Court File and Parties

COURT FILE: CR-23-40000118-0000 DATE: 20240502

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING - and - JORGE LANGEVIN

Counsel: Emma Haydon and Stephanie Abrahams, for the Respondent Crown Anthony De Marco, for the Applicant Jorge Langevin

HEARD: April 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 and 10, 2024

Kelly J.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT RE: Not Criminally Responsible

1. Mr. Jorge Langevin is charged with second degree murder of his father Mr. Jorge Zapata. [^1] He is also charged with improperly and indecently interfering with his father’s body after his death. [^2] Mr. Langevin pleaded not guilty to both charges.
2. There is no question that Mr. Langevin killed his father by stabbing him in the neck. There is also no question that Mr. Langevin improperly and indecently interfered with his father’s body after his death by, amongst other things, removing some of his teeth then putting them in the freezer and scrubbing his body with steel wool and chemical solutions. There is also no issue that Mr. Langevin suffers from a mental illness that was operative at the time of the killing of his father and mutilation of the body – schizophrenia.
3. The issue is whether Mr. Langevin is criminally responsible for his acts. Counsel for Mr. Langevin submits that Mr. Langevin was suffering from a mental disorder that rendered him incapable of knowing that his acts were wrong pursuant to s. 16(1) of the Criminal Code. Crown counsel does not agree.

Overview of the Trial

4. With the consent of the Crown, this matter proceeded before me without a jury. A plea of not guilty was entered.
5. The parties filed an Agreed Statement of Facts (“ASF”). It consisted of a written portion dealing with the facts and several attachments including video surveillance of Mr. Langevin before the offences and his statement to first responders at the scene after his father’s death. Also included as part of the ASF was the post-mortem report, photographs of the body of the deceased and other photographs from the scene. The ASF addresses the essential elements of both offences.
6. Counsel for Mr. Langevin called, as witnesses, Mr. Langevin’s mother, brother and three experts: Dr. Mimi Mamak [^3] (a psychologist), Dr. Alina Iosif [^4] (a forensic psychiatrist retained by Mr. Langevin) and Dr. Lisa Ramshaw [^5] (a court appointed psychiatrist). The two psychiatrists concluded that on a balance of probabilities, the defence of not criminally responsible is supported for Mr. Langevin.
7. Counsel also showed Mr. Langevin’s videotaped statement taken by Det. Rodney Benson of the Toronto Police Service (“TPS”) Homicide Squad 15 hours after the deceased was found and Mr. Langevin had been arrested. Crown counsel agreed to the admissibility of the videotaped statement because it was relied upon by the psychiatrists in rendering their opinions. The description of the incident in question provided by Mr. Langevin was not to be relied upon for the truth of its contents.
8. Mr. Langevin did not testify at trial. Crown counsel did not call an expert to rebut the opinions of the psychiatrists.

The Issue

9. There is no real issue and Crown counsel agrees that Mr. Langevin suffered from a mental disorder (schizophrenia) at the time he killed his father and interfered with his body. It is also agreed that Mr. Langevin, at the time, could appreciate the nature and quality of his acts and knew that they were legally wrong.
10. The narrow issue that I must decide is whether the evidence establishes on a balance of probabilities that Mr. Langevin’s mental disorder rendered him incapable of knowing that his conduct was morally wrong. In other words, did Mr. Langevin lack the capacity to know that his actions would be viewed as morally wrong by members of the public?
11. Crown counsel submits that the evidence fails to establish the absence of criminal responsibility on a balance of probabilities. They submit that the evidence shows that Mr. Langevin likely had the capacity to appreciate the moral wrongfulness of his conduct. I do not agree.
12. I have concluded that Mr. Langevin was suffering from a mental disorder that rendered him incapable of knowing that his conduct would be viewed as morally wrong by reasonable members of the public. As such, I am satisfied that Mr. Langevin has met his burden of showing that he is not criminally responsible for his father’s death and interfering with his body thereafter, on a balance of probabilities.
13. What follows are my reasons.

The Legal Framework

14. Everybody is presumed criminally responsible for his or her actions. [^6] However, such a presumption may be disproven by showing that the person charged or convicted suffered from a mental disorder to such an extent that he or she is not criminally responsible for the criminal act(s) committed.

15. Section 16(1) of the Criminal Code addresses the application of the defence of mental disorder (hereinafter referred to as “NCR-MD”). Section 16(1) provides as follows:

    16 (1) No person is criminally responsible for an act committed or an omission made while suffering from a mental disorder that rendered the person incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of the act or omission or of knowing that it was wrong.

16. The burden of proof for establishing NCR-MD is on the party that raises the issue. [^7] The burden of proof is on the balance of probabilities, i.e., that it is more likely than not that the person suffered from a mental disorder to such an extent that he or she is not criminally responsible. [^8]

17. The legal framework for addressing the issue: “of knowing it was wrong” has been addressed by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Chaulk [^9] and R. v. Oommen [^10]. “Wrong” goes beyond legally wrong to include morally wrong. [^11] The Supreme Court of Canada held in R. v. Ratti [^12], at para. 20:

    … In accordance with our decision in Chaulk, the trier of fact must be directed to consider whether the appellant was rendered incapable, by reason of disease of the mind or "natural imbecility", to know that his act was morally wrong in the circumstances. It is not sufficient to decide that the appellant's act was a result of his delusion. Even if the act was motivated by the delusion, the appellant will be convicted if he was capable of knowing, in spite of such delusion, that the act in the particular circumstances would have been morally condemned by reasonable members of society. [Emphasis in original]

18. After having reviewed several of the abovementioned authorities, the Court of Appeal held in R. v. Dobson [^13], at para. 24:

    In my view, Oommen, as interpreted in the judgments of this court, holds that an accused who has the capacity to know that society regards his actions as morally wrong and proceeds to commit those acts cannot be said to lack the capacity to know right from wrong. As a result, he is not NCR, even if he believed that he had no choice but to act, or that his acts were justified. However, an accused who, through the distorted lens of his mental illness, sees his conduct as justified, not only according to his own view, but also according to the norms of society, lacks the capacity to know that his act is wrong. That accused has an NCR defence. Similarly, an accused who, on account of mental disorder, lacks the capacity to assess the wrongness of his conduct against societal norms lacks the capacity to know his act is wrong and is entitled to an NCR defence. [Emphasis added]

19. For the defence of NCR-MD to apply, Mr. Langevin’s mental disorder must render him incapable of knowing that the acts in question are morally wrong as measured against societal standards and therefore incapable of making the choice necessary to act in accordance with those standards. [^14]

20. If a person commits an offence while mentally unsound, they are not acquitted of the offences charged. Rather, they are found “not criminally responsible by reason of a mental disorder”. Jurisdiction over the person is then transferred to the Ontario Review Board (the “ORB”). The ORB is statutorily empowered to inquire into the risk posed by the person and to determine if the person can be released back into the community.

21. The availability of the verdict of NCR-MD, “gives effect to society’s interest in ensuring that morally innocent offenders are treated rather than punished, while protecting the public as fully as possible”. [^15]

22. I will now consider these principles in the context of Mr. Langevin’s case.

Analysis

23. Both counsel (as do Drs. Mamak, Iosif and Ramshaw) agree that Mr. Langevin suffered from a mental disorder (schizophrenia) at the time he committed the offences and that he was capable of appreciating the nature of quality of his acts. He knew that his acts (stabbing his father and interfering with his dead body) were legally wrong.
24. As I have stated above, the question that must be decided is whether he knew his acts were morally wrong. However, I will deal, briefly, with the other elements of the NCR-MD defence.

Did Mr. Langevin suffer from a mental disorder?

25. The first issue to decide in the s. 16 analysis is: did Mr. Langevin suffer from a mental disorder. The answer is “yes”.

26. The legal concept of “disease of the mind” and “mental disorder” embraces any illness, disorder or abnormal condition that impairs the human mind and its functioning. Excluded from the definition of a disease of the mind and mental disorder are self-induced states caused by alcohol or drugs. [^16] Dr. Iosif included a definition of schizophrenia in her report, as follows:

    Schizophrenia is a major mental illness that tends to have its onset, in males, in the second or third decade of life. Once extant, schizophrenia is a lifelong illness. An individual suffering from schizophrenia suffers from symptoms of psychosis. Psychosis is generally defined as the presence of delusions, hallucinations, grossly disorganized thought and behaviour, or some combination of these. After a time of suffering from schizophrenia, many individuals will also experience social and occupational decline, as well as a diminution of their motivation and self-care. The mainstay of treatment for schizophrenia is treatment with antipsychotic medication. This tends to ameliorate or ablate, the more florid symptoms of psychosis in more than 80% of individuals. Once this medication has had the opportunity to achieve this effect, then multidisciplinary psychosocial rehabilitation is generally instituted to treat the other, aforenoted, residual symptoms of schizophrenia. The course of a schizophrenic illness may be adversely affected by psychosocial stress, an unstructured living situation, alcohol or street drug use, and non-compliance with psychiatric treatment, in particular pharmacotherapeutic treatment.

