Re: Nicholas Jansen, 2025 CanLII 59127

Ontario Review Board

Re: Nicholas Jansen

ORB File No: 6008

Hearing held on: Monday, May 12, 2025

Place of Hearing: Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care, St. Thomas

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

Before: Alternate Chairperson: Mr. G. Beasley Members: Dr. R. Chandrasena, Dr. S. Wiseman, Mr. E. Siebenmorgen, Ms. M. McKinnon

Parties Appearing: Accused: Nicholas Jansen Counsel: Mr. D. Northcott

The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. J. Zamprogna

Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. D. Rows

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION (Dated June 20, 2025)

Introduction

1On November 24, 2011, Nicholas Jansen, now 41 years old, was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCR) on a charge of criminal harassment, contrary to the Criminal Code. Mr. Jansen was most recently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (“ORB” or “the Board”) dated May 24, 2024, detaining him at the Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care (“Southwest Centre” or “the Hospital”) with privileges up to and including living in the community of Southwestern Ontario, in approved accommodation.

2On Monday, May 12, 2025, a panel of the Board convened in person at the Southwest Centre to conduct a review of the Disposition pursuant to s. 672.81 (1) of the Criminal Code and to make a new Disposition. Mr. Jansen was present and represented by his counsel, Mr. Northcott, who appeared via videoconference. The issues at the hearing were whether Mr. Jansen represents a significant threat to the safety of the public within the meaning of s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code, and if so, the determination of the necessary and appropriate Disposition that is the least onerous and least restrictive, having regard to the criteria in s. 672.54 of the Code.

Positions of the Parties

3At the start of the hearing, the parties were asked to provide their initial and tentative positions. Counsel for the Hospital, supported by counsel for the Attorney General, submitted that the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a continuation of the Detention Order with one small amendment to remove the reference to staff-escorted privileges, as the Hospital is not able to provide that level of supervision.

4Counsel for Mr. Jansen advised that his client was seeking a Conditional Discharge. Counsel expressly conceded the “significant threat” issue and wished to explore a potential transfer to another hospital.

5The parties maintained their respective positions at the conclusion of the evidence.

Evidence at the Hearing

6The evidence at the hearing consisted of the Hospital Report, dated March 27, 2025, the oral evidence of Dr. A. Ardani, Mr. Jansen’s attending psychiatrist, and the oral evidence of Mr. Jansen.

Findings

7For the Reasons that follow, the panel found that Mr. Jansen represents a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a continuation of the Detention Order in accordance with its existing terms and conditions, with the amendment suggested by the Hospital.

Index Offence

8The circumstances surrounding the index offence are somewhat complex. They are detailed in the Hospital Report, at pp. 2-4, and Mr. Jansen’s self-report, which is also instructive, is reproduced at pp. 4-6. Essentially, from late 2010 to July of 2011, Mr. Jansen engaged in multiple forms of harassing communications, taking the form of telephone calls, voice messages, emails, letters and text messages. The communications were initially directed to a particular female employee at CTV News in Kitchener. Mr. Jansen was convicted of criminal harassment in February of 2011, received a 30-day jail sentence and was placed on probation for the maximum term of three years. A term of that probation order directed him not to communicate with a named CTV employee.

9After his release from custody, Mr. Jansen continued to send communications to the CTV station. In May of 2011, he was charged with criminal harassment again, along with breach of probation, and was released on a recognizance. He was ordered to refrain from all communication or contact with the CTV personnel. In June, he was charged with breaching that recognizance as he continued to attempt to send communications to the local CTV station.

10Constable Zuliani of the Waterloo Regional Police Service was the victim of the index offence itself. She was involved in the investigation of the initial criminal harassment complaint involving the CTV employee and became incorporated into Mr. Jansen’s erotomanic delusions thinking that several particular women were involved in intimate relationships with him.

11Beginning in February of 2011, Mr. Jansen sent repeated text messages, email messages and letters to Constable Zuliani, none of which she answered. He also phoned her on her work cell phone. He continued to do so despite warnings by other members of the police service. Between July 11 and 12, 2011, he sent a “barrage” of 23 text messages, described as having bizarre content, to Constable Zuliani. These repeated communications, despite warnings, caused the constable to fear for her safety. After further incidents of attempted communications, Mr. Jansen was arrested and charged with criminal harassment of Constable Zuliani on July 18.

