Ontario Review Board
Re: Nicolas Hamel
ORB File No: 5227
Hearing held on: Wednesday, October 8, 2025
Place of hearing: St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton West 5th Campus, 100 West 5th Street
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Ms. S. Clapp Members: Dr. H. Bloom Dr. A. Kerry Mr. P. Capelle Mr. B. Apted
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Nicolas Hamel Counsel: Mr. A. Confente
The Person in charge of Hospital: Counsel: Ms. L. Barney
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. S. Kim
REASONS FOR DECISION
(Dated November 28, 2025)
Introduction
On December 3, 2008, Mr. Nicolas Hamel was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on a charge of utter a threat to cause death or bodily harm, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (the "Criminal Code"). Mr. Hamel is currently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the "Board") dated April 2, 2025, detaining him at the Forensic Psychiatry Program of St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton, West 5th Campus (“St. Joseph's”), with privileges up to living in the community in an approved home approved by the person in charge.
On October 8, 2025, a panel of the Ontario Review Board (the "ORB" or the "Board") convened a hearing pursuant to s. 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code to consider whether a restriction of liberty was necessary and appropriate. Mr. Hamel was in attendance and was represented by his counsel, Mr. Confente.
There were three Exhibits marked at the hearing: 1) Hospital Report dated March 11, 2025; 2) Restriction of Liberty (“ROL”) Report dated July 18, 2025; and 3) ROL Report dated September 29, 2025. The panel heard oral evidence from Dr. K. Shariati (Mr. Hamel’s attending psychiatrist), and Mr. Hamel.
Preliminary Matter
It was noted that a previous Restriction of Liberties was reviewed on September 12 regarding an admission from June 3 to July 31, 2025. This panel is only tasked with reviewing a second re-admission on August 13, 2025 and the ongoing restriction.
Without Prejudice Position of the Parties
Ms. Barney for the Hospital advanced the position that the readmission was warranted and continues to represent the least restrictive measure in the circumstances. Mr. Kim, on behalf of the Attorney General, agreed with Ms. Barney’s position. Mr. Confente, on behalf of Mr. Hamel, took the position that the readmission was unwarranted and that his client’s continued detention is also unwarranted. However, in his closing submissions, Mr. Confente chose to focus solely on the appropriateness of his client’s ongoing admission.
Background and Index Offences
Mr. Hamel, born in 1981, was raised in Quebec before relocating to Ontario for high school. Following his parents' separation at age 4-5, he was identified as gifted during elementary education but significant mental health challenges emerged in his teenage years. His employment history includes various positions including work at a resort, a flooring company and gas station where he was working in 2008 prior to the onset of acute psychiatric symptoms.
Mr. Hamel starting using crystal methamphetamine around 2004. His substance use profile also includes cannabis, alcohol, and cocaine; however, crystal methamphetamine has remained his primary substance of choice throughout the documented period.
Mr. Hamel's first psychiatric consultation occurred in 2005, with his initial documented involuntary hospitalization occurring in April 2005 under the Mental Health Act. This admission was necessitated by paranoid delusions, specifically persecutory beliefs regarding threats to his life.
Between 2006 and 2021, clinical records document multiple psychiatric contacts characterized by recurring symptomatology: difficulty managing concentration, anhedonia, command auditory hallucinations directing him toward violence against others. Since 2011, Mr. Hamel has been residing at the Indwell Perkins Centre, a facility providing therapeutic programming without supervised meal services or direct supervision.
Mr. Hamel has been under forensic mental health system oversight for nearly 20 years. A consistent pattern has emerged: he is initially discharged to community-based living arrangements, subsequently experiences decompensation and violates release conditions, leading to hospital readmission.
Since 2009, when Mr. Hamel was first discharged to the community, he has experienced multiple readmissions. Clinical assessments have consistently identified a link between methamphetamine use and acute psychiatric decompensation resulting in readmission.
