Re Nicolas Hamel, 2025 CanLII 33848

Ontario Review Board

Re: Nicolas Hamel

ORB File No. 5227

Hearing Date: March 24, 2025

Hearing Location: St. Joseph’s Healthcare, Hamilton, West 5^th^ Campus

Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada;

Before: Alternate Chairperson: Mr. M. Segal Members: Dr. B. Sheppard Dr. G. Stones Ms. M. McKinnon Mr. K. McKenna

Parties Appearing: Accused: Nicolas Hamel Counsel: Mr. A. Confente

The Person in charge of Hospital: Counsel: Ms. L. Barney

Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. J. McKenzie

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated April 17, 2025)

Introduction

1Mr. Hamel was found not criminally responsible (NCR) on December 3, 2008, for the criminal code offence of utter threat to cause death or bodily harm.

2He is currently subject to a detention order under a Disposition dated April 4, 2024, with privileges that extend to living in the community in accommodation approved by the person in charge.

3A panel of the Ontario Review Board (the panel) convened this annual hearing on March 24, 2025, at St. Joseph’s Healthcare, Hamilton, West 5^th^ Campus, to review the current Disposition pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

4At the commencement of the hearing, the Hospital recommended a continuation of the current detention order with no changes to the terms and conditions. Counsel for the Attorney-General supported this recommendation. Counsel for Mr. Hamel initially recommended a conditional discharge, but after hearing the evidence, he advised the panel that he was now supporting the Hospital’s recommendation.

Index Offence

5The following is a synopsis of the facts pertaining to the index offence.

“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.

Hospital Report dated March 11, 2025

6The Hospital Report dated March 11, 2025 was prepared for this hearing, and contains a detailed review of Mr. Hamel’s personal and mental health history.

7He is currently diagnosed with schizophrenia, stimulant use disorder, attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder-predominantly inattentive presentation.

8Dr. Prat, Mr. Hamel’s treating psychiatrist, testified that schizophrenia may not be the proper diagnosis. In August 2024, the antipsychotic medication was reduced with no recurring psychotic symptoms, and then in December 2024, the medication was entirely eliminated. Dr. Prat opined that the psychosis may be drug induced, rather than a primary psychotic disorder, such as schizophrenia.

9Mr. Hamel was born in Quebec and attended high school in Ontario. His parents separated when he was 4-5 years old. His childhood is described as dysfunctional, and the child welfare authorities were involved with the family. He worked at a ski resort, and then for a flooring company and hardware store. He last worked in 2008 when he began to experience symptoms of mental illness.

10Mr. Hamel reports that he started using crystal methamphetamines in or about 2004. He has also used cannabis, alcohol, and cocaine, but predominately crystal methamphetamine.

11Prior to the index offence, Mr. Hamel was convicted of an assault and fail to comply with a recognizance in 2005. The assault was a very serious attack on his female companion.

12His first known psychiatric contact was in 2005, and his first psychiatric admission to hospital occurred in 2008. In 2008, he was taken to the emergency department by the police in a psychotic state. He believed that people were trying to kill him. He advised the hospital staff that he had been using crystal methamphetamine five times per week. In the following months of 2008, five additional psychiatric contacts occurred with the same symptoms; difficulty coping, concentrating, sleeping, and experiencing paranoia.

13When living in the community, Mr. Hamel has been residing at the Indwell Perkins Centre since 2011. This residence does not provide supervision or meals, but they make available therapeutic programming.

14Mr. Hamel has been in the forensic system for 17 years. A consistent pattern has developed with Mr. Hamel being discharged to live in the community and then readmitted to hospital following methamphetamine use and a decline in his mental condition.

15In 2010, Mr. Hamel was given a conditional discharge. Following a readmission to hospital, the Disposition was changed to a detention order in 2011. In April 2019, he was again discharged conditionally, which was changed to a detention order in March 2022.

16Since being first discharged to live in the community in 2009, Mr. Hamel has been readmitted to the hospital on 14 occasions. The readmissions have consistently been the result of methamphetamine use and the consequential decline in his mental health.

17More recently, Mr. Hamel was readmitted to hospital from December 2023, to March 2024. He was then readmitted in May 2024, after appearing in a dishevelled state, and having consumed crystal methamphetamine. In the hospital, he was displaying increased verbal aggression; he was described as oppositional and argumentative. The evidence also indicated that Mr. Hamel is quite adept at tampering with his urine samples. He was discharged to the Perkins Centre on December 2, 2024.

18Dr. Prat indicated that Mr. Hamel has no insight into the harmful effects drug use has on his mental health. He has also resisted all offers of therapeutic programming, and refused to pursue employment or participate in structured volunteer activities.

19Mr. Hamel has a reclusive lifestyle, and has indicated that being in the company of other people causes him stress, and to not feel normal.

20Mr. Hamel is currently being seen by his case manager twice weekly. He has been consistently cooperative with his case manager during these meetings. Since his recent discharge in December, there have been no resurgence of psychotic symptoms, and all the drug screens have been negative.

