Re: Ashley Hamm
ORB File No: 8841
Hearing held on: Tuesday, September 23, 2025
Place of hearing: St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton West 5th Campus, 100 West 5th Street
Pursuant to: Sections 672.47(1) and 672.48(1) of the Criminal Code
Before: Alternate Chairperson: Ms. C. Finley Members: Dr. R. Kunjukrishnan (by Zoom) Dr. G. Stones Ms. C. Murray Mr. J. Cyr
Parties Appearing: Accused: Ashley Hamm Counsel: Mr. A. Confente
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. L. Barney
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. A. Lepchuk
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated November 3, 2025)
Introduction
On July 25, 2025, Ashley Hamm was found unfit to stand trial on charges of theft of a motor vehicle, fraudulently obtaining food, fail to appear, and mischief over $5000, all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada. Upon the verdict of unfit to stand trial, the Honourable Court did not make a disposition and remitted the matter for a hearing before the Ontario Review Board (ORB/the Board). Pursuant to a Warrant of Committal dated July 25, 2025, Ms. Hamm was detained at St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton (St. Joseph’s/the hospital).
The Board convened a hearing on September 23, 2025, to determine whether Ms. Hamm remains unfit to stand trial and, if so, to then conduct an initial hearing pursuant to s. 672.47(1) of the Criminal Code. Ms. Hamm was present and represented by her counsel Mr. Confente.
At the outset of the proceedings, all parties were canvased as to their positions on the issues to be determined by the Board: whether Ms. Hamm remains unfit to stand trial; and if so, whether she represents a significant threat to the safety of the pubic; and if so, the necessary and appropriate disposition having regard to the criteria set out in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
Ms. Barney, on behalf of the hospital, submitted that Ms. Hamm was now fit to stand trial and should therefore be remanded back to Court, pursuant to s. 672.48(2) of the Criminal Code. In the interim, Ms. Hamm should remain detained at St Joseph’s on a detention order with discretionary privileges up to and including the ability to exercise accompanied passes in the community. Ms. Lepchuk, on behalf of the Ministry of the Attorney General, and Mr. Confente concurred in the hospital’s positions. In particular, Mr. Confente indicated that he was able to receive instructions from Ms. Hamm. Thus, a joint recommendation was put before the panel.
Findings
- For the reasons that follow, the panel finds that Ms. Hamm is currently fit to stand trial and, pursuant to s.672.48(2) of the Criminal Code, orders that she be returned to court in order for the court to try the issue and render a verdict. The panel further orders that, pending that return to court, Ms. Hamm will remain subject to the Warrant of Committal detaining her at St. Joseph’s Healthcare, Hamilton.
The Evidence
- The evidence at the hearing consisted of the Hospital Report, dated August 18, 2025 (ex. 1), and the viva voce evidence of Dr. Wu, Ms. Hamm’s treating psychiatrist.
Alleged Index Offences
- Given the findings of the panel, there is no need to detail the allegations. Briefly, the substantive charges include allegations that Ms. Hamm stole a vehicle that had been left idling outside of a convenience store, ate a meal and did not pay for it, and lit a small fire using scrap wood and paper on the sidewalk approximately 6.5 feet away from the front door of her apartment building. The alleged offences occurred in April 2024 and March 2025.
Background Information
The Hospital Report contains information pertaining to Ms. Hamm’s personal background, and psychiatric history. It need not be summarized in detail in these Reasons beyond the following material points. Ms. Hamm is a 36-year-old woman who grew up in Port Colborne with her parents and two younger brothers. Her parents divorced when she was six, following which Ms. Hamm lived with her father until she was thirteen. At that point, she lived with her mother for three years before returning to her father’s home.
According to the Hospital Report, Ms. Hamm’s mother had substance issues. Her father suspected that Ms. Hamm began to experiment with substances when she was residing with her mother. When she returned to reside with her father, Ms. Hamm dropped out of school and began working.
Ms. Hamm eventually had three sons with a long-term partner. Both engaged in substance use and as a result, the children were placed in the care of family members. Ms. Hamm attended a residential treatment centre and committed to abstaining from substances. Her children were returned to her care. Unfortunately, during the pandemic, Ms. Hamm engaged in substance use and Child and Family Services became involved. Ms. Hamm ultimately chose to send the children to the custody of their father who resided in British Columbia. She has not had any contact with her children for several years.
During the period leading up to the alleged offences, Ms. Hamm had not had stable housing and continued to use substances including crack-cocaine, cocaine, crystal methamphetamine, and Fentanyl on a daily basis. She is currently receiving methadone maintenance treatment.
Following her arrest, Ms. Hamm was found unfit to stand trial. A Treatment Order was issued on May 26, 2025, and Ms. Hamm was admitted to the Forensic Psychiatry Program at St. Joseph’s. Due to her psychotic symptoms and history of aggression when unwell, when she was admitted, she required environmental restraints with her room locked to manage her risk. Once she accepted oral medications, she became more settled and was transferred to a general forensic unit. At the conclusion of the Treatment Order, she was returned to court. She was found to continue to be unfit for trial and returned to St. Joseph’s.
