Re Nico Euteneier, 2025 CanLII 86841

Ontario Review Board

Re: Nico Euteneier

ORB File No: 8106

Hearing held on: Thursday, July 24, 2025

Place of Hearing: Brockville Mental Health Centre

Pursuant to: Section 672.82(1) of the Criminal Code

Before:

Alternate Chairperson: Mr. M. Segal

Members: Dr. W. Johnston Dr. G. Stones Ms. N. Nathanson Mr. A. Mete

Parties Appearing:

Accused: Nico Euteneier

Counsel: Mr. J. Morency

Person in charge of hospital: Representative: Dr. A. Alabi

Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. M. Dufort

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated August 26, 2025)

Introduction

1. On July 4, 2022, Nico Euteneier was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (“NCR”), on a charge of Assault, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada.

2. Mr. Euteneier is currently subject to the terms and conditions of a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (“ORB” or the “Board”) dated August 30, 2024. The Disposition detained Mr. Euteneier at the Forensic Services of the Brockville Mental Health Centre, (the “Hospital”) in Brockville, with privileges up to and including community living in accommodation approved by the Person-in-Charge.

3. By letter dated April 11, 2025 (exhibit 3), Mr. Morency requested an early hearing for a determination on Mr. Euteneier’s request to be transferred from the Brockville Mental Health Centre to the Royal Ottawa Hospital. By letter dated May 8, 2025, Dr. J. Gojer of the Royal Ottawa Hospital indicated that the Royal Ottawa did not support the transfer (exhibit 3).

4. After hearing from the parties, the Board notified them by letter on May 20, 2025, that it would exercise its discretion to convene a hearing on the request for transfer, pursuant to Rule 13 of the Ontario Review Board’s Rules of Procedure.

5. On July 24, 2025, this panel of the Board convened a hearing at Brockville Mental Health Centre. Given that the last annual hearing was August 12, 2024, on consent of the parties, the Board determined that this hearing would also serve as Mr. Euteneier’s annual hearing.

Issues

6. The issues for the Board to decide were whether Mr. Euteneier should be transferred to the Royal Ottawa Hospital and whether Mr. Euteneier is a significant threat to the safety of the public and, if so, the necessary and appropriate disposition for the coming year based on the factors in 672.54 of the Criminal Code.

Positions of the Parties

7. The hospital’s position was that a Detention Order was the necessary and appropriate disposition for the coming year. The hospital was open to permitting Mr. Euteneier unrestricted contact with his mother, Anita Barack and his sister, Maggie Euteneier. On the transfer request, the Hospital indicated that it took no strong position.

8. Counsel for the Ministry of the Attorney General indicated that it was tentatively aligned with the hospital subject to her questions.

9. Mr. Morency, on behalf of Mr. Euteneier, sought a transfer to the Royal Ottawa Hospital and sought a conditional discharge.

Index Offence

10. The circumstances of the assault on Mr. Euteneier’s mother are as follows:

Nico EUTENEIER on February 9, 2022, at 13:30 hours at the City of Ottawa while being a passenger in a vehicle that was driven by his mother the victim, assaulted her by applying a choke hold around her neck to render her unconscious in an attempt to gain control of the vehicle that she was driving. The victim was able to bring her vehicle to a full stop by parking it in a parking lot space while being choked, fought off the attack and was able to escape the vehicle with her keys. As a result of the unprovoked attack the victim suffered the following injuries: bruises around her neck and shoulder areas. The victim at the time of the incident was assessed by Ottawa Paramedics at the scene for non-life-threatening injury.

On February 10, 2022, Constable Holder concluded his investigation and charged the accused, Nico EUTENEIER with assault at 15:30 hours. The accused Nico EUTENEIER was provided with rights to counsel, caution and a 524 caution warning which he understood. The accused, Nico EUTENEIER who is schedule to attend court on March 23, 2022, was later released on an undertaking / promise to appear with the following conditions: NOT TO COMMUNICATE WITH THE VICTIM DIRECTLY, INDIRECTLY OR VIA A THIRD PARTY AND NOT ATTEND 415 GREENVIEW AVENUE UNIT 504. (Hospital Report, pages 15-16)

Current Psychiatric Diagnosis

11. • Schizophrenia

• Cannabis Use Disorder

Criminal History

12. The CPIC record was made exhibit 2 at the hearing. It sets out the following:

2021-07-02(Ottawa)

Assault cause bodily harm - 60 days & 2 years probation

2021-07-02 (Ottawa)

(1) Assault cause bodily harm - 60 days (137 days pre-sentence custody) & 2 years’ probation

(2) Assault with a weapon - 60 days concurrent & 2 years’ probation

(3) Forcible Confinement - 60 days concurrent & 2 years probation

2021-08-10 (Gatineau) s. 145(3)(b)

Fail to comply with appearance notice/summons - 250.00 fine & 1-year probation

2022-07-04 (Ottawa)

