Re: Ian Hammond
ORB File No: 6758
Hearing held on: March 20, 2025
Place of hearing: North Bay Regional Health Centre-North Bay Site
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. R. Bigelow
Members: Dr. A.D. Jones Dr. T. Stirpe The Hon. E. Kruzick Ms. K. Brisson
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Ian Hammond Counsel: Mr. W. Stickland
The Person in charge of Hospital: Representative: Ms. J. Doyon Counsel: Mr. P. Trenker
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. P. Lambert-Belanger
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated April 8, 2025)
Introduction
On May 21, 2015, Ian Hammond was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCR) on a charge of first degree murder, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (Criminal Code). Mr. Hammond is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the Board or ORB) dated April 2, 2024.
As a result of this disposition, Mr. Hammond is detained at the forensic programs of the North Bay Regional Health Centre - North Bay site (the hospital or NBRHC) with privileges to enter the community under stipulated terms and live in the community within the catchment of the NBRHC site in accommodation approved by the person in charge. Mr. Hammond is also required to abstain absolutely from the non-medical use of alcohol or drugs or any other intoxicant, submit samples to check for compliance, refrain from having in his possession any firearm and the like, and when living in the community, report to the person in charge not less than once per week.
On March 20, 2025, a panel of the ORB convened to review Mr. Hammond's disposition pursuant to s. 672.81 one of the Criminal Code. Pursuant to s. 672.5(8)(b) of the Criminal Code, in the interests of justice, Mr. W. Stickland was appointed counsel for Mr. Hammond. Mr. Hammond was present for his hearing, represented by Mr. Stickland. Mr. Hammond's mother, Ms. Donna Hammond, was also in attendance.
Position of the Parties
One of the members of the panel disclosed previous clinical involvement with Mr. Hammond. Counsel for all parties raised no objections and agreed to the member remaining on the panel.
At the commencement of the hearing, counsel for the hospital, Mr. Trenker, submitted that Mr. Hammond remains a significant threat to the safety of the public and took the position that there should be no change to the current disposition. Counsel for the Attorney-General, Mr. P. Lambert-Belanger, and counsel for Mr. Hammond agreed with the hospital’s submission. In closing submissions counsel for all the parties maintained their respective position.
Issues at the Hearing
- The issues to be determined are whether Mr. Hammond poses a significant threat to the safety of the public, and if so, the necessary and appropriate disposition to manage that risk having regard to the criteria set out in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
Findings
- For the reasons that follow, the panel found that the threshold for significant threat is met, and that the necessary and appropriated disposition is a continuation of the current detention disposition.
Index Offence
- The circumstances of the index of offences are excerpted from last year’s Reasons for Disposition as follows: summarized as follows:
"On March 15, 2014, Donna Hammond, mother of Ian Hammond and ex-wife of the victim, was driving on Woodward Avenue, in Blind River. She and her companion came across Ian attacking the victim John Hammond (his father) with a knife. The victim suffered multiple stab wounds and later died in hospital from these wounds.
When police arrived quickly on the scene, Ian Hammond complied with their request to drop the knife. He was arrested. A post-mortem examination revealed the victim had suffered 16 sharp force injuries, stab wounds, and incised wounds including five of the chest, four of the back two of the face, four of the left arm, and one of the right arm. One of the stab wounds was total to the lower mid-chest of the elderly Mr. Hammond.”
Background Information
The hospital report outlines Mr. Hammond's history and background in great detail and therefore need not be repeated here. In brief, Mr. Hammond is 29 years old. As a student, Mr. Hammond was described as inattentive, impulsive and with a learning disability in the area of reading and spelling.
Mr. Hammond began experiencing some emerging symptoms of mental illness during the latter part of his high school years. He acknowledged that he began slacking off at school and smoking marijuana. He began using street drugs and misusing his prescribed medication with the explanation that these made him less anxious and calmer.
Mr. Hammond commenced a three-year civil engineering course at Cambrian College in Sudbury, Ontario. He left college as he was not able to cope with the demands of the academic workload. He came under the care of a psychiatrist as well as a general physician. Mr. Hammond was diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), specific learning disorder, and secondary active despondency.
Mr. Hammond’s family doctor became increasingly concerned about his mental stability, anxiety, paranoia and suspicion that other persons were trying to harm him in some way. Mr. Hammond’s family supported him in dealing with his illness.
Since the commission of the index offence Mr. Hammond has had the continued support of his family, particularly his mother.