Ms. Hamm’s current diagnoses are Schizoaffective Disorder and Polysubstance Use Disorder, in early remission in a controlled environment. During the course of her time at St. Joseph’s, she has been largely compliant with medication and occasionally has endorsed delusional thought content. Her mental status has been stable, and she has been highly engaged in therapeutic recreational programming.
In terms of issues pertaining to fitness to stand trial, Ms. Hamm has been consistently unable to demonstrate an appreciation of the role of the Crown and the adversarial nature of court proceedings. The Hospital Report includes the following summary, at p.11:
From a diagnostic standpoint, Ms. Hamm exhibited signs and symptoms of a psychotic disorder, likely Schizoaffective Disorder. The differential diagnosis also includes Schizophrenia. Based on the fitness assessment, she did not appear to understand the nature and object of legal proceedings, specifically the adversarial nature of the Court process. Her residual psychotic symptoms impaired her ability to differentiate the role of the Crown Attorney from the other legal members in Court. From the review of her mental status and answers to the fitness questions, Ms. Hamm does not meet criteria for Fitness to Stand Trial.
In terms of risk, the Hospital Report indicates that, absent oversight and support from the clinical team, Ms. Hamm would become non-compliant with treatment, and relapse into substance abuse. Were that to occur, she would represent a significant threat to the safety of the public.
Dr. Wu testified before the panel. Dr. Wu has been Ms. Hamm’s most responsible physician since May 2025. In his opinion, since the writing of the Hospital Report, Ms. Hamm has become fit to stand trial. Dr. Wu assessed Ms. Hamm the day before the hearing. She was settled, attentive and cooperative with the assessment. She did not exhibit any delusional beliefs, and her thought process was clear and coherent.
Notably, Ms. Hamm was able to demonstrate an understanding of the charges, the plea options and potential outcomes, the meaning of an oath and perjury. Further, she was able to identify the key professionals in the courtroom and demonstrate an appreciation of the oppositional roles of the Crown Attorney and the defence counsel.
In Dr. Wu’s opinion, this improvement in Ms. Hamm’s understanding is the result of her medications being further optimized, which has enabled her to retain information. Initially, Ms. Hamm had a low tolerance for longer conversations and was disorganized, tangential and exhibiting overt grandiose delusions. Since the optimization of her medication, her thought process has been linear, coherent and there has been no expression of false fixed beliefs. In the doctor’s opinion, Ms. Hamm is able to instruct counsel and also participate meaningfully in the court process.
In response to questions from Ms. Lepchuk, Dr. Wu testified that Ms. Hamm’s mental status is fragile. If she was returned to custody within the correctional system, there would be no mechanism to ensure that she would remain compliant with medication. In those circumstances, she would be at risk for non-compliance with treatment and an ensuing deterioration in her mental status. This would result in the loss of her fitness to stand trial.
All parties maintained the joint recommendation.
Analysis and Conclusion
The panel carefully considered the Hospital Report and the expert opinion of Dr. Wu and unanimously concluded that Ms. Hamm is currently fit to stand trial. Since her medication has been optimized and she has been abstinent from substances, her mental status has improved. She is able to tolerate longer conversations that has in turn enabled her to retain information learned through fitness teaching. The panel accepts Dr Wu’s opinion that Ms. Hamm was settled, attentive and cooperative throughout his assessment.
In reaching its conclusion on the issue of fitness to stand trial, the panel has applied the principles enunciated by the Court of Appeal for Ontario in R. v. Bharwani, 2023 ONCA 2023, as recently affirmed and clarified by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Bharwani, 2025 SCC 26. Read together, the reasons for judgment of both courts provide much assistance in applying the definition of “unfit to stand trial” in s. 2 of the Criminal Code to the evidence in particular cases. In particular, the Supreme Court of Canada stated the following, at para 6:
“[A]n accused is fit to stand trial when they are able to make and communicate reality-based decisions in the conduct of their defence or instruct counsel to do so. Conducting a defence includes making decisions that an accused must always make personally and those which relate to the exercise of their right to full answer and defence, such as decisions about pleas, the mode of trial, selection of counsel, whether to testify, whether to call or cross-examine witnesses, and closing submissions, among others. The capacity required to make those decisions is a reality-based understanding of the nature or object of the proceedings and their possible consequences, an ability to understand the available options and their consequences, and an ability to select between those options when making decisions.
In finding Ms. Hamm fit to stand trial, the panel accepts the expert opinion of Dr. Wu and Mr. Confente’s indication that he is able to receive instructions from Ms. Hamm.
The panel further finds that, pending a verdict of the court, Ms. Hamm will remain subject to the terms of Warrant of Committal dated July 25, 2025, pending her return to court for trial of the issue of fitness to stand trial.
DATED this 3rd day of November 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.
Ms. C. Finley Alternate Chairperson
____________________________ Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board