Re: Jillian Doris Nolan
DOB: 26.07.83
ORB File No: 8658
Hearing held on: Monday, January 13, 2025
Place of hearing: Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences 700 Gordon Street, Whitby
Pursuant to: Section 672.47(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. C. MacIntyre, K.C.
Members: Dr. K. Patel Dr. W. Loza Ms. C. Murray Mr. S. Duffy
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Jillian D. Nolan Counsel: Mr. M.C. Bebee
The person in charge of hospital: Representative: Dr. M. Pearce
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. N. MacDonald
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated January 27, 2025)
Introduction
1On November 5, 2024, Jillian Nolan was found not criminally responsible (“NCR”) on account of mental disorder on charges of causing a Disturbance, Disarming Peace Officer, and Fail to Comply with Probation Order (x5), all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (Criminal Code”). That finding was based on a psychiatric assessment of criminal responsibility report of Dr. Mark Pearce.
2The Court did not make a Disposition and ordered, pursuant to s. 672.47(1) of the Criminal Code, that Ms. Nolan be detained at Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences (“Ontario Shores” or “the hospital”) pending a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the “Board”).
3On January 13, 2025, the Board convened a hearing at Ontario Shores to make an initial Disposition.
4Ms. Nolan was present at the hearing and was represented by counsel, Mr. Marc Bebee.
5Several documents were entered as Exhibits including the Psychiatric Assessment for Fitness, the Assessment for Criminal Responsibility, the Crown Synopsis of Charges, the CPIC documentation, and the Hospital Report dated December 22, 2024 (the "Hospital Report"), which was entered as Exhibit 5.
6The issue at this hearing is whether Jillian Nolan is a significant threat to public safety, as defined in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code. If so, the necessary and appropriate Disposition in the circumstances must be determined, bearing in mind the factors enunciated in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
7For the reasons set out below and based on the expert evidence and opinions before it, the Board concluded that Jillian Nolan represents a significant threat to the safety of the public. The Board further concluded that her risk can be properly managed with a Detention Order at Ontario Shores on the terms and conditions set out in our formal Disposition. The Board concluded that this is the necessary and appropriate Disposition in the circumstances.
Current Psychiatric Diagnoses
[8] Schizoaffective Disorder Severe Polysubstance Abuse Disorder Cluster B Personality Traits
Position of the Parties
9At the commencement of the hearing, the parties were asked for their initial positions. As a representative of the hospital, Dr. Pearce submitted that Ms. Nolan represents a significant threat to the safety of the public and recommended detention on a General Forensic Unit at Ontario Shores with the outer edge of privileges to include living in the community in accommodation approved by the person in charge.
10Counsel for the Attorney General, Ms. MacDonald, adopted the hospital’s position.
11Counsel for Ms. Nolan, Mr. Bebee, conceded the issue of significant threat. He advised that Ms. Nolan agreed with the position of the hospital.
12Therefore, there was joint submission on all issues.
Index Offence
13Page 2 of the Hospital Report contains the agreed statement of facts obtained from the Ontario Court of Justice Plea Arraignment, which is extracted as follows:
“On August 21, 2024, at 10:30 am police were dispatched to the Fleming Building at 1005 Elgin Street West in Cobourg. The complainant advised that a female was on scene causing a disturbance; throwing things around and within the building. Officers attended and located Ms. Nolan at the front of the building. She matched the description of the female that had been described. There had been a call earlier that morning at the nearby Northumberland Mall for Ms. Nolan causing a disturbance there as well. There was also another call that morning at 500 Division Street in Cobourg of Ms. Nolan causing a disturbance.
When the officers arrived at the Fleming Building, Ms. Nolan jumped into the rear of the police cruiser. The officers removed her at that point and then placed her under arrest for causing a disturbance and breaching the probation.
Officer spoke with the various witnesses who described Ms. Nolan attending the building yelling, screaming, swearing and throwing things around. The officers read her rights to counsel and caution. She was transported to the Cobourg police station for booking. During that booking process, Ms. Nolan attempted to disarm Constable Cunningham. Ms. Nolan was cautioned for her actions. Directly after, she then grabbed a hold of Constable Cunningham’s firearm again and she was, at that point, arrested for the additional offence of attempting to disarm a police officer. She was given her rights to counsel and caution again.
At the time of these events, she was on five separate probation orders; all of which had terms to keep the peace and be of good behaviour.”
Background Information
14The Hospital Report and Exhibits contain extensive background information, which need not be repeated here in detail. In brief, Ms. Nolan is a 41-year-old of no fixed address. She is a mother of two children. She has no contact with her children.
15Ms. Nolan has a grade 10 education. She can’t remember the last time she worked. Ms. Nolan is financially supported through Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP).
16She has often been homeless, had trouble maintaining residences provided to her, and she had been “banned” from shelters.
17The CPIC report indicates that Ms. Nolan has an extensive criminal history with 65 various charges commencing in 2007. It is noteworthy that the CPIC records show she has infrequently committed violent offences. She was convicted of assault with intent to resist arrest in 2018 and uttering threats in August 2023. Many other offences listed in the CPIC were theft under $5000 and fail to comply with undertaking, The hospital report states that she also was charged with two counts of assault police officer on August 6, 2024. On August 15, 2024, Ms. Nolan was charged with a further assault for attacking a person without reason.