21In August 2024, Mr. Hamel returned to Indwell on a temporary leave of absence. His case manager attended his residence for a random urine sample. The apartment was unkempt, Mr. Hamel’s eyes appeared sunken, and he was perspiring unusually. The case manager also observed a blister pack of medication, and noticed that the appropriate amount of medication had not been taken. Mr. Hamel provided a urine sample which appeared to the case manager to have been tampered with. The testing of this sample still returned positive for methamphetamine. Mr. Hamel continually denied to his case manager and the hospital team having used illicit substances. His leave of absence was cancelled, and he was returned to the hospital.

22Following his discharge from hospital in December 2024, Mr. Hamel agreed to participate in the Short-Term Assistive Response Team programming operated at Indwell. This is conducted by an interdisciplinary group of health care professionals to assist the patient with reintegration into the community and overall wellness. Mr. Hamel does not have any other programming activities or goals he would like to pursue.

23Mr. Hamel has regularly requested Ritalin be provided to him. He believes that he requires Ritalin to function properly. Mr. Hamel has misused Ritalin in the past, so the treatment team is reluctant to provide Ritalin to him at this time. He often expresses frustration with his hospitalizations, the prohibition against substance use, and his psychiatrist.

24When Mr. Hamel was admitted to hospital in May 2024, it was noted that he had limited insight into the reason for his re-admission, the need for treatment, and the risk to his mental health from substance use. Dr. Prat also stated in the Hospital Report that Mr. Hamel’s cognition is impaired.

25During this time in hospital, from May to December 2024, he was compliant with his medication, and accepted direction from staff. He did not, however, engage to any significant degree with staff or patients. He regularly used day passes and overnight passes to visit his apartment.

26There were a few notable incidents recorded by the hospital. They were essentially signs of irritability and rude responses to staff.

27Mr. Hamel has remained abstinent from substances since his discharge to Indwell, and there has been no emergence of psychotic symptoms, notwithstanding the elimination of antipsychotic medication from his regimen. It is the opinion of the Hospital that the improvements are very recent, and it is not necessarily indicative of long-term stability.

Testimony of Dr. Prat

28Dr. Prat has been treating Mr. Hamel since 2021. He indicated that Mr. Hamel demonstrates oppositional behaviour occasionally, but has not been physically violent. Dr. Prat is wanting to see a substantial period of time, perhaps one year, with Mr. Hamel symptom free and abstinent from substances before considering a form of discharge. He does believe that Mr. Hamel is internally motivated to stop his drug use.

29Dr. Prat indicated to the Crown that the Mental Health Act is currently insufficient to manage the risk to public safety. It would not allow for a rapid re-admission to hospital, and would not allow for the Hospital to keep Mr. Hamel as an inpatient.

30Dr. Prat advised counsel for Mr. Hamel that he expects to have a better understanding of Mr. Hamel’s diagnosis in one year’s time. Dr. Prat would not recommend an absolute discharge before Mr. Hamel has demonstrated a very strong motivation to abstain from substances. Dr. Prat also described Mr. Hamel as very apprehensive in groups or a social setting.

31In answering questions from the panel, Dr. Prat confirmed that Mr. Hamel has not participated in addiction counselling. He stated that Mr. Hamel becomes anxious when the subject of programming is discussed.

Submissions

32At the conclusion of the evidence, the parties each submitted that a continuation of the current detention order was appropriate.

Analysis

33The panel agrees that a continuation of the detention order is necessary and appropriate. There has recently been a significant change to his treatment with the elimination of his antipsychotic medication. Since this change was made in the fall 2024, Mr. Hamel has not experienced any psychotic symptoms or decline in his behaviour. He has also been abstinent from drugs.

34However, Mr. Hamel has been consuming methamphetamine for 21 years, so 7 months of abstinence is not long enough to accept that there will not be a relapse. The consequence of his drug use is a rapid deterioration in his mental health. He becomes dishevelled, lacks proper hygiene, and is oppositional, and argumentative. He has not been violent in many years, but this is likely attributable to Mr. Hamel being hospitalized after using substances and having mentally decompensated. His history of relapse into substance use has occurred when he is monitored and supervised in the community by the outpatient forensic team.

35Unfortunately, Mr. Hamel has not engaged in substance abuse programming. This would likely assist him with preventing a relapse into drug use.

36Dr. Prat is not certain if the psychotic symptoms result from schizophrenia or are substance induced, but regardless, with substance use there is a deterioration of Mr. Hamel’s mental state, and the likely onset of psychotic symptoms, which creates a risk to public safety. Given Mr. Hamel’s history of substance use, and readmissions to hospital, it is imperative that the Hospital has the ability to readmit Mr. Hamel quickly should readmission become necessary and have the authority to keep him in hospital.

37Having considered the evidence, the panel finds that a detention order is necessary and appropriate.

38In coming to this conclusion, the panel has applied the principles in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code.