Ontario Review Board
Re: Dorian Nicolaou
ORB File No: 7371
Hearing held on: Wednesday, November 19, 2025
Place of Hearing: Via Zoom Videoconference
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. C. Flanagan
Members: Dr. T. Verny
Dr. G. Stones
Ms. N. Nathanson
Ms. R. MacIntyre
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Dorian Nicolaou Counsel: Mr. R. Browne
Person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Mr. S. O’Brien
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. K. Malkovich
REASONS FOR DECISION
(Dated: December 29, 2025)
Introduction
On June 20, 2018, Dorian Nicolaou was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (“NCR”) on a charge of attempt murder, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (“Criminal Code”).
Mx. Nicolaou is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the Board) dated June 12, 2025, ordering their detention at the Forensic Psychiatry Program of St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton with privileges up to and including living in the community of Hamilton in accommodation approved by the person in charge.
Pursuant to section 672.56(b) of the Criminal Code, the Board was notified by letter dated September 24, 2025, from SJHH regarding Mx. Nicolaou’s restriction of liberty, as a result of their readmission to hospital on September 16, 2025. A second letter dated November 13, 2025, from SJHH to the Board notified of a second restriction of liberty, resulting from a second readmission to hospital on November 4, 2025.
On November 19, 2025, a panel of the Board convened at SJHH via Zoom Audio Visual Technology to conduct a review of both restrictions of liberty, pursuant to s. 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code. Mx. Nicolaou attended their hearing and was represented by their counsel, Mr. R. Browne.
A Hospital Report dated March 4, 2025, and a Restriction of Liberty (ROL) Report dated November 14, 2025, were filed as Exhibits 1 and 2, respectively.
The sole issue to be considered at this hearing is whether each of the two restrictions of liberty imposed on Mx. Nicolaou was necessary and appropriate, and the least onerous and least restrictive interventions in the circumstances, both initially and throughout their duration.
Initial Position of the Parties
At the commencement of the hearing, the parties were canvassed regarding their initial position.
Mr. O’Brien, on behalf of the Hospital, submitted that each of the two restrictions of liberty imposed on Mx. Nicolaou from September 16, 2025, to October 14, 2025, and from November 4, 2025, on going at the date of the hearing, were warranted, necessary and appropriate, and represented the least onerous and least restrictive measure taken by the Hospital.
Ms. Malkovich, on behalf of the Attorney General of Ontario, supported the Hospital's position.
Mr. Browne, on behalf of Mx. Nicolaou took no initial position.
Index Offence
- The circumstances giving rise to the index offence are set out in the Reasons for Disposition dated July 23, 2025, as follows:
The accused party, Dorian Nicolaou, is 20 years old and currently resides with their mother Roberta Nicolaou, in the city of Burlington. On 16 February 2018 the accused and their mother engaged in a verbal argument inside the residence surrounding the cutting of the victim's hair. The argument escalated to the point that it became physical, and the accused attacked the victim with a large kitchen knife. The victim fled the front door of the residence to escape the attack, and the accused followed her continually stabbing her until she collapsed at the bottom of the stairs of the residence across the street. As the victim lay in a pool of blood, the accused contacted police and admitted "I just stabbed my mom to death". Police responded and arrested the accused without incident. The victim was transported to Hamilton General Hospital where she underwent surgery for an estimated 10 to 12 stab wounds including deep lacerations of her lungs.
Background/ Psychiatric History
- Mx. Nicolaou’s personal background and psychiatric history are extensively reviewed in the Hospital Report, filed as an exhibit, and need not be repeated in these Reasons for Decision.
Current Diagnosis
- Mx. Nicolaou is diagnosed with Schizotypal Personality Disorder, Unspecified ADHD and related Disorder, and Cannabis Use Disorder, in early remission.
Evidence at the Hearing
Dr. Y. Naidoo, the attending psychiatrist for Mx. Nicolaou for the past three years, gave evidence at the hearing to supplement the evidence contained in the ROL Report, filed as an exhibit at the hearing.