Criminal Record
2004: Convicted of assault on his female partner,
2005: Violated a recognizance.
The circumstances of the index offence are taken from last year’s Reasons for Disposition as follows:
“On Saturday August 23rd, 2008, at approximately 7:45 AM, the accused attended the Avondale Store at 206 Richmond Street in the City of Thorold. Inside the store, he attempted to use an automated teller machine to withdraw a sum of money. After several failed attempts to use the machine, the accused approached the main counter where the victim, [T.L.] was standing. The accused asked [T.L.] if the bank machine was inoperative. Before [T.L.] could answer him, the accused left the store, and as Lewis described, was 'rambling on to himself'.
Shortly after the accused left the store, he returned and told Lewis to 'Get that other bank machine in here, I've got a laser pointed at you.' [T.L.] replied. 'Yes.'
During the entire conversation, the accused was concealing his hands inside the pockets of his hooded sweatshirt. [T.L.] did not know if the accused actually had a firearm on his person or not.
Lewis then told his wife to call 911, and [T.L.] informed the accused of this fact. The accused stated, 'Go ahead, I'll be here waiting for them.' The accused then left the store, stood outside the window, and began staring at [T.L.].
Police attended the area of 206 Richmond Street at 7:52 AM. On arrival, the accused was observed walking eastbound on Richmond Street near Sentence Street. The accused [T.L.] was following the male and pointed him out.
The first responding officer stopped and ordered the accused to remove his hands from his sweater pockets. The accused initially complied with this directive, but then attempted to return them, refusing to obey the continual commands of police. The accused then began to advance toward the first responding officer. The officer drew his firearm and again ordered the accused to keep his hands out of his pockets and to halt his advances.
After the accused refused the commands of the officer to halt, he was grounded. Once on the ground, Lewis assisted in the restraint of the accused.”
Current Diagnoses
Schizophrenia
Stimulant Use Disorder
Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, predominantly inattentive presentation
Evidence at Hearing
Dr. Shariati was called as the Hospital witness. He became Mr. Hamel's most responsible physician some two months prior to this hearing. He had read and adopted the contents of the Hospital Report.
Mr. Hamel was returned to hospital and admitted on August 13th 2025, less than one week after his discharge back to his community residence on August 7th following the Restriction of Liberties re-admission which commenced on June 3, 2025.
Following a July 29, 2025 urine drug screen which was reported as positive for amphetamines and methamphetamines on August 7, 2025, several subsequent urine samples were under suspicion for tampering. There were also three confirmed positive findings of venlafaxine, a medication not prescribed for Mr. Hamel, in Mr. Hamel’s urine from August 8 and 10. Dr. Shariati testified that this medication remains detectable for a number of days post ingestion.
On the day of admission (August 13th), Mr. Hamel was described as erratic with psychomotor agitation (rubbing and pulling at his forehead which was unusual for him) and intermittent nonsensical speech. He was resistant to attending the hospital and eventually insisted on riding his e-bike with staff following him in a car at low speed. When Dr. Shariati assessed Mr. Hamel on August 13 he appeared different from his baseline. He was animated, loud, agitated, with erratic movements and unsteady posture. It was confirmed that he had used methamphetamines on July 29. Due to concerns of ongoing use, the decision to admit him was made in the interest of public safety.
Questioned by Mr. Confente, Dr. Shariati confirmed that since his patient’s admission to hospital urine test results have been conducted once or twice per week and have all come back presumptively negative. Confirmatory testing of the September 23 and 29 results detected nothing untoward and no evidence of tampering whereas the August 15 sample did raise concerns of potential tampering.