27. Drs. Mamak, Iosif and Ramshaw agree that Mr. Langevin suffers from schizophrenia that had been untreated for over a year. Drs. Iosif and Ramshaw also concluded that Mr. Langevin has probable alcohol and cannabis use disorders (which can contribute to the apathy and affective flattening which are part of the symptoms of schizophrenia observed in Mr. Langevin).

28. Crown counsel concedes that Mr. Langevin was experiencing symptoms of schizophrenia around the material time as submitted by counsel for Mr. Langevin. I agree.

29. The evidence presented at trial and discussed below provides evidence that Mr. Langevin was suffering from schizophrenia. As such, I am satisfied that it is more likely than not, that when Mr. Langevin committed the offences against his father, he suffered from a mental disorder.

Did Mr. Langevin suffer from a mental disorder that rendered him incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of his acts?

30. The next question for consideration in the s. 16(1) analysis is this: did Mr. Langevin suffer from a mental disorder that rendered him incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of his acts? Again, the answer is “yes”.

31. To be capable of appreciating the nature and quality of his conduct, Mr. Langevin must have the capacity to:

    a. know what he is doing (i.e., stabbing his father and then interfering with his body); and b. estimate and understand the consequences that would flow from that conduct (i.e., knowing that his father was killed by the knife wound to his neck and that he was interfering with his father’s dead body thereafter). [^17]

32. The Crown concedes, and Drs. Iosif and Ramshaw agree, that Mr. Langevin appreciated the nature and quality of his actions and their consequences. I agree.

33. Mr. Langevin knew that stabbing his father resulted in his death and that he interfered with his body thereafter. Mr. Langevin knew that his father had died and as such appreciated the nature and quality of his conduct. He provided an explanation for his death, that his father fell and hit his head on the television which suggests an appreciation of the legal implications of his conduct.

Did Mr. Langevin know that his acts were wrong?

34. The more difficult question for consideration is this: did Mr. Langevin know his acts were morally wrong? I have concluded that the answer is “no”.
35. This branch of s. 16(1) is concerned with knowledge: the capacity of Mr. Langevin to know that the particular acts were wrong. [^18] The term “wrong” refers to morally wrong: contrary to the ordinary moral standards of reasonable men and women. “Morally wrong” is not to be judged by the personal standards of the defendant, but rather by “his or her awareness that society regards the conduct as wrong”. As stated by Watt J.A. in the trial decision of Dobson [^19], at para. 120, “… the exemption extends only to those accused of a crime who, because of a mental disorder, are incapable of knowing that society generally considers their conduct to be immoral”.
36. It is not sufficient to decide that a defendant’s conduct was the result of his or her mental illness such as schizophrenia. Even if Mr. Langevin’s conduct was motivated by his schizophrenia, he will be criminally responsible if he was capable of knowing that, in spite of his condition, his conduct would have been morally condemned by reasonable members of society. [^20]
37. In coming to my conclusion, I have considered the expert opinions of Drs. Iosif and Ramshaw as well as the admissible evidence that supports both opinions. I will begin with an overview of the opinions.

Expert Opinion

38. Both Drs. Iosif and Ramshaw agree that Mr. Langevin was not capable of knowing that his conduct of stabbing and mutilating his father’s body would have been morally condemned by reasonable members of society. Amongst other things, they relied on their interviews with Mr. Langevin [^21] as well as a statement that Mr. Langevin gave to Det. Benson 15 hours after his arrest. [^22]
39. Both psychiatrists’ reports were filed as exhibits. Both psychiatrists were vigorously cross-examined at trial. Both maintained that, on a balance of probabilities, it is more likely that Mr. Langevin’s mental status was sufficiently disorganized to prevent him from accessing rational choice with respect to both charges. Their professional opinions support a not criminally responsible verdict from a medical perspective.

Dr. Iosif

40. Dr. Iosif submitted that her final analysis was challenging. She concluded as follows at pp. 43-44 of her report, and at trial, that:

    This case is marked by the absence of much relevant information regarding Mr. Langevin’s mental status at the material time (because of how uncommunicative and isolated he was), and his strikingly contradictory and unreliable presentation on assessment insofar as his thoughts, actions and motivations at the material time. This makes the final analysis in this case particularly challenging, and more marginal than would be optimal. It is possible that a prosaic explanation, not rooted in psychosis, may account for the events at the material time; for example that Mr. Langevin was simply angry with his father because he had sent him on an errand and did not say thank you, and beat him to death.

    However, on the balance of probabilities, given his presentation during the interviews with police, the observations of family members, and his behavior at TSDC in the months following his arrest, it is the psychiatric opinion that it is more likely that Mr. Langevin’s mental status was sufficiently disorganized to prevent him from accessing rational choice with respect to both charges.

    It is my contention, based on the materials reviewed and my observations of Mr. Langevin, that he was at the material time far from the “everyday standards of the ordinary person” cognitively, that he could not make rational decisions, and hence access rational choice for his actions.

    I am also of the view that immediately after the killing Mr. Langevin presented and spoke in a manner that suggested that if he may have had an inkling regarding the legal wrongfulness of his actions (his statements in that regard are replete, again, with contradictions), he clearly did not know the moral wrongfulness of what he had done – and still, at this juncture, may not. For someone who was described to have had a close relationship with his father, announcing his death to loved ones “as if ordering a hamburger” and lately comparing the death to a bird one may flush down the toilet, suggests lack of knowledge regarding the moral wrongfulness of the act. There is no indication that Mr. Langevin had ever had psychopathic characteristics that could explain such flagrant lack of emotionality.

    Finally, although again we lack access to reliable information regarding Mr. Langevin’s motivations, the degree to which the body was mutilated and bedecked post-mortem, is in keeping with the presentation of psychotic murder, where the degree of violence far exceeds what was necessary for the act of killing.

    Based on the aforenoted analysis, from a psychiatric perspective, with the materials available to me, and on a balance of probabilities, a Section 16 defence, Not Criminally Responsible by reason of a Mental Disorder, is supported for Mr. Langevin. [Emphasis in original]

Dr. Ramshaw

41. Dr. Ramshaw came to the same conclusion as Dr. Iosif. She concluded as follows at p. 9 of her report and maintained at trial:

    Mr. Langevin has a psychotic disorder, that being schizophrenia, with active psychotic symptoms in the years prior and leading up to the predicate offence, which has continued since that time as was evident from the police interview, with Drs. Iosif and Mamak, and in the detention centre records. He was diagnosed in the mid-20s and treated with antipsychotic medication, though from all accounts he had a history of non-compliance with medication including for a significant period prior to his arrest. Symptoms noted included bizarre behaviour, disorganization of thought, perceptual abnormalities, and delusional beliefs. There has also been an associated cognitive and functional decline and lack of insight into his mental illness. He remains thought disordered with significantly impaired insight into his mental illness and history of symptoms.

    While Mr. Langevin’s motivation for the predicate offence behaviours is not fully clear from a psychiatric perspective, the behaviour was indicative of significant disorganization in keeping with severe psychosis. As with most violent actions by mentally disordered individuals, which are a result of a mix of psychotic and non-psychotic factors in varying proportions, it is likely that numerous factors converged on February 9, 2022. There may have been some reality-based conflict and anger (in the context of his father’s chronic frustration with his lack of motivation, and his father’s sciatica and reported anger with his girlfriend that evening), and alcohol and cannabis may have played a role. However, based on the evident extreme and bizarre behaviour with his father, the primary driving factor was, more likely than not, psychosis. Based upon his extreme behaviours and his probable severe symptoms burden and state of disorganization, on balance of probabilities, he was unable to access the wrongfulness at the time of the offences.

42. Crown counsel challenged the opinions of both psychiatrists in cross-examination and in argument. No evidence was called to contradict or challenge the validity of their opinions. However, the absence of opposing evidence to the opinions of Drs. Iosif and Ramshaw does not, as a matter of law, mean that I must find Mr. Langevin not criminally responsible. I may reject the opinions of the experts, even when they are unanimous and uncontradicted. However, there must be a rational foundation, in the evidence, to reasonably reject the opinions.

43. In weighing the psychiatric evidence, I must examine the factual foundations for the opinions. I am “entitled to accord less weight to [the] opinion where it is not based on facts proven at trial and/or where it is based upon factual assumptions with which [I] disagree”. [^23] Even if I accept the expert evidence and find that it is adequately supported by the facts in evidence, the ultimate issue is a legal one that I must determine.

44. Crown counsel submits that there is a rational basis for rejecting the opinions of the psychiatrists. They submit that Mr. Langevin’s mental disorder did not render him incapable of knowing that his acts were morally wrong as measured against societal standards and therefore incapable of making the choice necessary to act in accordance with those standards.