On September 9, 2025, Mx. Nicolaou was discharged to reside at Indwell Strathearne Suites in the city of Hamilton. This accommodation consists of individual apartments and provides support during daytime hours, including meals and on-site caseworkers who provide social and therapeutic programs for the residents.
(a) First Restriction of Liberty: September 16, 2025, to October 14, 2025
During their first week after discharge, Mx. Nicolaou began returning late for curfew. On September 16, 2025, to reinforce adherence to rules and structure, they were readmitted to hospital. During the admission, there was a positive urine drug screen for cannabis. They admitted to using cannabis, which was in breach of their Disposition and a destabilizing factor for their mental state.
Mx. Nicolaou was provided with level 4 passes, 12 hours daily, to allow them to continue with outpatient resources including attending their residence as well as Hamilton Regional Indian Centre for programs. A second positive urine drug screen for cannabis was obtained following their exercising a pass into the community.
Mx. Nicolaou disputed further use and believed that the cannabis had been working itself out of their system. Dr. Naidoo remained sceptical but when asked, acknowledged this explanation was possible. When they had produced two consecutive urine drug screens and engaged in discussion about potential triggers for substance use and avoidance strategies, they were formally discharged back to their residence on October 14, 2025.
Dr. Naidoo advised that the hospital admission was necessary and appropriate for Mx. Nicolaou to ensure proper and adherence to rules, while in the community. The doctor highlighted that without such structure, they would increasingly not adhere to rules and use substances, which had manifested itself. Dr. Naidoo elaborated that in Mx. Nicolaou’s case, substance use was associated with psychosis which could lead to violence. Dr. Naidoo emphasized that it was highly likely Mx. Nicolaou would have engaged in violent acts without such an admission, particularly in a residence where they felt stressed and at times targeted.
(b) Second Restriction of Liberty: November 4, 2025, ongoing at the date of the hearing
On November 4, 2025, Mx. Nicolaou’s treatment team received notification from staff at Mx. Nicolaou’s residence that they appeared off their baseline in terms of their mental state and were fixated on moving into another residence with individuals that were known to be heavy substance users. They indicated that they could not sleep. On this date, they were asked to attend for an assessment and provision of a urine drug screen, which turned out to be negative.
Dr. Naidoo advised that on attendance, Mx. Nicolaou presented as intense, anxious and emotionally labile raising the concern of substance use or a destabilizing factor. Their speech was rapid, and their thoughts were tangential. They exhibited increased paranoia about persons at their residence raising concerns about sending them back. The doctor noted that the index offence occurred during mood instability which led to violence. A decision was made to admit them to hospital.
During the admission, Mx. Nicolaou stabilized. They expressed mistrust and frustration with members of the treatment team, requesting changes in their physician and case manager. With support and collaborative discussion, they appeared to agree to continue working with their current team. Dr. Naidoo advised that a plan was developed for a potential discharge on November 18, 2025. On November 14, 2025, they were given a test pass to return to their residence and return to hospital on November 18, 2025, for an assessment. In the interim, they were directed to obtain a radio at the outpatient department to improve sleep hygiene, known to be a destabilizing factor.
Dr. Naidoo advised that they ignored the direction, went back to their residence, and were observed by the case manager going to a shop in the community that sells substances. They were returned to hospital and advised that they intended to purchase CBD oil at the shop.
When asked, Dr. Naidoo advised that a discharge is presently up in the air because Mx. Nicolaou has put in a request to switch treatment teams and change their psychiatrist. The doctor elaborated that Mx. Nicolaou does not want to engage with the treatment team and refuses to speak to him. The doctor stated that a meeting is contemplated to work towards a plan to address this issue. Dr. Naidoo expressed concern whether at this time, they wished to return to their residence.