Mr. Hamel has not settled well on the unit. Most encounters with him have been heated. Mr. Hamel alleges that staff have tampered with his urine samples by putting methamphetamines in samples taken. Mr. Hamel states he has not used substances for many years and continues to request a change of his psychiatrist. When confronted with the July 29 confirmed positive results, he responded “I have already paid for that”. Dr. Shariati testified that his patient responds as he does, due to:
Antisocial Personality Disorder,
potential psychotic process,
minimalization of his substance use disorder,
all of which equate to him being an unreliable historian. Dr. Shariati has no confidence in Mr. Hamel's sincerity when he engages in substance abuse programming as his patient does not even acknowledge having a substance use disorder. Dr. Shariati added that any prior substance abuse programming that Mr. Hamel may have engaged in was not successful.
Responding to questions from Mr. Kim, Dr. Shariati testified that the week prior to this hearing Mr. Hamel was preoccupied with Dr. Chaimowitz, hospital head of Forensic Services. Dr. Chaimowitz had provided Mr. Hamel’s NCR finding in 2008. A recent chance encounter with Dr. Chaimowitz occurred on October 6th wherein Mr. Hamel became highly agitated. Dr. Chaimowitz reportedly deescalated the situation but was also considering calling a Code White due to Mr. Hamel’s heightened level of agitation towards him. Subsequently, Mr. Hamel lost all privileges. There is suspicion, but no evidence that Mr. Hamel may have used substances in hospital prior to this incident. Due to Mr. Hamel’s presentation, confirmatory urine tests have been requested.
Mr. Confente inquired if at baseline his patient presents as loud and boisterous. Dr. Shariati responded that he has only followed Mr. Hamel for the past two months. However, there has been a recent spike in his level of agitation together with accusations that his urine is being tampered with. He gets loud and intrudes into the personal space of others which differs from his reported baseline. Dr. Shariati again referenced Mr. Hamel’s interaction with Dr. Chaimowitz which occurred within a controlled forensic environment. Dr. Shariati has yet to determine the etiology of Mr. Hamel’s accusations. The doctor is uncertain as to whether they are made for secondary gain, or if he actually believes that methamphetamines are being introduced into his urine samples. Dr. Shariati opined that Mr. Hamel is frustrated with being hospitalized and unable to use substances.
Mr. Confente inquired about risk to public safety if Mr. Hamel was discharged immediately following this hearing given that ongoing urine tests have been returned negative for substances. The doctor responded that Mr. Hamel remains agitated which can be frightening for individuals. Further, Mr. Hamel is likely to return to the use of methamphetamines which would precipitate threats of physical aggression. Dr. Shariati added that prior to this admission Mr. Hamel had made frequent accusations and showed hostility towards case managers but conceded that post admission he has not harmed staff or co-patients. Dr. Shariati added that Mr. Hamel is also frustrated with the lawyer engaged to appeal his NCR finding.
Dr. Shariati confirmed that since his discharge from hospital in November 2024 Mr. Hamel has not been prescribed any antipsychotic medications, other than a very low daily dose of 25 to 50 milligrams of Seroquel (which is not considered an antipsychotic dose). Dr. Shariati opined that Mr. Hamel might be accepting of antipsychotic medications if he thought this could enable his discharge from hospital rather than because of internalized motivation. Mr. Hamel is considered capable of consenting to treatment.
Responding to questions from a panelist, Dr. Shariati advised that for Mr. Hamel to regain some of his privileges he will need to maintain a degree of calm during interactions when his urine drug screen results are discussed with him.
Dr. Shariati advised that Mr. Hamel still has his community residence available to him. However, prior to being discharged Mr. Hamel will need to adhere to the conditions of his ORB Disposition, specifically:
abstain from substances,
maintain urine drug testing integrity,
engage in substance use disorder programming,
minimum two weeks non-aggressive verbal interactions with staff.
It was noted that Mr. Hamel was subject to a conditional discharge rather than a detention disposition from 2019 and 2022. Dr. Shariati was asked why those years were different. He responded that Dr. Prat was caring for Mr. Hamel at that time and undertook to look more closely at that period to determine if further information could be distilled.
