Ontario Review Board
Re: Nicholas V. Brule
ORB File No: 8124
Hearing held on: Tuesday, April 01, 2025
Place of hearing: Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Ms. C. Finley
Members: Dr. S. Lessard Dr. S. Wiseman Mr. D. Sandor Ms. N. Lemieux-McKinnon
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Nicholas V. Brule Counsel: Ms. N. Calvinho
The Person in charge of Hospital: Representative: Dr. J. Hwang
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. M. Dufort
REASONS FOR DECISION
(Dated: May 27, 2025)
Introduction:
On August 5, 2022, Nicholas Brule was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on a charge of breaking and entering with the intent to commit an indictable offence, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada. He is subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, dated November 12, 2024 (as amended on November 19, 2024), detaining him at the Secure Forensic Unit, Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre (hereinafter referred to as “the Hospital”). That Disposition grants Mr. Brule privileges up to and including that of living in the community in accommodation approved by the person in charge of the Hospital. It also subjects him to certain conditions, including that of abstaining absolutely from the non-medical use of alcohol or drugs or any other intoxicant and that of submitting samples for the purpose of monitoring his compliance with the abstention condition.
On February 11, 2025, the Ontario Review Board received a Notice of Restriction of Liberty from the Hospital advising that Mr. Brule had eloped from his approved accommodation on November 27, 2024. A form 49 was issued the following day and he was brought to the Hospital on February 4, 2025. Owing to the restricted number of beds at the Hospital, a Warrant of Committal was issued, and Mr. Brule was transferred to the Brockville Mental Health Centre, resulting in a potential restriction of Mr. Brule’s liberty for a period exceeding seven days.
On April 1, 2025, the Board convened a hearing to review the restriction of Mr. Brule’s liberty, pursuant to the provisions of section 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Brule was present at the hearing in person and was assisted by his lawyer who received leave to attend via Zoom Audio-Visual Technology.
The record for the hearing included the Revised Notice of Hearing, the Notice of Restriction of Liberty mentioned above, the Board’s response to that Notice, the Warrant of Committal dated February 4, 2025, the most recent Disposition dated November 12/24 (as amended) and the Reasons for that Disposition. On the consent of all parties a Restriction of Liberties Report dated February 20, 2025, was entered into evidence as an exhibit. That report is cumulative in nature and includes the contents of a Hospital Report provided to the Board in October 2024.
At the outset of the hearing, the parties confirmed that the only issues before the panel pertained to the restriction of Mr. Brule’s liberty. The parties were canvassed for their initial positions in this regard. Speaking for the Hospital, Dr. Hwang (Mr. Brule’s treating psychiatrist) expressed the position that the restriction was at the time initiated, and continued to be, justified and necessary and the least onerous and least restrictive option available to the Hospital. The representative of the Attorney General agreed that the restriction was justified, necessary, and minimally intrusive at the time initiated but indicated that she would have questions as to whether it remained so. Counsel for Mr. Brule took that same position.
By the end of the hearing all parties agreed that not only was the restriction of Mr. Brule’s liberty justified and necessary and the least onerous and least restrictive option available to the Hospital when initiated, but that it remained such through to the date of the hearing.
For the reasons that follow, the Board agrees with that joint submission.
Evidence at the hearing
The evidence at the hearing came from the Restriction of Liberties Report (the “ROL Report”) mentioned and the viva voce evidence and update provided by Dr. Hwang.
Turning first to the ROL Report, it provides important context within which the restriction of liberty is considered. On May 19, 2022, Mr. Brule trespassed onto two different properties in Ottawa and began moving furniture until scared away by the homeowners at each location. He then made his way to a third house and broke into that home causing the homeowner and her son to flee the dwelling. When police arrived, he was found in that home sitting shirtless on a bed drinking a can of soda. He is diagnosed with:
- Other Specified Schizophrenia Spectrum and Related Disorder
- Generalized Anxiety Disorder, with panic attacks
- Stimulant Use Disorder, severe
- Opioid Use Disorder, severe on maintenance therapy
- Cannabis Use Disorder, severe.