45. Crown counsel submits that there is an absence of evidence as to what Mr. Langevin did and thought at the time of the offences. During their testimony and in their reports, both psychiatrists related many things Mr. Langevin told them and told Det. Benson for which, Crown counsel submits, there is no admissible evidence. Crown counsel submits that while there is evidence that Mr. Langevin moves through periods of organization and disorganization, there is no evidence of his conduct at the time of the offences. Mr. Langevin did not testify.

46. As I have stated above, both psychiatrists relied on the statement provided by Mr. Langevin to Det. Benson and the statements made by Mr. Langevin to them during their interviews in preparation of their reports. In expressing their opinions as to Mr. Langevin’s mental condition, they can relate what they have been told, or what they have observed in the case of the statement to Det. Benson, when that information forms the basis of their opinions. As Martin J.A. explained in R. v. Kirkby [^24], at p. 53, “What is being introduced is the opinion of the expert, not the truth of the statements on which the opinion is based, and the statements are not proof of the facts contained therein”. This principle was explained in R. v. Abbey [^25] (a case in which NCR-MD was an issue and Mr. Abbey did not testify) at page 46,

    While it is not questioned that medical experts are entitled to take into consideration all possible information in forming their opinions, this in no way removes from the party tendering such evidence the obligation of establishing, through properly admissible evidence, the factual basis on which such opinions are based.

47. The Supreme Court of Canada further addressed the hearsay issue when experts provide opinion evidence, in R. v. Lavallee [^26]. In that case, the Court considered the effect of the admissibility of expert opinion evidence in the context of a murder trial before a jury. In that case, Ms. Lavallee had murdered her husband and submitted that she was not criminally responsible because of the abusive relationship she had endured with the deceased. Ms. Lavallee did not testify at trial, nor did her mother. Both were interviewed by the expert who relied on their evidence in forming the opinion that Ms. Lavallee was not criminally responsible.

48. In considering the principles set out in Abbey, the Supreme Court in Lavallee distilled four propositions when considering expert opinion evidence based on hearsay:

    i. An expert opinion is admissible if relevant, even if it is based on second-hand evidence. ii. This second-hand evidence (hearsay) is admissible to show the information on which the opinion is based, not as evidence going to the existence of the facts on which the opinion is based. iii. Where the psychiatric evidence is comprised of hearsay evidence, the problem is the weight to be attributed to the opinion. iv. Before any weight can be given to an expert’s opinion, the facts upon which the expert opinion is based must be found to exist. [^27]

49. In the case before me, the expert evidence regarding Mr. Langevin is relevant. The hearsay evidence of Mr. Langevin’s statement to Det. Benson and to the psychiatrists is admissible to show the information on which the expert opinions were partially based. However, that is not evidence that establishes the existence of those facts.

50. The real issue, as set out in Abbey and Lavallee, is whether there is admissible evidence to support the facts upon which the experts rely before any weight can be attributed to their opinions. When considering this factor, the Court in Lavallee has instructed that not each and every fact relied upon by the experts must be independently proven and admitted into evidence before the entire opinion can be given any weight. As long as there is some admissible evidence to establish the foundation of the expert’s opinion, it may be considered. However, the more the expert relies on facts not proven in evidence, the less weight the court may attribute to the opinion. [^28]

51. I find that there are facts upon which the expert opinions are supported by the admissible evidence at trial. As such, I have considered the opinions of both experts in reaching my conclusion that the defence of NCR-MD is supported. The following is a summary of the evidence giving rise to my conclusion.

Mr. Langevin’s Background and the Onset of Mental Illness

52. Ms. Esther Carey, Mr. Langevin’s mother, and Mr. Oscar Zapata, Mr. Langevin’s brother, [^29] testified at trial. [^30] Both gave evidence about Mr. Langevin’s background, and their observations of the changes Mr. Langevin underwent prior to his schizophrenia diagnosis in his mid-twenties. (The medical records stated that two psychiatrists assessed Mr. Langevin in 2012 and 2013. Both concluded that his presentation was consistent with a diagnosis of schizophrenia.)

53. Ms. Carey’s evidence may be summarized as follows:

    a. Ms. Carey was married to the deceased and together, they had two children, Mr. Langevin and Oscar. Ms. Carey separated from the deceased and the two children remained with their father. At the time of separation, Mr. Langevin was 13 years old. His brother, Oscar, was 10 years old. b. Ms. Carey described that Mr. Langevin was an outgoing child. He was always in a good mood and had several friends. He obtained good grades when he was a student. There were never any behavioural problems reported at school. Although he did not participate in sports, he was a member of the chess club. c. After Mr. Langevin completed high school, he attended college for approximately one year. He was then employed as a machinist, following in his father’s footsteps. It was within a year of this employment that Mr. Langevin’s illness “kicked in”. Ms. Carey believes that Mr. Langevin was approximately 25 years old at the time. d. Ms. Carey described her observations of Mr. Langevin at that time. He had lost focus. He withdrew. He stopped talking to his friends and closest relatives. She described that Mr. Langevin “always had his head down”. Some of his friends approached him on the street and Mr. Langevin did not recognize them. He had no interest in socializing with them. On most days, Mr. Langevin wore his headphones and watched videos. e. When Mr. Langevin did speak, it was in fragments. He could not carry on a conversation for too long. He would “skip” from one subject to another. For example, he would talk about the Flintstones and then something else. He would be talking about something and then change the subject to “Ninja Turtles” which had nothing to do with the topic under discussion. He would continuously change the subject. It was next to impossible to have a fluid conversation with Mr. Langevin. This improved when Mr. Langevin was medicated. f. There were occasions when Ms. Carey would observe some unusual behaviour. For example, she saw Mr. Langevin in the backyard digging and putting the sand into bags. He would seal the bags and then put them on the street. When asked why he was doing that, he could not provide an answer. He did this “all day long”. g. Ms. Carey also observed that Mr. Langevin would stay up all night, pacing and running the water. During the day, he would consume copious amounts of coffee. Sometimes he would not eat. When he did sleep, it was for a long time. h. Ms. Carey also described that Mr. Langevin would laugh for no apparent reason. When asked why he was laughing, Mr. Langevin would look at his mother like he did not know what she was talking about. Her perception is that Mr. Langevin believed that she should be hearing the voices as well. Other than his look, Mr. Langevin did not explain the reasons for his outbursts of laughter. i. On numerous occasions, Mr. Langevin said that he believed that people were “taking his thoughts” and that he did not want to “think” because people could “read his mind”, including the government. j. Because her mother suffered from schizophrenia, Ms. Carey testified that she believed she was observing a similar pattern of behavior in her son. Like Mr. Langevin, her mother would stop talking and would “laugh out loud for no reason at all”. k. Ms. Carey also testified about Mr. Langevin’s living conditions in a subsidized apartment. She attended there, on occasion. Ms. Carey described Mr. Langevin as a hoarder based on her observations of the apartment. Amongst other things, there was garbage in his freezer; Tim Hortons cups were stacked to the ceiling; he refused to throw out his cigarette butts, etc. l. Ms. Carey believed there were issues about Mr. Langevin’s alcohol and cannabis use, which he consumed with his father regularly. m. Telephone conversations with Mr. Langevin were sparse. Some of the content of the conversations made sense but they did not last long. Mr. Langevin did not wish to talk on the phone for any significant period. If Ms. Carey did manage to speak with Mr. Langevin, he would quickly pass the phone to his father, engaging with her minimally and appearing eager to disconnect.

54. Oscar confirmed much of Ms. Carey’s evidence. However, he added the following that is relevant to my analysis:

    a. Oscar observed “abnormal behaviour” in Mr. Langevin. He would see him “laughing by himself” and “just talking to himself”. When asked why he was doing this, Mr. Langevin simply laughed it off like it was a joke. Oscar testified that this behaviour had occurred in the past, but he did not observe it in 2021 or 2022. b. During discussions, Mr. Langevin was not able to “contribute to the conversation” or “stay on topic”. Oscar felt that Mr. Langevin was not “comprehending” things and that is why they rarely talked. c. Oscar also testified that he never had “one on one” or “heart to heart” conversations with his brother because Mr. Langevin “kept to himself”. d. Oscar admits that he did not talk to or interact with Mr. Langevin much after his diagnosis of schizophrenia. When Oscar would call his father and Mr. Langevin was given the phone, any conversation they had was brief.

55. Mr. Vernon Carey, Ms. Carey’s husband, also provided evidence about his relationship with Mr. Langevin and his observations of Mr. Langevin’s mental illness. He has been married to Ms. Carey for 25 years. He recalls that when Mr. Langevin was in his early 20s, he started acting peculiar. He would do strange things such as put whiteout on his nails. He, too, recalls that Mr. Langevin would fill bags with dirt.

56. The evidence of Ms. Carey, Oscar and Mr. Carey provides insight into the symptoms of schizophrenia that Mr. Langevin showed well before he killed his father. What it also shows, however, are the negative symptoms of schizophrenia that Mr. Langevin suffered for many years.