A panelist inquired how Mr. Hamel has been able to maintain his community residence given the numerous Restrictions of Liberties exceeding 7 days he has faced since coming under the Board’s jurisdiction in 2010. While unable to specify the exact number of Restriction of Liberties hearings conducted in relation to Mr. Hamel, Dr. Shariati advised that the decision to increase or decrease a patient’s liberties is tied to their mental stability and risk rather than diagnostic clarification. Mr. Hamel’s previous treating psychiatrist, Dr. Prat, put forward a preferred diagnosis of substance induced psychosis and methamphetamine use disorder. At that time, antipsychotic medications were discontinued. Dr. Shariati stated that he is accepting of that opinion at present and looking for evidence to the contrary.
Dr. Shariati was aware that a restriction of liberties hearing in late 2024 resulted in Mr. Hamel’s discharge from hospital. Dr. Shariati categorized the more recent back-to-back restriction of liberties as a possible return to a revolving door of hospital admissions for Mr. Hamel.
Responding to a panel member’s question as to the use of the term “poor transparency” at page 3 of the Hospital Report, Dr. Shariati stated that this related to the integrity of urine samples and that sample tampering would not be tolerated as an outpatient. Dr. Shariati added that Mr. Hamel does not accept the confirmed positive test results.
Mr. Hamel was called to testify by his counsel. He stated that he is constantly being accused of tampering although he has been sober for the past five years, adding that he has been strip searched over 100 times.
Mr. Hamel advised that he was brought back to hospital after the July 29 test results came back positive on confirmation. Upon his readmission and assessment by Dr. Naidoo, he was advised that the test results were due to contamination. Mr. Hamel reiterated that he has never used methamphetamines and believes that the sample taken on July 29 was tampered with by his case manager. He added that the positive venlafaxine results were also attributable to his case manager, opening sample bottles which led to tampering.
Mr. Hamel reiterated that he has been off drugs for five years and is prepared to continue providing urine samples. If returned to the community he is prepared to complete substance abuse programming although he has no issues with substance abuse.
Mr. Hamel would like to restart ADHD medications. Dr. Peter Sheridan suggested a trial of stimulants during the time he was on a conditional discharge, which the medical team was prepared to prescribe. Thereafter, he was taken off ADHD medications by Dr. Prat and as a result, accessed street methamphetamines to replace the stimulants. Mr. Hamel added that he has not used crystal methamphetamine for five years.
Mr. Hamel stated that the incident with Dr. Chaimowitz arose because that doctor changed his NCR assessment at the last minute without his knowledge. Mr. Hamel had expected that he would have been found criminally responsible.
Questioned by a panel member as to why everyone gets everything wrong about him, Mr. Hamel responded that he is not schizophrenic, and that he just needs ADHD medication to help him calm down. He added that doctors are making money off him as he is not schizophrenic. Mr. Hamel acknowledged becoming upset when people provoke him by accusing him of things he has not done.
In closing, Mr. Hamel stated that Dr. Shariati threatened that if he (Mr. Hamel) continues to make the doctor look bad, he (Mr. Hamel) will end up dead. This is when he advised that Dr. Shariati hated him and stormed out of the hearing room.
Closing Observations
Ms. Barney submitted that substance use increases Mr. Hamel’s risk and since admission he has been difficult to manage. Interactions with Dr. Shariati have not gone well. At this point he has no privileges due to the incident that occurred on October 6th with Dr. Chaimowitz and his administrative assistant. Ms. Barney noted that Dr. Chaimowitz contemplated calling a code white and the hospital takes this incident very seriously.
The number of restrictions of liberty speak to ongoing issues requiring readmission. Mr. Hamel has not been frank with the treatment team. We question the credibility of his self-report re drug use. To progress he must be transparent and needs internal motivation.
Mr. Kim submitted that the July restriction of liberty cannot be ignored adding that difficulties at that time are similar to this one as both relate to methamphetamine use. Mr. Kim concluded that the current restriction of liberty was warranted and continues to be.