Current Diagnoses
- The current diagnosis for Mr. Hammond is set out in the hospital report as follows:
Schizophrenia
Cannabis Use Disorder, in sustained remission in a controlled environment
Evidence
The Hospital Report dated February 20, 2025 was made an exhibit at this hearing. Dr. Gagnon, who is Mr. Hammond’s treating psychiatrist, testified at the hearing. Dr. Gagnon, a co-author of the Hospital Report adopted its contents. He also provided the Board with an update since the preparation of the report.
At the outset of last year's reporting period Mr. Hammond resided at Owl Lodge, a rehabilitation unit within the forensic program of the NBRHC. He was discharged from the hospital on April 12, 2023 to reside at 501 Morris St., North Bay, a transitional supportive housing program run by the Canadian Mental Health Association (CMHA). The home at 501 Morris St. provides 24 /7 supervision and support.
Mr. Hammond has settled well into the 501 Morris St group home. He states that he enjoys his accommodation. The CMHA staff have not reported any behavioral concerns regarding Mr. Hammond. Dr. Gagnon testified that Mr. Hammond has enjoyed some success in his trajectory toward greater independence. Mr. Hammond continues to require ongoing support from the staff and displays challenges in acquiring independent living skills. The focus during the past reporting year has been to move Mr. Hammond forward.
Dr. Gagnon stated that there has been a stall in Mr. Hammond’s progress toward achieving some independence. As an example, Dr. Gagnon testified that Mr. Hammond continues to need support and encouragement to utilize public transit independently. If Mr. Hammond were able to use public transit it would allow him the independence to shop for himself and access services in the community.
Approximately five months ago Mr. Hammond expressed that he would consider moving to live with his mother in Blind River. The hospital team considered the option of Mr. Hammond relocating with his mother in Blind River, Ontario, however, in the end, and in consultation with his mother, decided that it is unlikely that this would be a suitable alternative.
As a better plan, Dr. Gagnon testified that the hospital team has explored the possibility of other appropriate supervised and supportive housing in Sudbury. Sudbury would get Mr. Hammond closer to Blind River where his mother and family reside. Dr. Gagnon referenced two group homes in Sudbury, Ontario: (1) the Souliere Residential Home, a private home and (2) a Canadian Mental Health Association (CMHA) residence, Moonlight. A third facility that is being contemplated is Maplewood House in North Bay.
In his testimony, Dr. Gagnon reported that Mr. Hammond will, at times, get agitated and will lock himself in his room until he settles. Mr. Hammond needs a residential environment that understands this behaviour and other similar needs. Dr. Gagnon opined that when Mr. Hammond is ready, the transition to more permanent community living in supportive and supervised housing should not compromise public safety.
Dr. Gagnon also testified that while Mr. Hammond recognizes the benefit of his medication, any changes or increases in Mr. Hammond’s medication continue to present some resistance from him. Changes in medication have to be patiently negotiated with Mr. Hammond.
On that point, Dr. Gagnon expressed that Mr. Hammond’s insight and understanding of his illness is partial. Mr. Hammond however recognises that he has a serious illness which he understands precipitated the index offence.
As set out in the Hospital Report, Mr. Hammond has shown slow progress in enhancing his adaptation and skills for community living. Mr. Hammond therefore requires sustained assistance from the multidisciplinary team to achieve his readiness for transition to a less structured environment.
On the issue of risk to the safety of the public, as confirmed by Dr. Gagnon, at page 102 of the Hospital Report, the Report summarizes the primary risk factors, posed by Mr. Hammond, as follows:
The primary risk factor contributing to Mr. Hammond's likelihood of reoffending is his mental illness. His compliance and responsiveness have improved during the most recent evaluation period; however, he continues to experience both negative and some positive symptoms of his illness. Historical records indicate a challenging psychiatric condition accompanied by significant substance abuse issues and a history of medication non-compliance. The treatment team responsible for Mr. Hammond's care collectively agrees that he poses a notable risk to public safety, which remains the paramount concern. They contend that if left unsupervised, there would be a heightened risk of medication non-adherence and symptom relapse, which may include persecutory ideation. When Mr. Hammond's mental health deteriorates, there is an increased risk of erratic and potentially violent behaviour, as was evident at the time of his index offence. Therefore, the treatment team must retain the authority to admit him back to the hospital for proper evaluation and treatment should his mental condition decline. Continuing the current detention order will ensure that Mr. Hammond's risk is effectively managed while he resides in the community, particularly if he transitions to a more independent living arrangement.
In response to a question from Mr. Stickland about the schedule for taking his medication, particularly clozapine, Dr. Gagnon testified that there is no required or prescribed schedule to take the medication as long as it is taken daily. When asked about the fact that the medication makes him sleepy and that Mr. Hammond does not like the feeling of being tired, Dr. Gagnon expressed that he and the hospital team can work with Mr. Hammond to accommodate timing that is best suited to Mr. Hammond’s daily routine.