57. In his mid-twenties, Mr. Langevin started exhibiting concerning conduct that was evident at the time of his father’s death. Mr. Langevin was apathetic (watching videos and doing little else); he lacked motivation (no longer working despite his college education and employment opportunities); he was not interested in interacting with others (not talking on the phone at length and not engaging in discussions with family); his thoughts were disorganized (changing a topic to discuss something irrelevant such as Ninja Turtles).

Relationship Between Mr. Langevin and his Father

58. There is admissible evidence about the nature of the relationship between Mr. Langevin and his father. At the time of the incident, Mr. Langevin had lived with his father in a two-bedroom apartment located at 235 Grandravine Drive in the City of Toronto for a couple of years. He had been sleeping on the couch in the living room. They were the only two that lived in the apartment.
59. It appeared that Mr. Langevin and his father got along. There were no “red flags” observed in their interaction that led to concerns by the family and those closest to them. Mr. Langevin told Dr. Ramshaw that the deceased was “the only person he had”. This is borne out by the evidence.

Ms. Carey

60. Ms. Carey described Mr. Langevin’s relationship with his father as “very close”. At the time of his arrest, Mr. Langevin was collecting ODSP. Although he maintained a subsidized apartment, Mr. Langevin continued to live with his father and had done so for approximately six years prior to the incident.
61. From what Ms. Carey observed, Mr. Langevin and his father had a “great relationship”. Ms. Carey described Mr. Langevin as “loveable”. At no point was she concerned that he would become violent with her or anybody else. She never saw Mr. Langevin and his father physically fight, argue, or say “bad words” to each other.
62. Ms. Carey did testify that there were occasions when Mr. Langevin would express frustration. For example, he would get annoyed when she asked if he had taken his medication.
63. Ms. Carey testified that Mr. Langevin always spoke positively about his father. He appeared to respect his father and she did not observe any “red flags”. Ms. Carey described that “Normally, Mr. Zapata [the deceased] would tell Jorge [Mr. Langevin] something and Jorge would just do it … no questions asked”. If there were problems, the deceased did not tell her about them. However, Ms. Carey did observe the deceased tell Mr. Langevin to “snap out of it” when he said things that did not make sense.

Mr. Oscar Zapata

64. Oscar was asked about the relationship between Mr. Langevin and his father. He explained: “They were together, like, 24/7. They went everywhere together. They lived together. Every – they were like – yeah, they didn’t do anything apart”. However, they did argue. For example, the deceased would complain that he had been at work all day and that Mr. Langevin had done very little housework, such as the dishes. He had seen them get angry with each other. Voices could be raised. However, he never observed any violence between them.

Ms. Gale Williams

65. Ms. Gale Williams (the girlfriend of the deceased) was interviewed by the TPS. She spent time with the deceased and Mr. Langevin. She described that the deceased would become frustrated with his son but that they loved each other. She observed that, on one occasion, Mr. Langevin had pushed his father. She denied observing other physical altercations.
66. The evidence of the relationship between the parties shows that while Mr. Langevin exhibited traits of frustration and some of his behaviour was corrected by the deceased, Ms. Carey never observed any conduct that gave rise to any concerns about their safety and in particular, the safety of the deceased in the presence of Mr. Langevin. Oscar did not observe any violent behaviour. Ms. Carey did but she observed only one push. This history shows that there was no foreshadowing of the severe acts of violence exacted by Mr. Langevin on his father: stabbing him in the neck and then significantly interfering with his dead body thereafter.

Observations of Mr. Langevin Before the Incident on February 22, 2022

67. There was some evidence before the court about observations of Mr. Langevin made in the year before the incident.
68. The medical notes of Mr. Langevin were provided to the Court. The most recent notes were from January 19, 2021 when Mr. Langevin and his father attended an appointment with Dr. Sophia Mobilos (Mr. Langevin’s family physician). They provide that the deceased advised that Mr. Langevin had been “off Abilify [psychotic medication] for a year”. The deceased reported that Mr. Langevin’s mood was worse when not taking Abilify and would like him to restart. The deceased defined “worse” as “lower mood, lower energy, lower motivation”. He did not believe that Mr. Langevin was having paranoid thoughts and he did not believe that Mr. Langevin was “more delusional than his normal self”. The deceased did not have safety concerns and reported that Mr. Langevin was still his “usual calm and docile self”. The deceased reported that Mr. Langevin overslept and only showered with “prompting/reminding”. He reported that he was trying to get Mr. Langevin moving and walking but that Mr. Langevin lacked motivation.
69. During this last visit on January 19, 2021, Dr. Mobilos recorded that she observed, “some odd beliefs when discussing his diet and lifestyle habits, some tangential thought process but was able to bring him back to topic at hand. Denies hallucinations. Alert, oriented. Cooperative. Denies SI/HI [suicidal ideation/homicidal ideation].”
70. Despite medical attention, it appears that Mr. Langevin had little insight into his diagnosis of schizophrenia. He told Dr. Iosif that he did not fill the prescription recommended by Dr. Mobilos in January 2021. He told Dr. Iosif that he thought Dr. Mobilos may have diagnosed him with schizophrenia based on “the color of my blood,”. He further told her that he goes to his doctor for her to take blood but that “no one has the right to stick you with a needle when your mother is President …”.
71. Several months later and in May 2021, Mr. Langevin and his father went to Ms. Carey’s home for the weekend. During the weekend, there were some issues with Mr. Langevin. He did not really socialize with others but, “laid under the picnic table” for about four to five hours when they were in the backyard enjoying a fire. It was only when his father told him to “get up” that he did so. Ms. Carey described this conduct as “normal” for Mr. Langevin and that his bizarre behaviour had become acceptable.
72. During the Thanksgiving celebration of 2021 and just months before this incident, Mr. Langevin was at Ms. Carey’s house. Ms. Carey testified that he spent the entire weekend in his room on the second floor. He would not join the family to eat and only drank coffee. This must be juxtaposed with his conduct in November 2021 when the family attended Oscar’s wedding.
73. Ms. Carey described Mr. Langevin’s attendance at Oscar’s wedding as “awesome”. She had never seen Mr. Langevin so happy. He was playing the guitar, sat at the family table and was the last to leave the party in the company of his father. The family stayed at a bed and breakfast together. There was no sign that Mr. Langevin was suffering from hallucinations although he was quiet. Ms. Carey did not notice Mr. Langevin talking to himself. Both Mr. Langevin and his father were in good moods during this family celebration.
74. November 2021 was the last time Ms. Carey and Oscar saw Mr. Langevin before his father was killed on February 9, 2022. Again, they did not observe any behaviours that foreshadowed the violence that would be exacted on the deceased by Mr. Langevin. However, what the observations of Ms. Carey, Oscar and Dr. Mobilos show is that before the incident in question, Mr. Langevin was organized at times and disorganized at others. Both psychiatrists testified this is normal for those suffering from schizophrenia. The same observations were made on the date of the incident: Mr. Langevin appeared organized at times and disorganized at others.

The Evening in Question: February 22, 2022

Surveillance

75. Surveillance cameras captured some of the movements of Mr. Langevin and the deceased hours before the incident occurred. These videos were filed as part of the ASF and may be summarized as follows:

    a. Hours before the stabbing occurred (at 6:19 p.m.) and after his father had returned from work, Mr. Langevin is observed taking garbage to the dumpster; then walking to the Norfinch Smoke and Gift Store on Finch Avenue where he entered and spoke to somebody for several minutes; walking to the Jane and Finch Mall where he purchased food and then returning to the apartment he shared with his father. b. At approximately 7:35 p.m. on the night of the incident, the deceased can be seen in the elevator of the complex. He appeared to be unsteady on his feet. He was holding himself up against the railing of the elevator at some points. It is agreed that the deceased drank alcohol daily and that at the time he was experiencing pain in his back and legs from sciatica. Mr. Langevin entered the same elevator. Both returned to the apartment. c. It is agreed that Mr. Langevin and his father were the only people in the apartment on the night of February 9, 2022, and into the morning of February 10, 2022. It is further agreed that the incident occurred during the evening of February 9, 2022 when both parties returned to the apartment.