12Prior to being found NCR, Mr. Jansen attempted suicide on August 5, 2011 while in custody at Maplehurst Correctional Complex, and was admitted to North Bay Regional Health Centre on October 24, 2011 for his NCR assessment. There, Mr. Jansen continued to send letters to the objects of his erotomanic delusions, including a sexually explicit letter to another female police officer that contained a marriage proposal. This information is described in detail in the Hospital Report (pp. 16-21).

Current Diagnoses

13Mr. Jansen’s current diagnoses are:

(i) unspecified schizophrenia and other psychotic disorder (query schizoaffective vs. delusional disorder with affective components);

(ii) personality disorder – narcissistic and antisocial traits;

(iii) alcohol use disorder, in sustained remission; and

(iv) cannabis use disorder, in sustained remission.

These diagnoses were the subject of comment and explanation in Dr. Ardani’s evidence.

Background Information

14The Hospital Report contains considerable information concerning Mr. Jansen’s personal background, criminal history, and psychiatric engagement prior to the commission of the index offence. This information is in evidence, as the Hospital Report is an Exhibit at the hearing. It is unnecessary, for the purpose of these Reasons, to review that information in detail. Several highlights will suffice.

15Mr. Jansen is the eldest of three siblings and was raised on the family farm near Woodstock. He finished high school and enrolled in a machinist program at college but dropped out after one year. He was gainfully employed, including as a mechanic.

16Mr. Jansen began drinking alcohol at an early age. In 2002, he was convicted of having care and control of a vehicle while impaired. Mr. Jansen also used marijuana from age 16-17, including four to five “joints” daily from ages 21 to 24. He had many other criminal convictions, about 15 in number, and other charges over the years were withdrawn. Mr. Jansen’s convictions include driving while disqualified (x2); assault and assault resisting arrest; being unlawfully at large (x2); and failure to attend/comply with recognizance (x5). He reported that he had been drinking during the incidents leading to two of his assault convictions in 2005.

17Mr. Jansen had four psychiatric admissions, including one related to addiction, prior to the index offences.

18After being found NCR, Mr. Jansen was detained at Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care (“Waypoint”) from January 12-October 26, 2012, when he was transferred to Brockville Mental Health Centre. While at Brockville, Mr. Jansen discontinued medication and suffered serious deterioration. He assaulted an acutely ill co-patient and then charged at his psychiatrist, and OPP were required to effect his seclusion. He was then returned to Waypoint on May 15, 2014. He remained at Waypoint until his transfer to the Southwest Centre on October 9, 2019. He has remained at the Southwest Centre since then.

19Mr. Jansen remained untreated for some four years while at Waypoint, as a result of reviews and appeals of findings of treatment incapacity. On October 26, 2018, Mr. Jansen received his first injection of antipsychotic medication. During the four years that he was untreated, Mr. Jansen continued to exhibit active symptoms of psychosis and delusional beliefs, along with patterns of violent behaviour often resulting in seclusion. Since he started pharmacological treatment, his mental status improved quickly, and he was described as more engaged and cooperative with the treatment team. Since starting treatment, he reintegrated into the ward milieu with no management issues after almost nine months in seclusion and did not require any periods of seclusion for the remaining reporting period at Waypoint.

20Mr. Jansen remained an inpatient at Southwest Centre until December of 2021, when he began a leave of absence at a supervised group home in London. He was formally discharged to the care of the Forensic Outreach Team in February of 2022.

21The review of Mr. Jansen’s first year of community living included the following observations concerning changes to his grandiose expressions (Hospital Report, p. 208):

“Mr. Jansen's grandiosity continued to include a perception of superior intellect, knowledge, experience, and capability compared to most people. He denied having any of the extensive delusional beliefs he held in the past, such as having been married many times, having children, serving in the military/armed forces, attending many universities, and obtaining many degrees in law, nursing, psychology, etc. However, he continued to represent himself as having done extensive research into psychiatric conditions, neurotransmitters, “social affectations,” and neuropsychology and writing numerous papers on these subjects. As a patient in the forensic system, he expressed the belief that he has accumulated real-life information and insight into various aspects of the psychology of the mind, the treatment of patients, and the working of the forensic hospital, which he has utilized in his research.”

22On February 1, 2024, Mr. Jansen transitioned into independent housing in St. Thomas with ongoing support from the Forensic Supportive Housing Program (FSHP). The Hospital Report (p. 260) notes that he had been applying to different rental accommodations since mid-2023 but was repeatedly rejected due to his large outstanding debts, rendering him a poor credit risk. Due to Mr. Jansen’s financial instability, members of his outreach team made an agreement that if he failed to pay three months of his rent, he would be returned to the hospital and FSHP may not continue to pay the rent on his behalf.