In response to a question about the hospital team’s proposed plan for Mr. Hammond, Dr. Gagnon responded that the team will continue working with a plan for Mr. Hammond’s transition to a more ‘forever’ long-term home.
When asked by a Board member about Mr. Hammond’s refusal to take clozapine, Dr. Gagnon responded that there were two incidents in May of this past reporting year when Mr. Hammond declared he did not want to take the medication. The incidents were an anomaly which arose when he became frustrated. Dr. Gagnon added that Mr. Hammond does not assert that he will not take his mediation nor are there any signs of cheeking his medication. In summary, Mr. Hammond does not need to be watched closely to take his medication.
When his dose of clozapine was increased, Dr. Gagnon testified that Mr. Hammond complained about the increase having an impact on his balance which frustrated him. As stated earlier, Dr. Gagnon testified there is a lot of negotiating with Mr. Hammond until he understands the benefits the medication provides him.
When asked by a Board member about the effect of the current dose of clozapine on Mr. Hammond, Dr. Gagnon answered that there are no reported issues with Mr. Hammond’s current dose of clozapine. Dr. Gagnon indicated that he and the hospital team are continuing to achieve the most beneficial level of Mr. Hammond’s medication.
In a response to a Board member about the ideal level of medication for Mr. Hammond, Dr. Gagnon stated that he and the hospital team are not chasing levels, instead they are striving for a therapeutic level of medication that best meets Mr. Hammond’s needs. As an example, when Mr. Hammond complained about the physical effect of an increased dose, it was reduced. Dr. Gagnon testified that with the reduction, Mr. Hammond became agitated so that it was increased again, and Mr. Hammond accepted the benefit. At present, Dr. Gagnon opined that Mr. Hammond is not as yet at the ideal clinical level of his medication.
In the end, Dr. Gagnon opined that the hospital team recommends a continuation of the current Detention Disposition for another year.
When asked by Board member about Mr. Hammond’s anxiety Dr. Gagnon expressed that ideally Mr. Hammond requires a group home that provides him daily living necessities to minimize his level of stress and reduce the aspects of daily living that create stress for him.
In a question arising from the Board’s questioning, counsel for the Hospital asked about Mr. Hammond’s future housing needs. Dr. Gagnon responded that Mr. Gagnon has never lived on his own. He was hospitalized at a very young age so that the prospect of living by himself is very scary to Mr. Hammond and provokes his anxiety. The group home that he moves into would need to provide him security, accommodate his specific needs and build up his confidence toward greater independence.
In a follow up question, Mr. Stickland asked about Mr. Hammond’s progress toward living in the community. Dr. Gagnon expressed the hospital’s goal is to get Mr. Hammond into more independent living. Mr. Hammond is willing to move forward however his willingness is held back and tempered by his anxiety.
Counsel called Ms. Donna Hammond, Mr. Hammond’s mother, to testify. Donna Hammond provided the hearing a witness impact statement dated February 20, 2025 which was made an exhibit.
When asked if Mr. Hammond was able to live independently prior to the index offence, Ms. Hammond, responded that prior to the index offence her son was young and that she and Mr. Hammond’s father looked after all of his daily needs including meal preparation, purchasing groceries, all household and transportation needs. Living in a small town with no public transpiration, Mr. Hammond would be driven by his parents and was entirely dependent on them for his transportation.
In response to a question about Mr. Hammond’s visits to her home in Blind River, Ms. Hammond stated that during those visits her son helped minimally with dinner and that he shovelled snow outside. He was also able to minimally put together his own breakfast. However, during the visits, the majority of his needs were met and provided by her.
Ms. Hammond described Blind River as a small town and doing things on his own in a larger community such as North Bay, like taking public transit, is something her son was not familiar with and would have to be learned.
When asked about Mr. Hammond’s compliance with his medication during the visit at her home in Blind River, she responded that her son was compliant however did not like taking the medication at 5 p.m., as he thought was required. Thereafter, it caused her son side effects so that he would fall asleep. Otherwise, Ms. Hammond confirmed her son’s willingness to take the daily medication as prescribed.
When asked about Mr. Hammond living with her in Blind River, Ms. Hammond acknowledged that it was an option and that she would be willing to have him in living in her home however it would neither be ideal nor good for him. Ms. Hammond testified that she would like her son to be independent. She confirmed that she and her family are supportive of that as the ideal objective for Mr. Hammond’s future.