Uttering Threats - Suspended sentence and 1 year probation (60 days pre-sentence)

13. The Hospital Report indicates that the assault cause bodily harm, assault with a weapon and forcible confinement convictions involved assaulting his mother and sister, causing a head injury to one of them using a toilet seat. He approached them with knives during the incident. The other assault cause bodily harm conviction relates to an incident in which Mr. Euteneier repeatedly punched Dr. Campbell during an assessment. The utter threat conviction relates to his father. (Hospital Report, p. 5 and Reasons, September 24, 2024, para. 8)

Substance Use History

14. Mr. Euteneier began smoking cannabis at age 14. He has previously reported several problems from cannabis use, including paranoid thinking, intolerance, withdrawal, and interference with his general functioning. (Reasons for Disposition, September 24, 2024, para. 10).

Psychiatric History

15. Mr. Euteneier’s background and psychiatric history are documented in the Hospital Report which was made an exhibit (exhibit 1) in this hearing. As a result, it is not necessary to fully outline the details. However, the following information from last year’s decision and the Hospital Report provide important context.

16. Mr. Euteneier is 34 years old. He reported that his mental illness developed at age 22 involving paranoid thinking and hearing voices, thinking people were going to harm him and were controlling his mind. He was smoking a lot of cannabis at that time. (Hospital Report, p. 5)

17. In 2013, at age 22, he was admitted to hospital having stabbed himself in the chest with a knife. In 2015, he claimed his friend had tried to kill him and that the friend and his friend’s mother had raped him. Mr. Euteneier also felt the need to protect himself from his sister and his mother. He had collected knives and an axe at his house~~.~~ (Hospital Report, page 6).

18. Between 2012 and 2020, he had several psychiatric admissions to various hospitals. He was treated in the community by Dr. Martin Campbell from February 2020 until 2021, when he was arrested for assaulting Dr. Campbell. Mr. Euteneier reported being upset with the doctor for insisting he take the injectable form of Risperidone. (Hospital Report, pages 5-6).

19. Family members reported verbal and physical abuse and serious concerns about possession of weapons, including knives and an axe. (Hospital Report, pages 7-8, 10-11).

20. In 2021, while in custody, Mr. Euteneier was spitting at correctional officers, believing that Hells Angels were after him. He self-induced vomiting to avoid oral medication, Risperidone. (Hospital Report, p. 9).

21. In December 2021, while in hospital, Mr. Euteneier reported having bought a large quantity of cannabis a few days prior. (Reasons for Disposition, September 24, 2024, para. 17)

22. Mr. Euteneier’s mother reported her son’s long history of repeated, aggressive behavior and her safety concerns, then later contradicted herself, apparently minimizing his past violence~~.~~ (Hospital Report, Page 11). Mr. Euteneier’s father has indicated that he has concerns about incessant and unwanted contact with his son. (Hospital Report, p. 42).

23. Following the August 2024 ORB hearing, there were concerns about medication noncompliance (oral risperidone). At the October 3, 2024 case conference, the treatment team negotiated for Mr. Euteneier to take injectable risperidone and an increase in privileges. There was a short period of improvement. By November 7, he was confined to the unit due to confrontational and argumentative conduct. He was seen talking to himself and objected to the type of risperidone he was given. Indirect ground privileges were suspended on November 29, 2024, due to paranoid behavior. He alleged he was punched by a co-patient. Upon review of the incident, Mr. Euteneier’s privileges were reduced. On December 28, 2024, he tested positive for cannabis and his privileges were suspended on December 31, for various infractions. By January 9, 2025, Mr. Euteneier was observed to have decompensated over the past few weeks. He was delusional, oppositional and demonstrated poor insight. He indicated that voices had directed him to smoke cannabis so a co-patient would not attack him~~.~~ (Hospital Report, page 41). Due to escalating incidences, Mr. Euteneier was transferred to another unit from January 10-17, 2025. In his February 13 case conference, Mr. Euteneir’s progress was deemed to be minimal, however closely supervised grounds privileges were permitted. At the case conference on May 16, 2025, the team reviewed the consequences that were to be put in place for rule violations and disposition violations. On May 25, 2025, he consumed alcohol.

24. A reward-based intervention system was implemented in late 2024 in an effort to address Mr. Euteneier’s rule-breaking and verbal aggression, both of which had become significant. While the program has not yet reduced Mr. Euteneier’s rule breaking (mostly food-related), it has been somewhat effective in reducing incidences of verbal aggression. (Hospital report, p. 45 and evidence of Dr. Alabi).

25. A risk assessment was conducted using the HCR-20, version 3. Mr. Euteneier’s risk of future violence was deemed to be moderate to high.

