable medication discontinued. That being said, and despite Dr. Hudson’s advocacy for the transfer which Mr. Ducharme wants, the hospital may wish to consider whether there would be a potential benefit to a change in psychiatrists in the coming year given Mr. Ducharme’s deep-seated animosity toward Dr. Hudson.

37. In consideration of all the evidence, the joint submissions of the parties, and the criteria set forth in s. 672.54, the paramount consideration being the safety of the public, in addition to the mental condition of Mr. Ducharme, his reintegration into society and his other needs, the necessary and appropriate disposition is a Detention Disposition with no change from the current Detention Order. The Board continues its recommendation for a transfer of Mr. Ducharme to Philippe-Pinel.

DATED this 21st day of May 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.

Ms. C. Murray Legal Member

__________________ Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board