In addition, contextually, it is important to note that the most recent Reasons for Disposition describe Mr. Brule’s difficulties over the past year. He eloped from the Hospital on October 14, 2023, on December 9, 2023, on February 14, 2024, and on April 14, 2024. On each occasion he used substances including cannabis, morphine, cocaine, crystal methamphetamine and fentanyl. On the last occasion he was found in a state of overdose and was returned to the Hospital with worsening anxiety and decreased motivation. He reported the re-emergence of psychosis when using stimulants. Symptoms of persecutory delusions and auditory hallucinations that had ceased over periods of abstinence had returned. Mr. Brule has a lengthy criminal record consisting largely of property offences and of offences against the administration of justice.
As mentioned, the ROL Report is cumulative in nature. In addition to providing significant detail associated with Mr. Brule’s personal history and course while under the Board’s jurisdiction, it gives an update that deals specifically with the restriction of liberty at page 42 of 47. There it is explained that following the last annual review, Mr. Brule remained at the Hospital’s Forensic Rehabilitation Unit while attending treatment groups at the Grove Forensic Transitional Home (the “Grove”). Weekly drug screenings were negative, and Mr. Brule expressed high motivation to continue his sobriety. He showed no psychotic symptoms and reported improved mood and ability to sleep.
A few days after discharge to the Grove, staff began to notice that Mr. Brule was increasingly restless and anxious. His expenses were more than usual, and he demonstrated difficulty following directions. His interactions with staff were guarded. While he denied that he had relapsed into substance use, a urine screening completed on November 26, 2024, came back positive for cocaine and fentanyl. That same day he failed to return to the Grove from a pass into the community. A Form 49 was issued the next morning. By December 10, 2024, Mr. Brule had not returned to the Grove and his occupancy agreement was terminated. There was no contact with Mr. Brule until February 4, 2024, when the police returned him to the Hospital after finding him in the vestibule of a bank the previous day. He reported regular use of fentanyl and crack cocaine and said that he was having auditory hallucinations. He was homeless. As there were no beds available at the Hospital, Mr. Brule was transported initially to the Ottawa Courthouse for a show-cause appearance. He was ultimately transported from the court to the Brockville Mental Health Centre under the Warrant of Committal that forms part of the record for this hearing.
When at the Brockville Mental Health Centre, Mr. Brule reported that he had eloped because he was worried about the treatment team learning that he had used substances. He said that he wanted to experience “feeling high.” He said that he had used fentanyl by injection and slept at friends’ homes. He endorsed auditory hallucinations. These were resolved at the Brockville Mental Health Centre after four days of abstinence from substances and return to recommended medication.
In a videoconference with Dr. Hwang held on February 18, 2025, Mr. Brule said that he was relieved to be sober. He was managing opioid cravings through opioid replacement therapy administered at Brockville. He was not attending addictions counseling groups. He reported no mood symptoms. He expressed a desire to return to the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre as soon as a bed became available and was placed on the wait list for the same.
In her evidence at the hearing, Dr. Hwang provided the Board with a further update. Mr. Brule transferred from Brockville to the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre on March 11, 2025. Since that time, he has been actively engaged with nursing and support staff and has shown a greater interest in addictions counseling. In consultation with the treatment team, he has set goals for independent living. He expects, when that happens, to have ongoing support for his addictions through Alcoholics and Narcotics Anonymous.
Dr. Hwang testified that Mr. Brule recognizes that his elopements were precipitated from his own lack of engagement with the treatment team on the topic of his cravings for substances. She said that over the two weeks that preceded the hearing, Mr. Brule has been more forthcoming. He continues to receive suboxone and has level 1 passes on the Hospital’s Forensic Assessment Unit, meaning that he is able to be on Hospital grounds accompanied by one member of the Hospital’s support staff. He is on the transfer list for the Forensic Rehabilitation Unit. Once transferred there, Mr. Brule will actively engage with vocational therapists and community groups as approved accommodations in the community are located. Dr. Hwang said that Mr. Brule is stable enough to be moved to this unit but that he is new on the waitlist. She was not able to provide a timeline or estimate for his transition to that unit.