23Mr. Jansen used cannabis within a week of moving into his independent apartment, and as a result, his treatment team started obtaining more frequent urine samples. In May and June of 2024, he demonstrated symptoms that seemed consistent with elevated mood/mania. In July, he missed an appointment with outreach staff.

24On August 28, 2024, Mr. Jansen agreed that he was having financial difficulties. He indicated he was having struggles accessing his bank accounts which was affecting his ability to pay rent. Given this, he stated he wanted to go under the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT) on a voluntary basis and was provided with education about this process. During this interaction, Mr. Jansen’s speech was noted to be fast in rate when discussing stressful topics such as finances, but he was able to be interrupted. Two days later, on August 30, he missed an outreach team appointment, and it was later learned that he had gone to London to visit family instead, without notifying the team.

25On September 3, 2024, the outreach team learned that Mr. Jansen had not paid his rent in four months and was about to be evicted. He agreed to a suggestion by staff that he return to the Hospital so that staff could support him with stabilizing his finances. He also agreed to further assessment and was escorted by staff to the Hospital. He explained that his hobby of investing in cryptocurrency had led to his inability to pay his rent.

26Mr. Jansen was formally admitted to the Hospital on September 3, 2024, following further assessment. Concerning this, the Hospital Report states:

“After further assessments were completed and his request for support via an inpatient setting, the inpatient treatment team opined that Mr. Jansen was at a future risk of decompensation and required closer treatment and intervention. It was further opined that his self-reported episodes of disrupted sleep, improved mood, lack of transparency and poor decision making (around his finances and community passes) signified decompensation. Moreover, his presentation may have been attributed to early signs of a bipolar mood episode (grandiosity and impulsive decision making, leading to behavioural, cognitive, and financial instability). For instance, he continued to self-aggrandize his abilities and knowledge with respect to crypto currency whilst making poor financial decisions, possibly highlighting grandiosity and further solidifying suspicion for an affective disorder. Due to the above reasons, Mr. Jansen was readmitted to the Southwest Centre Rehabilitation Unit B1 on September 3, 2024.”

27Mr. Jansen’s readmission prompted an increased liberty restriction (ROL) hearing, which occurred on November 20, 2024. The Board found that the increased restriction on Mr. Jansen’s liberty was warranted in the circumstances.

28Since returning to the Hospital, Mr. Jansen has reportedly displayed features of behavioural and cognitive instability, which could be attributed to either traits of his personality disorder or an affective component of a mental disorder. Although he has been largely cooperative with the team and ongoing assessments, he has had some issues with rule adherence. Despite medication changes, there was no noted improvement in his mental status as of the writing of the March 27th Hospital Report.

29Following his return to the Hospital, Mr. Jansen cooperated in a financial capacity assessment and agreed to a determination that he was financially incapable.

Evidence at the Hearing

30Dr. Ardani testified at the hearing to supplement the evidence contained in the Hospital Report. He has been Mr. Jansen’s attending psychiatrist since his return to the Hospital.

31Dr. Ardani first addressed Mr. Jansen’s recent diagnostic issues. He said that after the last annual ORB hearing, Mr. Jansen experienced periods of elevated mood and then lowered mood. He advised Dr. Ardani that he had previously been diagnosed with schizophrenia. Dr. Ardani said that he was not currently confident as to the diagnosis, stating that it could be a mood disorder plus a delusional disorder. He noted that the relapse risk for a mood disorder tends to be high.

32Dr. Ardani reviewed Mr. Jansen’s historical presentations, noting that he had demonstrated symptoms of delusional disorder (with grandiosity) along with breakthrough features with mood elements. In addition, there was a mood component prior to the index offence. Mr. Jansen’s presentation during the last reporting year was similar to those historical symptoms. Also, Dr. Ardani pointed out that Mr. Jansen’s narcissistic personality traits, similar to grandiosity, can sometimes show as part of a delusional disorder.

33Dr. Ardani discussed Mr. Jansen’s current medications, referring to the list at p. 296 of the Hospital Report. He also updated the panel by advising that as of May 8, 2024, he had reached the maximum dosage of Lamotrigine (an anti-depressant). It was not yet certain what result this medication change would have. There were also other recent medication changes, and more time was needed to determine whether these would reduce Mr. Jansen’s symptoms to the point of remission. It was therefore premature to say that his medications are optimized. Later, in response to a question from Mr. Jansen’s counsel, Dr. Ardani said that so far, there is no indication that the medication changes have worsened his condition. Indeed, he has appeared brighter and more engaged.