Dr. Naidoo advised that Mx. Nicolaou’s second admission on November 4, 2025, remains necessary and appropriate. They were exhibiting features of paranoia, with sleep deprivation at a minimum and potential substance use. The doctor advised that the readmission continues to be necessary and appropriate because they failed to follow a discharge plan, and presently were not engaging with their treatment team, including their psychiatrist. The doctor elaborated that in such circumstances, the treatment team is unable to properly monitor their mental state effectively, which in a stressful environment can lead to violence.
No further evidence was called at the hearing.
Final Submissions of the Parties
Mr. O’Brien, on behalf of the Hospital, submitted that both restrictions of liberty were necessary and appropriate and least onerous and least restrictive in the circumstances. He advised that both were prompted by concern for Mx. Nicolaou’s welfare. Mr. O’Brien submitted that the first restriction of liberty was only a week after discharge. He stated that substance use complicated a quick discharge following the assessment on September 16, 2025. Mr. O’Brien submitted that the restriction of liberty on November 4, 2025, was in the context of their mental state being off baseline. He further stated that the ongoing restriction of liberty continued to be necessary and appropriate as Mx. Nicolaou is refusing to speak to his psychiatrist or engage with the treatment team.
Ms. Malkovich, on behalf of the Ministry of Attorney General, agreed with the Hospital that the two restrictions of liberty were warranted, necessary and appropriate and least onerous and least restrictive in the circumstances. She noted that there was a positive urine drug screen for substances on the first restriction of liberty and that during the second restriction of liberty, they were observed attending a substance dispensary, both of which speak to ongoing risk.
Mr. Browne, on behalf of Mx. Nicolaou submitted they are prepared to work with the Hospital towards a discharge into the community.
Analysis and Conclusion
Pursuant to the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Regina v. M.L.C. (2010) ONCA 843, the Board must consider not only the reason for the restriction and the initial decision to impose a restriction, but also the ongoing circumstances of the person for the period that the restriction remains in place including up to the time of review. The initial restriction of liberty and ongoing restriction of liberty must be the least onerous and least restrictive necessary for public safety and for the NCR accused.
The Board accepts the evidence of Dr. Naidoo and the evidence contained in the ROL Report filed as an exhibit at the hearing.
(a) First Restriction of Liberty: September 16, 2025, to October 14, 2025
- This Board finds that the restriction of liberty commencing on September 16, 2025, and ending October 14, 2025, was necessary and appropriate. Shortly, following a discharge to the community, they required a readmission due to rule non-adherence and admitted substance use. Both are destabilizing factors and highly likely lead to deterioration in their mental state and risk for violence, absent such a readmission. Further, it was necessary and appropriate to maintain this restriction until October 14, 2025, contingent upon two consecutive negative urine drug screens and their participation in substantive discussions regarding triggers for substance use and avoidance strategies, thereby reducing the potential risk of violence.
(b) Second Restriction of Liberty: November 4, 2025, ongoing at the date of the hearing
This Board also finds that the restriction of liberty commencing November 4, 2025, and ongoing at the date of the hearing, was necessary and appropriate. At that time, they presented as anxious, paranoid and emotionally labile, raising the concern of substance use or another destabilizing factor. As Dr. Naidoo alluded to in his evidence, their index offence occurred during mood instability which led to violence. This Board also finds that this restriction of liberty ongoing at the time of the hearing is necessary and appropriate. They did not follow a discharge plan to assist with sleep deprivation and on the day of a test back into the community, attended a shop which dispensed substances. Furthermore, as of the date of the hearing, they have declined to engage with their psychiatrist and have expressed a desire to change their treatment team. This situation significantly impairs effective risk monitoring and safe reintegration into their residence. Without appropriate support, there is a substantial likelihood that Mx. Nicolaou would pose a high risk of violence toward individuals residing in the apartment.
In conclusion, the Board finds that each of the two restrictions of liberty imposed on Mx. Nicolaou was necessary and appropriate, and the least onerous and least restrictive intervention for the Hospital to take, both on admission and throughout their duration.
DATED 29th day of December 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Mr. C. Flanagan
Alternate Chairperson
__________________________
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board