Dr. Hwang discussed the impact of the Grove’s programming and level of intense support on Mr. Brule’s most recent elopement. Mr. Brule has indicated that he felt restricted in that setting and was uncomfortable sharing his cravings. He has said that if he had known that he would not be returned to the Hospital immediately for a slip, then he would have been more transparent when feeling cravings at early stages. He has suggested that there is a correlation between the intense monitoring he has been through and both his last and his historic elopements. Accordingly, Dr. Hwang and the treatment team are considering a community support plan for Mr. Brule that includes meaningful housing, and addiction supports but less stringent forms of monitoring than those in place at the Grove.
In furtherance of this, Mr. Brule has been engaged in substance use groups. He does still have cravings, particularly when alone at night, but has been able to speak with the treatment team about them which has led to more productive discussions regarding his coping mechanisms. The expectation is that, once Mr. Brule is discharged, he and the treatment team will explore his further participation with group meetings in the community, including dialectic behavioural therapy groups associated with the Canadian Mental Health Association.
In terms of current insight, Dr. Hwang said that Mr. Brule has good insight into the impact of substance use on his mental health. She explained that there is a clear correlation between Mr. Brule’s psychotic symptoms and his use of substances. Symptoms decrease as his use of substances decreases. His insight into his need for treatment and into the primary psychosis itself also increase when he abstains from substances.
Dr. Hwang was asked what needed to be accomplished before she would be comfortable recommending Mr. Brule’s discharge into the community. She said that he is at one month of sobriety, and she would like to see him attain 3 months of sobriety. She also emphasized the importance of having community addiction supports in place, like Narcotics and Alcoholics Anonymous. She also supported Mr. Brule’s efforts to find part-time employment so that he has meaningful structure through the week in the event of discharge.
Submissions
- At the end of the hearing, the Board was presented with a joint submission that the restriction of Mr. Brule’s liberty was necessary, justified and represented the least onerous and least restrictive options available to the Hospital for the period spanning his readmission through to the date of the hearing.
Analysis and conclusion
As stated above, the Board agrees with that submission. Mr. Brule had been progressing towards reintegration into the community following his transition to the Grove but eloped for an extended period of time following the discovery of his use of substances. When located by police he was in a state of decompensation similar to what has been observed historically when he has relapsed into substance use and eloped from the Hospital. He was homeless, had lost his bed at the Grove Forensic Transitional Home, and was experiencing the primary psychotic symptoms associated with his major mental illness. His mental state was similar to that noted over the course of the index offences. He was taken into custody by the police and ultimately placed in Brockville and then in the Forensic Assessment Unit at the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre. It is clear that he has experienced a restriction of his liberty. It is also clear that the Hospital had no other options than to act in this manner so as to ensure the safety of the public and also ensure that Mr. Brule’s mental health and other needs were met. The restriction of his liberty was justified and necessary at the time undertaken and represented the least onerous and least restrictive means of ensuring the safety of the public at the time.
Mr. Brule continues to be on the Forensic Assessment Unit at the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre. While he is clinically ready to be transferred to the Forensic Rehabilitation Unit where he will receive a broader range of privileges that will help with his transition back into the community, there is currently a waitlist that may take weeks to months before a bed becomes available for him. In the meantime, the Hospital and he are working to strengthen his insight and therapeutic alliance with the treatment team. They are beginning to put community supports in place and to explore independent living accommodations with necessary supports in that environment. All of this is facilitated by the provisions of the reigning disposition which remains necessary and appropriate under the circumstances. If Mr. Brule were released from the Forensic Assessment Unit even under the auspices of that disposition, he would be homeless, risk further relapse into substance use, cease taking his medications and return to the decompensated state he has been found in over the past number of elopements.
Accordingly, the Board concludes that the restriction of Mr. Brule’s liberty remains justified and necessary and is the least onerous and least restrictive option available to the Hospital at this time.
The Board thanks all who have assisted with this hearing and commends Mr. Brule on the recent progress made. It expresses its encouragement to him to continue this course through to his next annual review.
DATED this 27th day of May 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
D. Sandor Legal Member
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board