Re: Nathaniel White
ORB File No: 7388
Hearing held on: Wednesday October 22, 2025
Place of hearing: Via Zoom Videoconference
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. M. Segal
Members: Dr. B Sheppard Dr. G. Stones Mr. D. D’Intino Ms. R. MacIntyre
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Nathaniel White Counsel: Mr. A. Rai
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Mr. S. O’Brien
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. J. McKenzie
REASONS FOR DECISION
(Dated November 25, 2025)
Introduction
Nathaniel White was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) on July 31, 2018, of the offences of criminal harassment, forcible entry and possession of weapon for dangerous purpose, all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (the Code).
Mr. White is currently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board, (the “Board”) dated December 12, 2024, detaining him at St. Joseph's Health Care Hamilton. He is subject to conditions inter alia at the discretion of the Person in Charge, and with privileges up to and including to live in the community of Southern Ontario in accommodation approved by the Person in Charge.
By letter dated September 9, 2025, the Person in Charge of the Hospital advised the Ontario Review Board that Mr. White was readmitted to the Forensic Inpatient Unit, Mountain 2, on August 3, 2025 following a relapse into substance use. The duration of the increased restriction on Mr. White’s liberties exceeded 7 days on August 11, 2025.
The Hospital thus notified the Board, pursuant to s. 672.56(2) of the significant increase in the restriction of Mr. White’s liberties and requested that the Board set this hearing.
Prior to the ROL hearing, the Board received a Restriction of Liberties (ROL) Report authored by Dr. Sebastien Prat on October 8, 2025, and entered it as an exhibit.
A panel of the Ontario Review Board convened this Restriction of Liberty hearing, pursuant to Section 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code of Canada, on October 22, 2025, to consider if the significant increase in the restriction of Mr. White‘s liberty, which started on August 3, 2025 and continued until the hearing, was necessary and appropriate and the least onerous and least restrictive option available to the Hospital to manage his risk in all the circumstances.
Position of the Parties:
At the commencement of the hearing the parties were requested to provide their initial without prejudice positions with respect to the issues before the Board.
On behalf of the Hospital, Mr. O’Brien submitted that the initial and ongoing Restriction of Liberty was necessary and appropriate in the circumstances.
Counsel for the Attorney General supported the Hospital position.
Counsel for Mr. White agreed with counsel for the Hospital and Attorney General and thus a joint submission was proposed for the Panel to consider.
Conclusion
- For the reasons that follow, the Panel agreed with the parties and found that both the initial and ongoing restrictions of Mr. White’s liberty was, and remains, necessary and appropriate in the circumstances and represents the least onerous and least restrictive course of action available to the Hospital to manage the increased risk presented by Mr. White.
Index Offence(s)
- The index offences occurred on November 26, 2024. The following details are summarized from the most recent Reasons for Disposition:
Briefly stated, Mr. White became enamoured with a woman he met through a mutual friend and began messaging her with expressions of his affection. He attended a bar at which she was working, apologized for his conduct, and expressed his love for her. At 2:04 a.m. she took a taxi to her residence and was followed by Mr. White. At 3:06 a.m. she was startled by a loud banging at the secure door to her apartment building and soon after found Mr. White lying on the floor of her living room. He had gained entry to her apartment by forcing the door. He repeatedly expressed his love for her and apologized for his conduct. He then left her apartment and returned to his car. Police were contacted and when arrested he was found to be in possession of a large hunting knife, which he indicated was for his personal protection.
Diagnosis
- Mr. White has been diagnosed with schizophrenia and substance use disorder (in remission in a controlled environment).
The ROL Report
Mr. White is subject to a Detention Order dated December 12, 2024, following his last annual hearing which detained him at St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton in Hamilton, Ontario. Mr. White was subsequently discharged to reside in the community on March 4, 2025.
Mr. White’s Disposition requires to submit, on a random basis, samples of his urine and/or breath for the purpose of analyzing whether he has ingested alcohol, drugs or any other intoxicant, and to abstain absolutely from the non-medical use of alcohol or drugs or any other intoxicant.
Mr. White was readmitted to the Forensic Inpatient Unit, Mountain 2, on August 3, 2025, following a relapse into methamphetamine use.
The duration of the increased restriction on Mr. White’s liberties exceeded 7 days on August 11, 2025.
Evidence at the Hearing
Dr. Sebastien Prat testified at the hearing on behalf of the Hospital and adopted the contents of the ROL Report, which he authored. Dr. Prat testified that he has been Mr. White’s attending psychiatrist for a little over a year and a half.