Telephone Calls

76. There were various phone calls made and referred to in the ASF. The relevant phone calls may be summarized as follows:

    a. At 6:20 p.m., a message was left by the deceased on his son Oscar’s phone. He told Oscar that he loved him. b. At various times, the deceased also spoke to his girlfriend, Ms. Gale Williams. The last call was at 7:47 p.m. Ms. Williams described that the deceased sounded “incoherent” during the telephone calls. He was not making any sense. She also said that he sounded “very upset and drunk”. c. Ms. Williams also spoke to Mr. Langevin that night at 8:26 p.m. She asked to speak with the deceased. Mr. Langevin told her that the deceased could not come to the phone because he was in bed. He then explained that the deceased was in the shower. Ms. Williams did not believe either explanation for the deceased not coming to the phone. d. At various times, Mr. Langevin called his stepfather, his mother and his brother, Oscar. A voicemail message was left for Oscar at approximately 8:51 p.m. Mr. Langevin told Oscar that he loved him and asked Oscar to call him the next day. Oscar described Mr. Langevin’s voice as “very calm” and that Mr. Langevin “seemed happy”. e. There was no phone or data activity on Mr. Langevin’s phone between 8:54 p.m. on February 9, 2022 and 7:01 a.m. on February 10, 2022. No calls were made to 911.

77. The surveillance evidence showing Mr. Langevin taking out garbage, getting food and making telephone calls demonstrates that Mr. Langevin can accomplish tasks and be organized in things that he says and does. He was coherent when speaking on the phone on the night of the incident. But, as explained by Drs. Iosif and Ramshaw, these are tasks that a person can perform whether they are mentally ill or not mentally ill, criminally responsible or not criminally responsible.

78. Further, Dr. Ramshaw agreed, as well, that Mr. Langevin was able to express emotions and connectedness with others as he did in his message to Oscar, telling him that he loved him. She testified, “it’s not that he has no emotions but there’s just sort of like a disconnect for a significant amount of time”. The evidence supports this opinion.

The Morning in Question

Telephone Calls

79. The ASF provides details about what occurred on the morning of February 10, 2022.
80. Commencing at 7:01 a.m., Mr. Langevin began making outgoing calls to his mother and stepfather. At 7:04 a.m., he reached his mother. He told her, “Mom, I need you to come get me.” Ms. Carey described that Mr. Langevin sounded “anxious” for her to pick him up. Ms. Carey was not expecting a visit with Mr. Langevin that day and she lives approximately 2.5 hours from the apartment. Ms. Carey asked to speak to the deceased. She was told, “Papa fell into the TV. I think he’s dead.” When asked again, what happened, Mr. Langevin repeated the same thing. He provided no other details.
81. Ms. Carey advised Mr. Langevin to call the police. He said, “no”. He explained that he was afraid that the police might kill him. At this point, Ms. Carey described Mr. Langevin as sounding “upset and anxious”. She told Mr. Langevin that she would pick him up as soon as possible. Ms. Carey then phoned Oscar.
82. After having spoken with his mother, Oscar called his father because Mr. Langevin had not answered his phone. At approximately 7:15 a.m., Mr. Langevin answered. Oscar asked Mr. Langevin if something happened to their father and if he was dead. Mr. Langevin confirmed that their father was dead. He said, “Yeah, he’s not alive. He died.” When asked how that was possible, Mr. Langevin kept saying, “Papa’s dead. Papa’s dead. He’s not alive.”
83. Mr. Langevin told Oscar that he had not called the police. He explained why he had not done so: “He was afraid the cops were going to get him and that he was afraid to call them.” Oscar described Mr. Langevin’s voice as sounding “nervous and scared”, something he had not heard before.
84. After Oscar’s arrival at the apartment and at 8:42 a.m., Mr. Langevin called Ms. Williams. He told her that “Papa was dead” and that an ambulance was coming. Ms. Williams described his tone as “matter of fact” and that he sounded like he was “ordering a hamburger”.
85. It may be concluded from these calls that Mr. Langevin was able to effectively communicate in coherent sentences. Although he sounded nervous and anxious, his delivery, at times, also had a flat affect, particularly when communicating that his father was dead. It is my view that the calls show Mr. Langevin’s failure to appreciate the seriousness of what he had done and the loss of his father that occurred as a result. There is no evidence of any remorse in killing the person who cared for him most.
86. Further, the reason for not calling the police is evidence upon which Dr. Iosif based her opinion that he had some paranoid delusions and poor cognitive function about the police: that he would be killed if he called them. Dr. Iosif testified that “people have various expectations of the police, but to expect that he would be killed by calling the police is obviously not something that is based in reality”. I agree with her conclusion, and it is supported by the evidence.

Arrival of Oscar

87. Oscar arrived at 8:21 a.m. Mr. Langevin is seen approaching the rear of the complex and letting Oscar into the building.

88. At 8:37 a.m., Oscar and Mr. Langevin went into the apartment. Oscar did not see anyone when he first entered. The television was on. A portion of the screen was damaged. Oscar asked Mr. Langevin, again, what happened. Mr. Langevin repeated that “papa fell down, hit his head on the TV, and blood came from his head”. Mr. Langevin advised that the deceased was in the other room.

89. Oscar entered the other room. He found his father on the floor in a bathrobe surrounded by blood. Mr. Langevin “stayed quiet, not providing any further details”. Neither of them touched the deceased.

90. At 8:39 a.m., Oscar called 911. When the operator asked what time the incident occurred, Mr. Langevin replied, “around 11 p.m. or 12 a.m. the night before”.

91. After having completed the call to 911, Oscar asked his brother why he waited to tell anybody about the incident. He described that Mr. Langevin did not give an answer and “appeared to not know how to answer the question”. Mr. Langevin did, however, tell Oscar that he moved their father to the bedroom.

92. While awaiting the arrival of the first responders, Oscar described Mr. Langevin’s body language as “really weird”. To Oscar, it appeared as though Mr. Langevin had “no clue” of what was “going on”. He was calmer during that time than he was on the phone with him earlier. In addition to the content in the ASF, Oscar testified at trial about his observations and interaction with Mr. Langevin that morning:

    a. When he arrived at the apartment complex, he described that Mr. Langevin did not appear to be nervous. He was calm and showed Oscar where his father was lying on the floor when asked to do so. b. Although Oscar described himself as “devastated”, Mr. Langevin was “very, very calm, as if like nothing happened, like he was ordering food at like Tim Hortons or something. He was just like – his behaviour was very – like he wasn’t comprehending what was going on around him. … like his behaviour was just so … like he didn’t look – he didn’t look affected by seeing our dad on the floor. And I just didn’t understand that … I didn’t understand why he just looked so, like, calm, and then I just figured, like, maybe he wasn’t comprehending what was happening around him”. c. Oscar testified that Mr. Langevin showed no emotion. No tears. No sorrow. Ever. He was emotionless.

93. Mr. Langevin’s conduct and demeanour, as described by Oscar, shows that Mr. Langevin failed to appreciate the seriousness of the matter. His own brother concluded that Mr. Langevin was speaking as if he was “ordering food” from Tim Hortons and that he did not appear to comprehend what was happening. Mr. Langevin was very “matter of fact” and speaking in a way that suggested he did not fully comprehend what had happened. He seemed unconcerned. Mr. Langevin does not appear to have appreciated the seriousness of the incident when speaking with Oscar and this continued when he communicated with others.

94. In my view, this evidence supports Dr. Ramshaw’s opinion given at trial. When asked whether Mr. Langevin’s conduct following the discovery of his father was consistent with disorganized thinking, she replied, “I think that there’s disorganized thinking, and then there’s another part which is an emotional connectedness to the world and what is going on. So it could be part of disorganization of thought, but it’s more in keeping with what we see with somebody who has quite – very serious schizophrenia with active symptoms where they just don’t have that connectedness to the emotions or – what is really the – or the seriousness of the situation”. I agree and the evidence supports this conclusion.

Arrival of Toronto Fire Services

95. Toronto Fire Services were the first on scene at 8:44 a.m. Mr. Langevin led Fire Captain Andy Walcsak to the bedroom where the deceased was laying on the floor. The face of the deceased was covered. There was blood present around the body.
96. The ASF provides that when Mr. Langevin was asked what happened, he told Captain Walczak that he had been with his father the previous night. They were drinking and smoking marijuana. He explained that his father had fallen by the TV in the main room and that he had hit his head. Mr. Langevin then explained that he dragged his father to the bedroom, cleaned up the blood, changed his father’s clothes and washed the clothing. He made phone calls to family members and his father’s girlfriend, but he had not called 911.