Mr. Confente stated that he will focus his submissions on his client’s continued detention which he submitted is unwarranted because Mr. Hamel was admitted for stabilization and to protect the public.
Since his admission all of Mr. Hamel’s urine samples have returned negative. Mr. Hamel had Level 3 indirect passes prior to October 6 absent any evidence of him trying to seek out crystal methamphetamine.
Mr. Hamel’s treatment plan does not involve psychotropic medications. Stabilization consists of addressing behaviour within a closed environment rather than in a public setting. The question is the degree of Mr. Hamel’s presentation resulting from being in this hospital environment.
Mr. Confente noted that the word “threat” has been used but there is no evidence of harm to anyone in the community or since readmission. Mr. Hamel is frustrated with being in hospital. It is quite evident that he has been abstaining from drugs. There is no evidence that he has tampered with urine samples since admission as all have come back negative. The substance abuse program is available to patients in hospital as well as to individuals in the community.
Analysis and Decision
While the propriety of Mr. Hamel’s readmission was not conceded by Mr. Confente, this counsel chose to focus his closing submissions on the absence of a continued justification for his client’s detention, submitting that the focus is to remain on stabilization and protection of the public.
The panel is satisfied that the rationale for Mr. Hamel’s August 13th admission was justified. This determination rests on two factors: The first, Dr. Shariati’s assessment immediately prior to re-admission and his observation that Mr. Hamel was animated, loud, agitated, with erratic movements and unsteady posture, a presentation not in keeping with his baseline. The second, an additional confirmatory test result, substantiating that Mr. Hamel had used methamphetamines on July 29.
Mr. Hamel’s testimony that he has never used methamphetamines is not consistent with his reported history, raising further concerns about his credibility. A Timeline set out at pages 2-4 of the July 18, 2025 ROL Report indicates six re-admissions associated with positive test results for methamphetamines through to December 2, 2024. Further, Mr. Hamel’s position that the sample taken on July 29 was tampered with by his case manager, is unsubstantiated.
This is Mr. Hamel’s second restriction of liberties re-admission since June 3rd, again predicated on circumstances alleging a deviation from baseline presentation linked to methamphetamine use. Although Mr. Hamel vigorously disputes any use of substances in the past five years, the evidence supports the conclusion that Mr. Hamel used methamphetamine soon after his discharge from hospital following the re-admission in June. This, in addition to his history of repeated re-admissions for substance use in recent years, requires that Mr. Hamel be stabilized to the point where he will be able to be discharged back to the community and be successful there without the need for re-admission.
The hospital’s two recent decisions to readmit Mr. Hamel as well as the ongoing restriction of his liberties are understandably frustrating to him. A series of negative urine screens suggest that he is no longer accessing and using substances within a forensic hospital setting although an August 15 sample did raise concerns of potential tampering.
The incident with Dr. Chaimowitz that occurred two days prior to this hearing, although not a persistent pattern, is noteworthy as an experienced forensic psychiatrist felt threatened. Mr. Hamel’s testimony that the confrontation with Dr. Chaimowitz occurred because seventeen years earlier that doctor surreptitiously changed his NCR assessment and opined that Mr. Hamel was unfit to stand trial is simply not credible. This very recent confrontation speaks to Mr. Hamel’s ongoing instability, risk to public safety and the continued need for rigorous hospital and Board oversight.
Mr. Hamel is fortunate that notwithstanding his two recent readmissions his community housing will be available to him upon discharge. His presentation differs from baseline in that he currently remains belligerent and confrontational, even within the controlled environment of a medium secure forensic psychiatric hospital.
Given the foregoing, this panel of the Board has concluded that the decision of the hospital to significantly increase the restrictions on the liberties of Mr. Hamel on August 13th 2025 was warranted and remains the least onerous and least restrictive decision to the date of this hearing in order to fully restabilize his mental state and manage his risk of harm to others.
DATED this 28th day of November 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Mr. P. Capelle Legal Member
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board