In response to a question about the family’s support, Ms. Hammond indicated that her son also has the support of both his brother and sister who live in Sudbury. Ms. Hammond confirmed and adopted her witness impact statement which states the following:
I always want what is best for Ian while keeping safety in mind. I provide all feedback that I believe the Team requires to help Ian, whether it has a positive or negative impact on his privileges as this is needed for his recovery. I encourage him to work towards his goals. At some point Ian would like to live in Sudbury. His sister Joanna and brother Joel are currently living there, and they welcome the idea of being able to spend time with Ian in Sudbury. The past couple years have been very positive; Ian has made the most progress he has ever made since being hospitalized at 18 years old. With medication, hard work, staff support, recreational activities, his individualized treatment plan and continued family support, Ian can be successful. I will continue my ongoing support along with other family members that love, support, and visit Ian. Ian is a kind, compassionate, thoughtful, and smart young man and has a second chance to have the life he wants and deserves. We have all learnt from this tragedy and continue to work together as a family to support Ian.
Mr. Stickland also called Ian Hammond to testify. In his brief evidence, Mr. Hammond acknowledged that his mother and his family have been very supportive of him.
No other evidence was called.
Submissions
- Counsel for all parties maintained their respective position as expressed at the outset of the hearing. As a result, this was a joint submission.
Analysis
Significant Threat
In our analysis, while the Board is mindful that counsel for all the parties are in agreement on this issue, the Board comes to its finding independently. The board unanimously accepts the evidence of Dr. Gagnon as supported by the Hospital Report and finds that Mr. Hammond continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public.
Pursuant to the evidence of Dr. Gagnon at this hearing, and as set out at p. 100 of the Hospital Report, the panel accepts the evidence of the following factors:
Mr. Hammond suffers from a severe and persistent mental disorder, that of Schizophrenia. When Mr. Hammond is not well, he experiences auditory hallucinations, delusional thinking, and persecutory and paranoid ideation, resulting in a greater risk of unpredictable and violent behaviour.
The Index Offence was a sudden, unprovoked, violent incident that involved the use of a weapon. Mr. Hammond was only 18 years old at the time of the index offence.
Mr. Hammond’s history is significant for problems with traumatic experiences. His index offense was violent, psychotically driven and resulted in his father's death. The documentation suggests that, during his admission to hospital, he has reported experiencing posttraumatic stress symptoms, such as intrusive thoughts, flashbacks, traumatic stimuli avoidance, and hypervigilance that are likely directly related to the commission of the index offense. These symptoms are most notable when the subject of the location of the index offense is discussed.
Mr. Hammond has a history of problems with treatment and supervision response. He has a history of medication refusal and non-adherence, and of deriving limited benefits from both psychopharmacological and psychosocial treatments.
It remains to be seen how Mr. Hammond will perform in a less controlled and supervised setting.
Mr. Hammond has experienced problems with affective instability characterized by manifestations of high levels of anxiety and distress. Records indicate he utilizes PRN medication to manage symptoms of distress and has attempted to use other coping mechanisms with varying degree of success. Mr. Hammond’s anxiety greatly affects his ability to increase his sociability, utilize public transit and to attend outings in the community; Mr. Hammond requires staff support by means of encouragement and reassurance.
Mr. Hammond has a fear of being stigmatized by the public.
Mr. Hammond has required support to remain engaged in recreational programming.
Mr. Hammond has a history of substance abuse.
Disposition
In considering the disposition, in the circumstances of this case and given the evidence at this hearing, the Board finds that Mr. Hammond's current disposition remains necessary and appropriate. While Mr. Hammond has made good progress this past reporting year, we accept the evidence that he remains unready to take the next step to living in the community in more independent housing. The evidence which we accept is that Mr. Hammond still lacks full insight in his illness and his need for medication.
As supported by the evidence, the Board finds that Mr. Hammond continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and therefore, on the evidence, finds that there should be no change to the current disposition.
The Board commends Mr. Hammond for the progress he has made this past year and for his good working relationship with Dr. Gagnon and the hospital team. We encourage him to continue to work with Dr. Gagnon and the hospital team. Mr. Hammond is fortunate to have the unconditional support of his mother, who attended and testified at this hearing, and for the support of his family.
Conclusion
In making a disposition, the Board must take into consideration the criteria set out in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code, being the safety of the public as our paramount consideration. We also bear in mind the mental condition of Mr. Hammond, his reintegration into society and his other needs. We conclude that this disposition is necessary and appropriate disposition and is the least onerous and least restrictive while recognizing public safety.
The evidence supports and the Board finds that Mr. Hammond continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and therefore, finds that there should be no change to the current disposition.
DATED this 8th day of April 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
E. Kruzick
Legal Member
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board