Arrival of TPS

97. Mr. Langevin gave a similar explanation to Police Constable Auluck who arrived at the apartment at approximately 8:50 a.m. This exchange was captured on the body camera worn by P.C. Auluck and played at trial, as part of the Crown’s case.
98. Mr. Langevin’s conduct, as observed on the body camera footage, also shows that he had no appreciation of what had happened: that his father had died and that he had killed him. This interview, although brief, is within hours of Mr. Langevin having killed his father. Despite the chaos around him and the officer speaking to him, Mr. Langevin started looking at his phone and was told by Oscar, to stop doing so (again showing a failure to appreciate the circumstances).
99. It is only after Mr. Langevin lowered his phone that he started focusing on the uniformed police officer. When asked by P.C. Auluck to advise what happened, Mr. Langevin was calm and said that he was with his father the night prior. Mr. Langevin explained that he went out to get dinner at the mall. They had been “drinking” and “smoking weed”. His father was talking on the phone to his girlfriend and got mad at her. Mr. Langevin explained, “I guess they broke up.” Mr. Langevin then explained, “he snapped, and got mad and he fell down and collapsed … and hit the TV … and cracked his head open”. This happened as Mr. Langevin was watching Netflix. Mr. Langevin then explained that he dragged his father’s body into his room. He put him in a “wardrobe” [robe] and did the laundry. He described that he “cleaned up his blood”. The officer then stopped Mr. Langevin and cautioned him not to say anything more.
100. I agree that there is no evidence of Mr. Langevin showing any kind of severe disorganization, delusional thinking or that he is responding to any kind of internal stimuli at the time he is speaking to the first responders. The body camera video shows that Mr. Langevin can present as “quite together” for short periods of time when giving brief answers to straightforward questions.
101. The fact that Mr. Langevin appears responsive to the questions asked by Toronto Fire Services and the TPS does not mean, however, that Mr. Langevin was not suffering from a mental illness at the time of the killing that rendered him incapable of knowing that his conduct was wrong. It is obvious that Mr. Langevin can oscillate between showing both organized and disorganized thought. As stated by Dr. Iosif, “It is suspected that his experience of disorganization becomes more pronounced in periods of heightened stress and emotional strain, which would have been the case at the time of the index offence”. This oscillation became more obvious when he gave his statement to Det. Benson.

Statement to Det. Benson

102. When Mr. Langevin was arrested for aggravated assault and approximately 15 hours after the fact, he gave a statement to Det. Benson that was an hour and 20 minutes in length. All three experts viewed the statement. Both psychiatrists considered the statement when forming their opinions. While the contents of the statement about Mr. Langevin’s role in the incident cannot be relied on for the truth of their contents, the content of the statement supports the opinion of both psychiatrists that Mr. Langevin suffered from schizophrenia and was showing signs of disorganization following his arrest.
103. For example, when asked about the relationship with his father, Mr. Langevin described that they both had the same size feet, “just like two ballerinas”. When asked how he felt about his father’s death, he said that he had to be strong and said that it meant nothing, “because I … hang out with my Aunt Lucy and I feed her birds everyday … the bird died the other day”. He likened his father’s death to that of an animal, “just like an animal or a frog that dies … you flush it down the toilet … a bird dies you bury it in the park”.
104. When asked about not calling 911, Mr. Langevin told Det. Benson, “I don’t know anything about cops … what are you going to do about birds … same about the frog … no big thing about it … mother nature”. Asked if it is wrong to hurt people, Mr. Langevin replied that it was, but “it’s like hanging out with the birds”. At the end of the interview, and when asked about saying that he was scared, he responded that he had no reason to be scared and said, “if anything you guys are scared because I have more money than you, and I’m a playboy and I’m younger than you .. if anybody should be scared it should be … the smaller gang”.
105. While I agree that having been arrested and being in custody before speaking with Det. Benson would have been stressful and could have led to increased disorganization and/or oscillation, I have watched the video. While I agree that there are times where Mr. Langevin provided relevant answers to questions asked, I agree with the observations of the psychiatrists during the interview. Dr. Iosif set out her observations of Mr. Langevin, at p. 23 and then again at p. 42 of her report which provides as follows:

> Mr. Langevin presents as calm and unemotional through his hour-long interview. He keeps his legs crossed, makes eye contact, speaks at length and appears relaxed. However, his statements are replete with loosening associations, and his thought form reflects severe disorganization, is illogical and incoherent. He provides directly contradictory answers to the same questions and remains firm when the contradictions are pointed out to him. He references birds numerous times in various incoherent ways. He fluctuates between being congenial with the interviewer and irritable, at random times.
>
> His interview with the police on February 10, 2022 is likely the longest time that Mr. Langevin had spoken to anybody in years. It is essentially an hour long example of thought disorder. Mr. Langevin is so contradictory and incoherent and his associations are so loose, that the detective is manifestly confused and repeatedly tries to redirect him to no avail.

106. Dr. Ramshaw observed that during the statement, Mr. Langevin “presented as highly psychotic with a child-like demeanour. He spoke at length, with ease of disorganization of thought (with loose associations and tangentiality) and contradictory accounts”. She added that Mr. Langevin began “incorporating his delusional beliefs but sort of jumping around and not processing information very clearly, very rationally”. In essence, he was showing signs of thought disorder. I agree with the observations of the psychiatrists having observed the statement myself during the trial.

Mr. Langevin’s Account of What Happened

107. Mr. Langevin claimed to his mother, brother, to the Toronto Fire Services and to TPS that his father fell into the television and hit his head, which caused his death. This may have a grain of truth because there is evidence of damage to the television. However, Mr. Langevin’s explanations for his father’s death are contradicted by the post-mortem examination, photos of the scene and forensic evidence that shows that the deceased was stabbed in the neck, causing his death, and his body was significantly interfered with by Mr. Langevin thereafter.

The Post-Mortem Evidence

108. Dr. Daniel Smyk conducted the post-mortem examination on February 11, 2022. He concluded as follows:

> **Cause of death**: Stab wound to the right side of the neck. The depth of the wound was 12 centimetres, described by Dr. Smyk as a “gaping stab wound”. It incised the left and right carotoid arteries. The stab wound could have been caused by a knife or other sharp object.
>
> **Mechanism of death**: Blood loss. Dr. Smyk opined that the stab wound to the neck would have led to rapid blood loss and that one could have seen blood coming out of that area at the time.

109. Dr. Smyk made other observations during the post-mortem examination that included the following:

> **Middle of the stab wound to the neck**: Dr. Smyk located a small piece of grey or silver metal consistent with steel wool. (Wire metal fragments were also observed on the right cheek, pubic region and left back.)
>
> **Forehead and head**: There were four sharp force wounds. They could have occurred either before or after death. These were not fatal injuries although bleeding from scalp injuries could have been significant. Again, a knife or other sharp object could have caused these injuries. There were four bruises and three lacerations around the head. Again, they could have occurred before or after death. None of these injuries would have contributed to the death.
>
> **Inside the mouth**: Multiple lacerations and bruising were evident. There were front upper and lower teeth missing with hemorrhage present in the sockets. These wounds occurred pre- or peri-mortem.
>
> **Left shoulder**: Bruising and dislocation. These wounds occurred pre- or peri-mortem.
>
> **Right lower ribs**: Fractures were identified with fresh hemorrhage. These wounds occurred pre- or peri-mortem.
>
> **Back**: There were areas of hemorrhage to the tissues in the back. These injuries would have been the result of blunt force trauma.
>
> **Liquid chemical or thermal injuries**: These types of injuries were present on the following areas: chest, abdomen, shoulders, arms, legs, back and front of neck, face and head. There was “partial thickness loss of skin with orange discoloration as well as areas of white discoloration”. These injuries could have been caused by “some sort of chemical or liquid being applied to the areas, causing the skin to become loose or damaged”. The injuries had a similar appearance to chemical or liquid burns. Some of the skin removal could be “explained” by steel wool eroding the skin. Dr. Smyk opined that the appearance of these wounds would suggest that they occurred post-mortem.
>
> **Hands**: Both hands showed immersion wrinkling.

110. It was agreed that the “totality and constellation of the injuries are not consistent with a fall”. There were blunt force injuries located “over multiple regions of the body, both back and front, and on head, torso, and limbs, as well as the documented sharp force injuries on the head and neck”. Similarly, the totality and constellation of the injuries are not consistent with self-inflicted injury.
111. The post-mortem examination showed extensive injuries that were consistent with “extreme aggression” and “bizarre” behaviour as described by Dr. Iosif in her report. I agree. The photographs of the scene and the deceased also demonstrate that Mr. Langevin failed to appreciate his actions had little comprehension of what he had done when speaking with his mother, brother, first responders and Det. Benson.

Photos of the Scene

112. Officers from the Forensic Identification Service (“FIS”) attended at the apartment on February 10, 2022. Various pictures of the scene were shown and filed as exhibits at trial. The apartment was extremely cluttered and disorganized. The screen of the television appeared to be broken. The apartment looked as if it was occupied by hoarders.
113. Various members of the TPS attended at the apartment that day and for several days thereafter. Items observed were documented. Some were seized. Those items included the following: a large bundle of steel wool on the balcony; bloody clothing; a mop in the living room with visible blood stains; white nail polish; three teeth (belonging to the deceased found in the freezer compartment of the fridge); and a folding knife in a cupboard above the stove.
114. Detective Constable Boyd conducted a blood stain analysis in the apartment. Areas of diluted and undiluted bloodstaining were in the apartment. Specific areas of blood concentration were in the bedroom of the deceased and in the living room. Bloodstaining was also found near a washing machine and on the kitchen floor.
115. D.C. Boyd applied leucocrystal violet (“LCV”) chemical to various areas in the apartment. This chemical is used to disclose bloodstains that are not visible to the naked eye. There was LCV reaction on large areas of the floor on the kitchen, throughout the living room, in the front hall, bedroom and bathroom.