Evidence at the Hearing

26. Dr. Alabi testified at the hearing. He is Mr. Euteneier’s attending psychiatrist and the author of the Hospital report. Dr. Alabi is uncertain if Mr. Euteneier’s psychosis is still active but from time to time he decompensates and if he has an opportunity to use drugs or alcohol, he takes it. Dr. Alabi noted that these substances are destabilizers for Mr. Euteneier. There have been about 50 incidents of rule violations. Mr. Euteneier would need to demonstrate a significant reduction of aggression in hospital and while exercising community and hospital grounds privileges without using substances for a conditional discharge to be appropriate. In responding to questions from Ms. Dufort, Dr. Alabi indicated that a conditional discharge is not appropriate as the hospital would need daily oversight of Mr. Euteneier’s living circumstances. Dr. Alabi stated that Mr. Euteneier struggles to maintain independence and he returns to using drugs and aggressive behavior. An assessment could be done, if he improves.

27. Dr. Alabi noted that Mr. Euteneier is not optimized in terms of psychopharmacological treatment. Dr. Alabi would like Mr. Euteneier to agree to a trial of clozapine, but he will not consent, nor will he agree to the required blood work.

28. In terms of contact with his family, Dr. Alabi indicated that the mother and sister have permitted contact and there has been regular telephone contact with them over the past year with no concerns. Mr. Euteneier had a supervised visit with his mother in May that went well. This was their first visit in three years. At the time of the writing of the report, the hospital was uncertain of the father’s position regarding contact (Hospital Report, p. 41 and 50). Dr. Alabi stated that he believed the father wanted “some sort of relationship with his son.” Efforts by the social worker to contact the father were not successful. In any event, it is Dr. Alabi’s understanding that the accused does not want contact with his father.

29. In responding to questions from the Board, Dr. Alabi stated that Mr. Euteneier has a treatment resistant illness. If he stops taking his medication, he will deteriorate and the risks are elevated by peer influences.

Final Submissions

30. The hospital made no further submissions.

31. Counsel for the Ministry of the Attorney General submitted that Mr. Euteneier represents a significant threat to public safety with a need for the hospital oversight in order to act quickly upon decompensation and to approve any housing. On the issue of contact with the family, Counsel submitted that the written, revocable consent provision should remain as is.

32. Mr. Morency submitted that Mr. Euteneier is seeking a conditional discharge. He submits that Mr. Euteneier has been improving. When asked by the Board about his plan for housing, Mr. Morency submitted that Mr. Euteneier has funds and that he plans to get an apartment.

33. Mr. Morency submitted that Mr. Euteneier should be permitted unrestricted contact with his mother and sister as that would be the least onerous and least restrictive disposition.

34. On the issue of the Rule 13 request to transfer to the Royal Ottawa Hospital, Mr. Morency stated that the Royal Ottawa can do the same for Mr. Euteneier as Brockville. Mr. Morency submitted that Mr. Euteneier was originally placed in Brockville to keep him away from his family, however, if there are plans to reintegrate him into the community, it should be in Ottawa, rather than Brockville, where the accused has no connections.

Findings of the Board

35. The Board finds that Mr. Euteneier is a significant threat to the safety of the public and the necessary and appropriate disposition for the coming year is a Detention Order. Further, the Board finds that the evidence does not support a transfer to the Royal Ottawa Hospital.

36. Mr. Euteneier’s has experienced a number of setbacks this year. He has had periods of decompensation. He has had a number of occasions where his privileges have been suspended due to his conduct including taking substances and alcohol. While the reward system has had some positive effect on Mr. Euteneier’s rule violations, it has not reduced his aggressive conduct, which is a significant concern in light of his risk for future violence, his limited insight into the need for medication, and the fact that he resorts to substances when opportunities arise. The Board finds that the evidence does not support the idea that risk can be managed without very significant oversight by the hospital. Accordingly, a conditional discharge is not appropriate.

37. The Board is not of the view that a transfer to the Royal Ottawa Hospital would be appropriate. There was no evidence to suggest that a change of hospital would improve Mr. Euteneier’s treatment response or conduct. There has been some modest progress with the reward system, his treatment team have been working with him and in the Board’s view a stable situation is warranted, rather than a change. The Board also notes the Royal Ottawa Hospital’s letter indicating that it does not support the transfer. Mr. Euteneier has a treatment resistant illness, and his medication is not optimized. A pharmacological consultation may be advantageous for him.

38. The Board is of the view that the contact clause with family, as it is currently set out, is necessary and appropriate. Mr. Euteneier can have contact with his mother, sister and father, as long as they agree to have contact with him. To protect them, if the situation deteriorates, they can revoke their consent. The Board finds this is necessary and appropriate based on the index offence, Mr. Euteneier’s risk for future violence, and the fact these are early days in their reconciliation against a history of violence directed at family members.

39. For these reasons, taking into account the paramount consideration of public safety while balancing Mr. Euteneier’s mental condition, his reintegration and other needs, the Board unanimously finds that a detention order on the same terms is required for the coming year.

DATED this 26th day of August, 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.

Ms. N. Nathanson

Legal Member

__________________

Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board