Re: Kevin Nolan
ORB File No: 7629
Hearing held on: Tuesday, July 8, 2025
Place of hearing: Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. P. Capelle Members: Dr. R. Kunjukrishnan Dr. W. Loza Mr. D. D’Intino Ms. N. Lemieux-McKinnon
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Kevin Nolan Counsel: Ms. K. Robins
The person in charge of hospital: Representative: Dr. A. Alabi
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. M. Dufort
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated August 20, 2025)
Introduction
On November 1, 2019, the accused, Kevin Nolan, who was 51 years of age at the time of the hearing, was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder with respect to two charges of assault and a charge of assault causing bodily harm, all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada. Mr. Nolan is currently subject to a Detention Order Disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated June 20, 2024, which includes conditions and privileges up to residing in the community in accommodation approved by the person in charge.
On July 8, 2025, a panel of the Ontario Review Board (ORB) convened in person and a hearing was held at the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre (ROMHC). The purpose of the hearing was to determine if Mr. Nolan represents a significant threat to the safety of the public as defined in the Criminal Code of Canada, and if so, the necessary and appropriate disposition.
For the reasons set out below, the Board unanimously finds that Mr. Nolan continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate disposition to manage that risk while meeting his needs is a continuation of his existing Detention Order Disposition, with no changes to its terms and conditions.
Current Psychiatric Diagnoses
Huntington's Disease associated with Neurocognitive decline that is presently moderately severe.
Obsessive Compulsive Disorder.
Depressive Disorder in partial remission
Index Offences
- The nature of the allegations giving rise to the charges on the index offences is described in last year’s Reasons for Disposition as follows:
“On March 30, 2019, while a patient at the Civic Campus of the Ottawa Hospital, Mr. Nolan punched the nurse, who was attempting to give him his medication, in the face with his closed fist.
On July 10, 2019, while still a patient at the Ottawa Hospital – Civic Campus, Mr. Nolan spoke with his assigned security guard, Ryan Paquette about the uncleanliness of a washroom that Mr. Nolan was trying to use. Mr. Paquette tried to speak with Mr. Nolan’s nurse but was told this could not happen right away due to other patients’ requirements. Unprovoked, Mr. Nolan then lunged at Mr. Paquette who was seated and began to strike Mr. Paquette on the head and shoulder. He also ripped out a patch of the victim’s hair, using his teeth.
On August 31, 2019, Mr. Nolan remained a patient on the psychiatric ward at the Ottawa Hospital – Civic Campus. He attacked a security guard by punching him in the left eye and in the area of the chest. He also scratched him on the left side of his neck and then bit his left forearm, refusing to let go for at least 20 seconds.”
Without Prejudice Position of the Parties
At the commencement of the hearing, the parties were canvassed for their initial positions.
Counsel for the Hospital took the position that the necessary and appropriate disposition was continuation of the existing Detention Order with no changes to the conditions.
Counsel for the Attorney General supported the Hospital’s position.
Counsel for the accused joined the other parties in their positions, and thus the Panel had a joint recommendation submitted for its consideration which was maintained at the conclusion of the hearing.
Evidence at the Hearing
The Board had available to it the evidence and documents forming the Record, the Exhibits, and oral evidence from Dr. Alabi.
Dr. Alabi testified by way of an update to the Hospital Report that in the past reporting year that have been a significant number of “Code White” incidents where Mr. Nolan has become agitated and aggressive, and two of those incidents required periods of continuous observation of Mr. Nolan until he was able to settle.
On the morning of the ORB Hearing, Mr. Nolan was suffering from the delusion that he was dead, causing him to become agitated and then aggressive with staff. Unfortunately, Mr. Nolan’s presentation required the use of 4-point mechanical restraints and when he was unable to follow directions and settle down, chemical restraints were applied. Dr. Alabi believes that Mr. Nolan’s ability to attend and participate in the ORB hearing was likely due to the effectiveness of the chemical restraint.
In response to questions from the counsel for the Attorney General, Dr. Alabi confirmed that conversations are ongoing about where Mr. Nolan could be best placed, should he be discharged to live in the community. The challenge at present is that Mr. Nolan likely requires the support of a long-term care home, but such a place would not be able to accommodate a patient that the displays the level of aggression that Mr. Nolan does. The team continues to search for a bespoke service that could meet all of Mr. Nolan’s needs in the community, but such has not been identified as of yet.
Dr. Alabi confirmed that he interpreted the Disposition conditions as permitting Mr. Nolan to live in the community of Eastern Ontario. Dr. Alabi testified that this geographic boundary has not been limiting in their search for appropriate housing, and while that boundary could be extended, Mr. Nolan’s father wishes for his son to be residing as close to him as possible.
Dr. Alabi also testified that Mr. Nolan’s medications have been reviewed and adjusted on a number of occasions and recently the treatment team has decided to administer benzodiazepines to him regularly instead of as needed, and while there have been some improvements in his presentation as a result, mental status stability has not yet been observed.
In response to questions from Ms. Robins, Dr. Alabi agreed that Mr. Nolan’s behavioural challenges are a consequence of the degenerative nature of his illnesses and not because of non-compliance with the treatment plan by Mr. Nolan.
In response to questions from the Panel, Dr. Alabi testified that Mr. Nolan remains a significant threat to the safety of the public because, despite living in a highly structured and secure environment and being medication compliant, on account of the degenerative nature of his illnesses, Mr. Nolan is prone to such agitation and aggression that he requires mechanical and often chemical restraints to settle.
Analysis and Conclusions
Having heard and considered the entirety of the evidence as well as the submissions from the parties, the Board finds that Mr. Nolan remains a significant threat to the safety of the public and therefore a continuation of the existing Detention Order Disposition is both necessary and appropriate.
Ongoing significant threat to the safety of the public cannot be speculative. It must entail a real risk of serious physical or psychological harm arising from conduct that is both serious and criminal in nature.
In determining whether Kevin Nolan continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public the Board has carefully analyzed the evidence as it relates to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Winko, 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625.
Mr. Nolan suffers from Huntington's Disease associated with Neurocognitive decline that is presently moderately severe, as well as obsessive compulsive disorder and depressive disorder in partial remission. The degenerative nature of the Huntington’s Disease is significantly contributing to his agitation and aggression in Hospital, which often escalates to the point of mechanical and chemical restraints being needed.
Due to his mental and physical state, Mr. Nolan will likely require a highly supportive long term care placement which can also respond to his behavioural challenges, and at present such a placement has not been found.
Based on the totality of the evidence before it, notwithstanding the joint recommendation of the parties, the Panel finds that absent a Detention Order Disposition, Mr. Nolan would cease his engagement with Hospital programming, become medication non-adherent and would almost certainly become violent toward others, posing an even greater threat to the safety of the public than he poses now, under highly secure and structured conditions.
In 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 Mr. Nolan, his reintegration into society and his other needs, the necessary and appropriate Disposition is continuation of the existing Detention Order Disposition with the no changes to its terms and conditions.
DATED this 20^th^ day of August 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Mr. D. D’Intino Legal Member
__________________
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board