Photos of the Deceased

116. The deceased was found and photographed lying on the floor of a cluttered room. He is wearing a leopard print robe with his head covered by the hood portion. It is tied around the waist. There is a bottle that has been placed over the deceased’s genitals and a bag (briefcase type) between his legs. There are sliced potatoes on the floor in the blood next to the head of the deceased. There is blood staining on the floor and in particular, a puddle of blood below the head. The exposed left hand shows water immersion wrinkling. I have described the other injuries he suffered above.

Forensic Evidence

117. Various items were sent to the Centre of Forensic Sciences. All items disclosed a similar DNA profile: STR Profile 1 (male). The deceased cannot be excluded as the source of STR Profile 1. That profile was found on the knife handle and its cutting edge; the bridge socket on the mop; bloodstaining throughout the apartment and on steel wool in the bedroom where the deceased was found. In the case of the steel wool, a tissue-like material was visible. Blood was detected in the tissue-like material. STR Profile 1 (male) was generated from the swab of that material.
118. The fact that Mr. Langevin so calmly describes a fall in the face of the evidence of the post-mortem examination and other evidence that shows his father died of a stab wound to the neck, suffered other injuries to his head, was scrubbed with steel wool, had teeth removed and refrigerated, shows that Mr. Langevin had little or no comprehension of what he had done. He had killed his father who had been described as his best friend and the person who cared for him most. He mutilated his body thereafter. He showed no remorse, whatsoever.

Psychological Testing

119. Dr. Mamak is a psychologist who was qualified as an expert in the area of psychological assessment and testing. She was asked to perform a psychological risk assessment administering tests for cognitive and psychological measures. Tests were conducted to ensure that the results were valid. The psychological tests administered are defined and the results explained in Appendix A attached hereto.
120. In summary, the tests show that Mr. Langevin’s intellectual functioning was in the extremely low range. There was no evidence of malingering.
121. Dr. Mamak had Mr. Langevin participate in a self-report measure to assess his anger experience, called the Anger Disorders Scale. Mr. Langevin exhibited “low to moderate” levels of anger pathology. Dr. Mamak testified that Mr. Langevin’s measure was elevated in “physical aggression”. This suggests that Mr. Langevin has a tendency to express his anger through physical aggression such as hitting someone or things. His elevated score on “relational aggression” meant that he would exclude, alienate and/or denigrate people he was mad at.
122. Dr. Iosif reviewed the results provided by Dr. Mamak. She agreed that Mr. Langevin’s schizophrenia could be connected, in a way, to the anger he shows people. In other words, the anger has some basis in his schizophrenia. Dr. Ramshaw opined that there may have been some reality-based conflict and anger that may have played a role in the death of Mr. Langevin’s father. However, that does not, inevitably, lead to the conclusion that Mr. Langevin did not suffer from a mental disorder that rendered him incapable of knowing his conduct was wrong. These opinions are supported by the evidence.

After the Fact Conduct

123. Crown counsel submits that Mr. Langevin’s after the fact conduct including cleaning up the blood, cleaning off the knife and placing it in a cupboard, calling his mother to remove him from the scene and lying to her (and others) about his father falling and dying (absolving him of responsibility), etc. supports the conclusion that Mr. Langevin was not so grossly or significantly disorganized at the time of the offences. While Crown counsel agrees the conduct is bizarre, the reasonable inference to be drawn from Mr. Langevin’s after the fact conduct is that he had the capacity to rationally decide that his actions were morally wrong.
124. Mr. Langevin’s conduct after the offence is relevant circumstantial evidence for the Court to consider in evaluating his NCR-MD s. 16 defence. Evidence of his concealment of the knife, cleaning the scene and wanting to depart it may have some bearing on whether Mr. Langevin was capable of appreciating that what he had done was wrong. This point was made by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Jacquard [^31] where the Court held as follows at para. 50:

> … just as a party would be unlikely to hide a murder weapon or flee a crime scene if he or she was not responsible for the act, a person would be most unlikely to attempt to cover up his or her actions if there was no appreciation of the nature and quality of those actions or no understanding that they were wrong. This sort of evidence clearly does have probative value in a case of this sort. [^32]

125. Like in any case, it is well recognized that after the fact conduct should be considered with care because it carries the risk that the trier of fact may “mistakenly leap from such evidence to a conclusion of guilt” without taking into account alternative explanations for the accused’s behaviour. [^33]
126. I have outlined the after the fact conduct above. However, it bears summarizing here. The deceased’s clothing was removed. The deceased was moved to the bedroom. He was put in a robe. The hood of the robe was drawn over the deceased’s head and placed over his face. A mop was used to clean the blood. Three of the deceased’s teeth were removed and put in the freezer. The folding knife likely used in the killing was found in a cupboard above the stove. After the deceased was stabbed and likely when he was dead, steel wool and chemicals were used to scrub his body including his abdomen, shoulders, arms, legs, back and front of his face, head, etc. which caused the skin to become loose or damaged. There was also an appearance of chemical or liquid burns. [^34] Both hands showed immersion wrinkling. After all of this was done, Mr. Langevin called his mother (before 911 was called) and asked that she pick him up so that he would not be at the scene.
127. Based on the totality of the evidence, I cannot conclude that the only reasonable inference to be drawn from the after the fact conduct is that Mr. Langevin had the capacity to rationally decide that his actions were morally wrong. There are alternative explanations for Mr. Langevin’s after the fact conduct. For example, his conduct could be explained by his knowledge that he knew his actions were legally wrong but not morally wrong. For this reason, the after the fact conduct has little or no probative value about whether Mr. Langevin knew that his conduct was morally wrong.

The Absence of Evidence

128. Crown counsel submits that there is an absence of evidence of what exactly happened at the time of the incident. There is a gap in the evidence because, of the two people who were there, only one is alive and he did not testify. Anything about the actual incident described by Mr. Langevin to the experts and Det. Benson is hearsay.
129. While it is true that Mr. Langevin did not testify in these proceedings, it appears that both psychiatrists did not rely much on what he told them about the offences. The reason was summed up by Dr. Ramshaw, when she testified, “no matter what he would tell us at this juncture, it would be very hard to specifically accept that that was his motivation or that was his experiences at the time because it’s been consistently inconsistent”. The story of what Mr. Langevin says happened changed over time.
130. Dr. Iosif reported that “Mr. Langevin impressed as an unreliable source in general, but even more so regarding his account of the index offences. He provided disorganized and directly contradictory answers to questions, and offered various explanations which did not seem to be truthful. It may well be that some of the recurring elements may have some factual basis”. For example, at some point the deceased collided with the television and fell to the ground.
131. Dr. Ramshaw was asked, in cross-examination, if the fact that information about the offence came from Mr. Langevin makes it more difficult to reach a conclusion about his mental state at the time of the offences. Dr. Ramshaw said, “no”. She explained as follows, and her logic makes sense:

> Almost all assessments of NCR are inferences at the time of the offending behaviour because rarely do you see what is actually going on, and even if you do, you don’t necessarily understand the motivations at the very time, even if there was a videotape of the whole thing and there’s witnesses. So it’s always inferred and then, and it’s on a balance of probabilities which is more likely than not based on everything. So, no, there is – we recognize there’s always limited information about the offending itself, and similarly with Mr. Langevin, there are unknowns.

132. While Mr. Langevin did not testify at trial, this happens frequently. The court is often asked to draw inferences from the facts without hearing evidence from the accused. That does not prevent a finding of NCR-MD.