Dr. Prat testified that Mr. White’s readmission to the Hospital was triggered by his disclosure that he had used crystal methamphetamine. After his use of the substance, Mr. White called an ambulance to take him to the Hospital and then contacted his mother to advise of same. Mr. White’s mother then notified Dr. Prat.
Dr. Prat testified that the treatment team had noticed some changes in Mr. White’s mental status leading up to the readmission, for example, that Mr. White had some unrealistic goals involving purchasing a van and travelling the country to create a documentary on healing through nature.
Dr. Prat further testified that in June or July of this year, the team noticed a decrease in the attention Mr. White was paying to his mental health and opined that perhaps Mr. White got too excited with these ideas of travelling the country.
Dr. Prat explained that following the methamphetamine use and his admission to Hospital, Mr. White was observed to be exhibiting disorganized thinking and furthermore, that he refused to initiate his antipsychotic medication. However, after a week in Hospital, Mr. White returned to his baseline and resumed his treatment regime. He has posed no management issues since his readmission.
Dr. Prat explained that the treatment team is taking a cautious approach to his privileges and eventual discharge because his parents home – where he resided during his discharge – is far from the catchment area of St. Joseph’s, and also because Mr. White has had a history of substance use which, in the past, has lead to rapid decompensation in his mental status.
Dr. Prat testified that he expected Mr. White to be discharged in the coming weeks, once his status with his employer is clarified.
In response to questions from counsel for the Attorney General, Dr. Prat testified that Mr. White needs a lot of direction to focus on his goals and not get overwhelmed, and that they will work with Mr. White to further develop his strategies for coping with stress to avoid future relapses into substance use.
In response to questions from defence counsel, Dr. Prat stated that since his readmission to Hospital, Mr. White has been medication compliant, has exhibited no violence or aggression or threatening behaviour and has been exercising his privileges appropriately.
Furthermore, Mr. White has been attending concurrent disorders therapy, Narcotics Anonymous meetings, substance abuse counselling and other therapeutic programming, has cut off contact with anti-social peers and has not submitted any positive Urine Drug Screens (UDS).
In response to Panel questions, Dr. Prat confirmed that while not updated psychological or risk assessment had yet been completed, that one would be done before Mr. White’s next annual hearing.
Dr. Prat further testified that Mr. White’s diagnoses are still being clarified. Dr. Prat explained that initially Mr. White was diagnosed with schizophrenia, but that diagnosis was later ruled out when it was determined that the symptoms of disorganization that were observed were actually substance induced.
Dr. Prat further explained that Mr. White’s main psychotic symptom has been mania, which has always coincided with substance use and which has been successfully treated with antipsychotic medication. This led to Dr. Prat questioning whether a diagnosis of bipolar disorder is more accurate or alternatively, if all Mr. White’s symptoms are substance induced, and this warrants further investigation.
Dr. Prat also testified that Mr. White’s insight into the need for him to abstain from the use of substances is good, but that the main issue is that he needs to better recognize what his stressors are and to refrain from minimizing their impact on his functioning – in short, he overestimates his ability to cope on his own.
At the conclusion of the evidence, all parties maintained their joint submission and Dr. Prat told the Panel that he will continue to investigate Mr. White’s diagnosis.
Analysis and Conclusion
The Panel unanimously agreed with the parties’ joint submission and thereby concluded that the evidence provided by the Hospital supported the determination that both the initial and ongoing restriction of Mr. White’s liberty was and remains both necessary and appropriate.
Mr. White has a history of stimulant-induced psychosis which had in past led to a concerning behaviour toward himself and to others. He has a history of elopement from Hospital and noncompliance with Community Treatment Orders, as well as a history of Hospital admissions which coincided with positive UDS for substances such as cannabis, cocaine and amphetamines.
Since his readmission to Hospital, Mr. White has been compliant with his treatment regime and has not engaged in the use of substances.
As a result of his progress, Mr. White has quickly regained many of his privileges the Hospital has judiciously increased them in an effort to return Mr. White to his liberty norm as quickly as possible, without causing undue risk to the safety of Hospital staff, co-patients or the public. The Hospital expects Mr. White to be discharged back to the community as soon as the particulars of his employment status are clarified.
In considering the totality of the evidence presented at the hearing, including the information contained in the Hospital Report, the positions of the parties and the testimony of Dr. Prat, the Panel finds that the initial and ongoing restriction of Mr. White’s liberty was and remains both necessary and appropriate, and that the least onerous and least restrictive option was utilized by the Hospital to manage the risks posed by Mr. White in consideration of the totality of the circumstances.
DATED this 25th day of November 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Mr. D. D’Intino Legal Member
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board