34Dr. Ardani could not say that Mr. Jansen (who is capable of making treatment decisions), who has been medication-adherent in hospital, would remain adherent in the community. It is important to supervise both his adherence and his response to medication in the community.

35Dr. Ardani addressed the statements in the Hospital Report that Mr. Jansen’s substance use disorders are both classified as being in sustained remission, explaining that he has been abstinent from alcohol since 2023 and from cannabis since 2024. As he has maintained abstinence for over one year in each case, he is considered in sustained remission. He agreed that substance use is a destabilizing factor for Mr. Jansen, and while he did not have information as to such use during the period of the index offence, he was aware of cannabis use at the time that Mr. Jansen was sending harassing letters to a mayor on an earlier occasion (Hospital Report, p. 13).

36Dr. Ardani noted that there is an association for Mr. Jansen between periods of stress and his use of substances, citing the recent example of the consumption of cannabis as a self-reported result of the stress of his transition to independent living in February of 2024.

37The issue of a possible gambling addiction was also raised. Dr. Ardani saw this as more of an online hobby for Mr. Jansen currently, as his access to funds is now controlled by the external supervision provided by the PGT.

38Dr. Ardani addressed the issue of managing Mr. Jansen in the context of a Conditional Discharge. He stated, first, that Mr. Jansen does not yet have the ability to identify symptoms of his mental illness upon their re-emergence, as he tends to attribute his symptoms to features of his personality. This lack of recognition predisposes him to more deterioration of his condition. Dr. Ardani did not believe that Mr. Jansen would approach the treatment team for help with his symptoms and has developed the ability to mask them to some extent. Dr. Ardani noted that Mr. Jansen is not yet very forthcoming with the team, citing the circumstances surrounding his non-payment of rent for his apartment. The team was unaware of this until Mr. Jansen was essentially being evicted.

39Dr. Ardani testified that the Hospital requires the ability to approve Mr. Jansen’s accommodation. He had no place to live in the community at the time of the hearing. The outreach team was actively seeking an appropriate setting for him that would not be in a setting characterized by substance use and criminality. For the time being, the treatment team was seeking a group home setting that provided supervision.

40Dr. Ardani also expressed the view that the Mental Health Act would not be sufficient as a mechanism for protecting the public, noting that the Act does not authorize certifying a person for presenting a risk of harassing behaviour.

41In response to questions from counsel for Mr. Jansen, Dr. Ardani said that he was unaware of any efforts made by Mr. Jansen to track or monitor the police officer who was the victim of the index offence (Mr. Jansen had expressed the belief that this officer now worked for different police service).

42Dr. Ardani expressed the opinion, in response to counsel’s question, that a return to substance use could lead to a rapid deterioration for Mr. Jansen. He agreed that, as compared to 10 or 20 years ago, Mr. Jansen’s insight into the risks associated with substance use has improved.

43Dr. Ardani opined, in response to Mr. Jansen’s counsel’s question, that when Mr. Jansen manages his finances himself, that this was a stressor for him. Mr. Jansen knows that he needs the PGT’ involvement, even though he is aware that agreeing to this has entailed giving up some liberty.

44In response to a panel member’s question, Dr. Ardani stated that whether Mr. Jansen would voluntarily return to the Hospital from the community if asked to do so would depend on his mental state. If he were experiencing a psychosis, he would not do so.

45Dr. Ardani confirmed, in response to another panel member’s question, that medication optimization is not a barrier to discharging Mr. Jansen back to the community. He would, however, require supervision.

46Mr. Jansen gave evidence on his own behalf. At the outset, he agreed with the Hospital’s assessment of his insight into his condition. He believes that he possesses what he referred to as “factual insight”. He stated that what is curious to him is how the affective aspect of his illness comes on faster and believes that there should be a focus on this component.

47Asked how he feels with the recent medication changes, Mr. Jansen said that he thought that it was working: he expressed feeling “less disingenuous” as he was previously quite guarded overall and experienced a lot of social withdrawal. He expressed a belief that Dr. Ardani was making a “concerted effort” to optimize his medication. He believed that he was experiencing a better rapport with the doctor. He wishes to become more comfortable in being forthcoming with the treatment team, but has found the forensic system quite intrusive, citing the hundreds of pages about himself contained in the Hospital Report.