Conclusion

133. The evidence presented at trial overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that Mr. Langevin stabbed his father in the neck causing his death and mutilated his body thereafter. The nature of the attack provides strong support for an intention to kill. The issue in this case is a narrow one regarding NCR-MD and the issue of whether Mr. Langevin knew that his acts were morally wrong.
134. There is no issue that Mr. Langevin suffers from a disease of the mind (schizophrenia) and that it was active at the time of the offences. The real issue is whether Mr. Langevin’s mental disorder rendered him incapable of knowing that the acts in question were morally wrong as measured against societal standards and he was therefore incapable of making the choice necessary to act in accordance with those standards.
135. Like the observation made by the experts, this case is challenging. Mr. Langevin led an isolated life. He was not communicative with other members of his family. The person who could provide the most relevant information regarding his state at the material time is dead. Mr. Langevin did not testify. While challenging, I see no rational basis for rejecting the opinions of Drs. Iosif and Ramshaw. Their opinions have been reached on a sound factual basis and are well supported by the evidence. [^35] Both experts (and Dr. Mamak as well) provided their opinions as officers of the court. While they may not have agreed with certain propositions put to them by Crown counsel, it is my view that they presented their opinions in a candid and unbiased manner.
136. I accept that certain of Mr. Langevin’s actions and behaviours, when viewed in isolation, provide support for the conclusion that he knew the moral wrongfulness of his actions. There is no question that, at times, Mr. Langevin appeared coherent and organized. However, as explained by Dr. Ramshaw, it is normal that someone suffering from schizophrenia will have conversations and conduct themselves in ways that are reality based. However, they can transition into more disorganized thinking. That opinion is supported by the evidence.
137. The evidence shows, as well, that Mr. Langevin would express frustration and show signs of irritability. However, the evidence also shows that Mr. Langevin did not have a history of violent or aggressive behaviour. Other than one push, he showed no violent tendencies, particularly towards his father.
138. While I accept that the initial confrontation with his father could have been motivated by anger, there is no evidence of a rational or reality-based motivation for the killing and mutilation of his father thereafter. As Dr. Ramshaw testified and the evidence supports, there is no evidence that Mr. Langevin was a “cold blooded, violent psychopathic person” and yet, his conduct was cold blooded and violent, likely due to his mental illness.
139. Dr. Ramshaw agrees that someone who is experiencing severe symptoms of psychosis can still be capable of assessing the wrongfulness of their conduct. However, she summarized the basis of her opinion, succinctly, during cross-examination (all of which is supported by the evidence at trial) and upon which I agree:

> It really is here he is, he’s an ill man, he was psychotic, he was untreated. It was clear disorganization of thought. He’s had that before. He’s engaged in extreme behaviour, bizarre behaviour. He doesn’t have antisocial personality disorder. He’s not a sadistic guy. He’s not a cold-blooded guy. So it’s really putting it all together and then examining his experiences of this behaviour over time.

Verdict

140. I am satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that Mr. Langevin’s mental disorder rendered him incapable of knowing that stabbing his father in the neck and mutilating his body were morally wrong as measured against societal standards and therefore he was incapable of making the choice necessary to act in accordance with those standards. I find Mr. Langevin to be not criminally responsible for the death of his father and the mutilation of his body on account of mental disorder.

Kelly J.

Released: May 2, 2024

Appendix A

Test	Defined	Result
Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence – Second Edition (WASI-II)	A measure of cognitive ability often used to assess or approximate someone’s intellectual standing or ability.	Mr. Langevin fell in the 1st percentile meaning that his overall intellectual functioning was in the “extremely low range”. In the subtest of verbal reasoning and concept formation, Mr. Langevin fell in the 2nd percentile. In the perceptual reasoning subtest (i.e., non-verbal abstract reasoning), Mr. Langevin fell below the 1st percentile.
Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS)	A brief battery designed to assess neurocognitive functioning in several areas including immediate and delayed memory, attention, language, and visuospatial skills. This test is administered along side the abbreviated scale of intelligence to give a more fulsome understanding of someone’s cognitive strength and weaknesses. There are subtests that measure various things including: visuospatial skills which is a measure of the ability to organize pictures. This involved giving the person a picture. They are asked to draw it and replicate it. This is an analysis of their ability to organize themselves to remember and then copy the picture. Language skills are measured by the person’s ability to define words, to understand language and repeat certain words or sentences. Semantic fluency speaks to the ability to name items from a given category within a limited time. It typically tests working memory, executive functioning and the ability to retain information.	The overall composite score was 0.1st percentile. This score pointed to weakness across several areas measured: below 0.1st. percentile on measuring memory and attention; 30th percentile on visuospatial skills which was in the average range, 7th percentile on language skills which was in the borderline range which means he was not completely impaired but there are deficits. 2nd percentile in the lingual domain or semantic fluency.
Rey-15	This is a measure to assess effort on cognitive measures: memory test with the recognition condition. The purpose of this test is to evaluate someone’s level of effort and whether they are malingering to ensure that someone is not “feigning or exaggerating or showing poor effort in in their abilities.	There was no indication of impression management or poor effort on this measure. As such, there was no evidence that Mr. Langevin was malingering.
Personality Assessment Inventory	This is a self-report measure of personality and psychopathology. It examines an individual’s attitudes, behaviour patterns, and possible psychological/psychiatric symptoms”. The person responds to a series of questions on their own. They have different choices of responses to traits, symptoms and various questions.	Mr. Langevin’s clinical profile was deemed invalid and could not be interpreted. Mr. Langevin completed the measure and did not demonstrate any issues in doing so. He also completed it within an appropriate period of time. However, the test was scored and deemed to be invalid because he responded in a random fashion that could have been influenced by him not understanding the questions or being inconsistent, etc. It was invalid so that not much could be made of the results.
Anger Disorders Scale	This is a self-report measure to assess anger experience. It is a paper, pencil test that the person completes on his own. It asks someone about their experience of anger, the duration of anger and problems. It asks how they would respond to being angry or upset.	Mr. Langevin’s score was reflective of an individual demonstrating low to moderate levels of anger pathology. Several areas were elevated and indicative of problem anger. Specifically, Mr. Langevin’s profile demonstrated elevations in the areas of physical aggression and relational aggression. Mr. Langevin endorsed experiencing moderate levels of physiological arousal, and he is inclined to be brooding and at times passive-aggressive. Low means that he has some problem with anger and moderate indicates that they are more demonstrated or problematic.
Miller Forensic Assessment of Symptoms	To examine symptoms of exaggeration and malingering. This is an interview based test.	There was no indication of symptom exaggeration.

Footnotes

[^1]: Contrary to s. 235(1) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46. [^2]: Contrary to s. 182(b) of the Criminal Code. [^3]: Ed.D., C. Psych. Psychologist, Forensic Service. [^4]: MD FRCPC. Forensic Psychiatrist. Complex Care and Recovery, Forensic Division Centre for Addiction and Mental Health. Lecturer, University of Toronto. [^5]: Founder, Forensic Psychiatry. Staff Psychiatrist, Forensic Service, Centre for Addition and Mental Health. Associate Professor, University of Toronto. [^6]: Section 16(2) of the Criminal Code provides as follows: “Every person is presumed not to suffer from a mental disorder so as to be exempt from criminal responsibility by virtue of subsection (1), until the contrary is proved on the balance of probabilities.” [^7]: See: s. 16(3) of the Criminal Code which provides as follows: “The burden of proof that an accused was suffering from a mental disorder so as to be exempt from criminal responsibility is on the party that raises the issue.” [^8]: See: s. 16(2) of the Criminal Code [^9]: R. v. Chaulk, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1303 [^10]: R. v. Oommen, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 507 [^11]: See: Chaulk, at pp.1354-1355 [^12]: R. v. Ratti, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 68, at p. 80 [^13]: R. v. Dobson, 2018 ONCA 589, 48 C.R. (7th) 410 [^14]: R. v. Campione, 2015 ONCA 67, 329 O.A.C. 245, at para. 41 [^15]: R. v. Bouchard-Lebrun, 2011 SCC 58, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 575, at para. 52 [^16]: See: Cooper v. R., [1980] 1 S.C.R. 1149, at p. 1159; R. v. Dobson, 2015 ONSC 2865, at para. 70 [^17]: See: Dobson, at para. 103 [^18]: See: Chaulk, at p. 1357 [^19]: Dobson, at para. 120 [^20]: Dobson, at para. 122 [^21]: Dr. Iosif met with Mr. Langevin on two occasions for a total of 10 hours and Dr. Ramshaw met with Mr. Langevin once for a period of 3 hours. [^22]: Both psychiatrists had a significant amount of material provided to them which included video clips of surveillance and the body camera worn by the TPS when they attended; civilian witness statements from a number of people including Mr. Langevin’s mother, brother, stepfather and Ms. Gale Williams (the girlfriend of the deceased). They also had preliminary hearing transcripts. Dr. Iosif had the report of Dr. Mamak available to her. Dr. Ramshaw had the reports of Drs. Iosif and Mamak available to her. [^23]: R. v. Molodowic, 2000 CSC 16, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 420, at para. 6 [^24]: R. v. Kirkby (1985), 21 C.C.C. (3d) 31 (Ont. C.A.), at p. 53. See also R. v. Worrie, 2022 ONCA 471 and R. v. Richmond, 2016 ONCA 134, at para. 47 [^25]: R. v. Abbey, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 24 [^26]: R. v. Lavallee, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 852 [^27]: Lavallee, at p. 893 [^28]: Lavallee, at p. 895-896 [^29]: Because Oscar shares the last name of the deceased, I will refer to him as “Oscar” in my reasons to avoid any confusion. I mean no disrespect in doing so. [^30]: Their statements provided to police were also provided to both psychiatrists in preparation of their opinions. [^31]: R. v. Jacquard, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 314, at para. 50 [^32]: NCR-MD was raised as a defence in R. v. Jacquard. [^33]: R. v. White, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 72, at para. 22. [^34]: The ASF provides that the appearance of the liquid chemical or thermal injuries occurred post-mortem. [^35]: R. v. Richmond, 2016 ONCA 134, 345 O.A.C. 131, at para. 58.