18Ms. Nolan’s mother reported that Ms. Nolan started using crack cocaine in her late adolescence. At age 18 Ms. Nolan was diagnosed with bipolar disorder. She did well on lithium until she became noncompliant at the age of 22. After the birth of her daughter, Ms. Nolan resumed substance use. She was able to remain off substances during her second pregnancy through to the third trimester.
19Ms. Nolan has had multiple psychiatric admissions to hospital commencing in 2001.
Course Since NCR Finding
20On September 13, 2024, Ms. Nolan was admitted to Ontario Shores to the secure Forensic Assessment Unit (“FAU). On admission Ms. Nolan was manic and psychotic. She was paranoid and claimed to be able to communicate telepathically. She was hypervigilant and hypertalkative.
21Ms. Nolan remains on FAU. She has been compliant with her medications. There have been no incidents of concern since her NCR finding.
22Ms. Nolan attends programming on the unit. She has been referred to the Concurrent Disorder Treatment Group.
23Ms. Nolan is supported by the Ontario Disability Support Program (“ODSP”).
24Ms. Nolan’s insight is fairly good.
Evidence at the Hearing
25The Board had available to it the evidence and documents forming the Record, the Exhibits, and oral evidence from Dr. Mark Pearce who is Ms. Nolan’s most responsible psychiatrist and author of the Hospital Report.
26Dr. Pearce testified that Ms. Nolan has done well on the Secure Forensic Assessment Unit (“FAU”). She has participated in available therapy on FAU.
27Dr. Pearce suggested to Ms. Nolan a decrease in her medication dose. However, Ms. Nolan declined a decrease in dose because she is doing well.
28Ms. Nolan’s homelessness, mental health issues, and addiction issues contributed to her past criminal offences.
29Dr. Pearce testified the Ms. Nolan’s partner, Shawn, has suggested that they may be able to live in the community together once she is discharged to the community. He does not have mental health issues and does not use substances. The hospital may consider this housing arrangement if it is appropriate. An OT assessment will determine what kind of housing she will require. If she requires supportive housing, the waitlist would be significant.
30Her partner, Shawn, could apply to become an Approved Person, which would allow for an acceleration of privileges and passes.
31Family intervention therapy will be available to Ms. Nolan and her family including her parents and possibly the rest of the family. If she wishes to have more access to her son and if the legal guardians (her parents) agree, the hospital could facilitate access.
32Dr. Pearce suggested the dose reduction to Ms. Nolan because her medications were titrated aggressively when she first entered hospital due to her greatly decompensated condition. She is currently on Invega Sustenna every 21 days. Because she has now settled and is experiencing a decrease in energy, Dr. Pearce suggested her injection occur every 28 days. She declined his suggestion because she is doing well. A reduction in clonazepam is possible but has not been pursued.
33Dr. Pearce says that the hospital will follow up on the cognitive assessment recommended in the NCR report during this coming year.
34Dr. Pearce anticipates that the hospital will start making applications for housing within six months if Ms. Nolan does well with her privileges and she remains stable. The hospital will be assessing suitability of housing with her partner.
Analysis and Conclusions
Significant Threat
35Having heard and considered the entirety of the evidence as well as the submissions from the parties, the Board finds Ms. Nolan poses a significant threat to the safety of the public.
36Counsel for Ms. Nolan concedes the issue of significant threat to the safety of the public. Despite this, the Board makes its own finding of significant threat based on the oral evidence, the Hospital Report, Winko and its related authorities.
37Ms. Nolan suffers from a major mental illness along with a severe, polysubstance abuse disorder. For many years, her criminal offences were not violent or aggressive in nature. However, more recently as she aged and continued to eschew psychiatric treatment while abusing substances, her offences have become more serious in nature. She has uttered threats toward others and has assaulted police officers. Her index offences were serious, she was very mentally ill at the time, and she attempted to take an officer’s firearm. She has accumulated over 65 criminal charges.
38Ms. Nolan suffers from schizoaffective disorder along with a severe polysubstance use disorder. Ms. Nolan has repeatedly been non-compliant with psychotropic medications and has lived transiently without access to treatment.
39Ms. Nolan’s mental state, while stable at present, is brittle. If not under a Detention Order, history shows she would be non-compliant with medication and relapse to substance use. Her mental status would decompensate quickly. In this case, she would present a real risk of serious physical or psychological harm to the public.
Necessary and Appropriate Disposition
40Given the Board’s finding of significant threat, it is charged with shaping a Disposition for the coming year. The Board agrees with the hospital recommendation and joint position, that the necessary and appropriate Disposition to manage Ms. Nolan’s risk in the coming reporting year is a Detention Order on a General Forensic Service at Ontario Shores.
41Ms. Nolan requires ongoing treatment with antipsychotic medications. She is very impulsive and her mental health is fragile. Absent the Board’s oversight, she would quickly revert to unsuitable housing, if any. She would relapse to substances and fail to take her medications without adequate supervision and supports.
42The Board finds that there is sufficient evidence to support the joint submission of the parties and their recommendations for the terms of the Disposition.
43Upon consideration of all the evidence, the submissions of the parties, and the criteria set forth in s. 672.54, the paramount consideration being the safety of the public, in addition to the mental condition of Ms. Nolan, her reintegration into society and her other needs, we conclude that the necessary and appropriate Disposition is that Ms. Nolan be detained on a General Forensic Unit at Ontario Shores, subject to the terms and conditions recommended by the hospital, as set out in our formal Disposition.
DATED this 27th day of January 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Ms. C. Murray Legal Member
______________________________ Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board