48Mr. Jansen was asked by his counsel about two references in the Hospital Report to comments that were attributed to him over the last reporting period. The first, mentioned at p. 289, included utterances about having severely beaten a man and having murdered a woman. He admitted making these comments and pointed out that he was not charged. He stating that such comments are the nature of his illness. The second comment, at p. 293, concerned his belief as to where the victim of the index offence was now working. He stated that the allegation that he may be monitoring her is answered by pp. 2-4 of the (Hospital Report (which outlines the index offence itself). Mr. Jansen testified that he did not have “this infatuation with her”, that he ”just shut my mouth and took the NCR” and stated that what he did, he did for a purpose, but not one that people would understand.

49In response to his counsel’s invitation to tell the Board what he was seeking, Mr. Jansen said that he would appreciate a hybrid order of a Detention Order followed by a discharge. He said that he would agree to a condition to live in accommodation approved by the Hospital. He said that he was willing to accept treatment even though he did not understand it.

50In response to questions from the Hospital’s counsel, Mr. Jansen stated that he did not wish to be returned by the Hospital’s outreach team, if he needed to be admitted to hospital. Rather, he would prefer to be brought to hospital by police, so that there would be a record of the incident and so that Mr. Jansen would have an opportunity to make a statement.

51Counsel for the Attorney General asked Mr. Jansen whether he saw any need to communicate with the individuals named in the non-contact clause of his Disposition. He said that the only place where he would see any of them would be within the forensic system. He suggested that from a risk management perspective, this clause could be removed to see how he did while still on a Detention Order.

52Mr. Jansen confirmed, in response to a panel member’s question, that he did not have accommodation identified yet. He also was asked to explain his earlier answer about not wishing to be returned to hospital by the treatment team. He explained that if he had to be returned, he would prefer that it would be by the police to a public hospital as distinct from a forensic facility.

53No further evidence was led following Mr. Jansen’s testimony.

Analysis and Conclusions

54Although the “significant threat” issue was not in dispute, the panel found, independently on the evidence, that Mr. Jansen represents a significant threat to the safety of the public.

55First, Mr. Jansen clearly suffers from a major mental illness which, untreated, resulted in psychotic symptoms and contributed to not only the index offence of criminal harassment, but appears to be implicated in a series of other incidents of harassing behaviour over a significant portion of his adult history. This behaviour even continued while Mr. Jansen was hospitalized in a forensic facility pursuant to his NCR assessment order. He has also engaged in physically violent behaviour while untreated under the Board’s jurisdiction, including while detained at the Brockville Mental Health Centre and subsequently, over several years at Waypoint.

56Second, even though Mr. Jansen has been under the Board’s jurisdiction for over 13 years, the precise diagnosis of his major mental illness remains uncertain. In addition, as Dr. Ardani pointed out, his medications continue to be adjusted and cannot be said to be optimized. Mr. Jansen continues to experience residual symptoms of his illness, as was demonstrated over the past reporting year.

57The panel expressly adopts the re-offence scenario articulated at p. 311 of the Hospital Report. The scenario was almost completely reflected in Dr. Ardani’s testimony, which we accept. In addition, the panel finds that the Clinical Assessment of Risk at pp. 312-313 of the Hospital Report provides an excellent explanation of the basis for our finding that the likelihood of Mr. Jansen’s mental status deterioration, followed by the commission of criminal acts, rises to the level of a substantial likelihood in the absence of Board oversight and the consequent care and supervision provided by forensic services. Such criminal acts, based upon their inherent potential for harm, carry the potential for serious physical and/or psychological harm.

58As for the matter of the Disposition, the panel was satisfied that a Detention Order continues to be necessary. While Mr. Jansen would like to be conditionally discharged, there is simply no air of reality to such a Disposition on the evidence. Mr. Jansen may be ready for a return to community living if suitable accommodation can be found for him. On the evidence of Dr. Ardani, which the panel accepts, the Hospital must have the ability to approve Mr. Jansen’s accommodation and, if necessary, return him for the purpose of managing his risk. The need for this authority was amply demonstrated over the past reporting year when Mr. Jansen exhibited mental status changes and subsequently lost his independent apartment due to his non-payment of rent.

59Notably, Mr. Jansen in his own evidence recognized the benefit of the Hospital approving his accommodation in the community. Such a provision, however, is not available in the context of a Conditional Discharge.¹

60Accordingly, the panel concluded that the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a Detention Order containing the same terms and conditions as in the previous Disposition, with the minor change sought by the Hospital.

Footnotes

1. 1Brockville Psychiatric Hospital v. McGillis (1996), 93 O.A.C. 226, 1996 CanLII 1828, at paras. 2-4 (C.A.).