Ontario Review Board
Re: Eryk G. Simard
ORB File No: 7537
Hearing held on: Tuesday, November 18, 2025
Place of Hearing: Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Ms. M. Labrosse
Members: Dr. S. Lessard
Dr. R. Cormier
Mr. P. Hageraats
Mr. A. Bouvier
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Eryk G. Simard
Counsel: Ms. M. Lord
Person in charge of hospital: Representative: Dr. M. Strike
Attorney-General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. M. Dufort
REASONS FOR DECISION
(Dated January 7, 2026)
On May 3, 2019, the accused, Eryk G. Simard, was found not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder on charges of assault with a weapon (x2), assault (x5), mischief – destroys or damages property, interference with person in lawful use of property, resisting or obstructing public or peace officer, causing disturbance in a public place (x2).
Mr. Simard is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated August 19, 2025, which detains him at the Secure Forensic Unit of the hospital with privileges up to and including to live in the community in accommodation approved by the person in charge.
By letter dated October 10, 2025, the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre notified the Ontario Review Board (“ORB”) that Mr. Simard has been admitted to the Forensic Assessment Unit for a period exceeding seven days, thereby constituting a significant increase in the restriction his liberty.
On November 18, 2025, the ORB convened a hearing at the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre, hereinafter referred to as the hospital, to review the restriction of Mr. Simard’s liberty pursuant to s. 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Simard attended the hearing and was represented by his counsel, Mélanie Lord.
The issues before the Board are whether the hospital’s decision to significantly increase the restriction of Mr. Simard’s liberty by readmitting him to hospital September 25, 2025, until he was discharged to the Concurrent Disorders Program of the hospital on November 10, 2025, was reasonable and warranted and represented the least onerous and least restrictive course of action available to the hospital.
At the outset of the hearing the parties were canvassed as to their preliminary positions and the Board was presented with a joint submission that the hospital’s decision to significantly increase the restriction of Mr. Simard’s liberty was necessary and appropriate and represented the least onerous and least restrictive decision to manage the heightened risk presented by Mr. Simard. At the conclusion of the hearing the parties maintained their joint position.
For the reasons set out below, the Board finds that the decision of the hospital to admit Mr. Simard to the Forensic Assessment Unit (“FAU”) of the hospital on September 25, 2025 and to keep him in the FAU until November 10, 2025, was reasonable and warranted and represented the least onerous and least restrictive course of action available to the hospital to deal with the heightened risk caused by Mr. Simard’s serious relapse into drug use and ensuing aggressive conduct.
Current Diagnoses
- Mr. Simard’s current diagnoses are:
Schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type. Multiple episodes, recent episode manic with psychotic features, currently in full remission
Amphetamine, cocaine, alcohol, and cannabis use disorders
Social Anxiety Disorder
Generalized Anxiety Disorder
Other specified feeding or eating disorder – irregular binge eating with compensatory fasting.
- As the only issue before the Board was the restriction of Mr. Simard’s liberty by readmission to hospital, there is no need to repeat the details of the index offences or the background history as this information is contained in the Reasons for Disposition dated September 8, 2025, from Mr. Simard’s last annual hearing before the Board.
Evidence at the Hearing
The hospital’s evidence was presented through its report and through the oral testimony of Dr. Melanie Strike who is Mr. Simard’s attending psychiatrist. This evidence is summarized below.
Mr. Simard was admitted to the Concurrent Disorders Unit of the hospital for a five-week program in August of 2025 and eventually left the program, contrary to the advice of his treatment team, stating that he felt that he had been in hospital for too long and that he did not need a residential treatment program to be able to abstain from using drugs in the community.
Mr. Simard was discharged to the Wymering Manor Group Home on August 18, 2025, with significant supports from his treatment team including his case manager, Sara Ferrante and his addiction’s counsellor, Heather Potter-Gilmour. Mr. Simard also has a social worker, Jean-Michel Frechette, and a nurse practitioner, Heather Sulliman as well as other staff members on his treatment team.
On September 9, 2025, the hospital found out that Mr. Simard was in intensive care at the Ottawa Hospital having consumed between 20 and 30 tablets of amphetamines and indicating his wish to end his life. While in the hospital emergency he consumed an additional l0-20 tablets. There were serious concerns as to whether Mr. Simard would survive this overdose.
After receiving treatment and being stabilized, Mr. Simard was transferred to the psychiatric unit of the Civic Hospital where he remained, voluntarily, for a further period of approximately three weeks. Mr. Simard’s psychiatric condition was stabilized with antipsychotic medication and a progressive titration of Lithium. From the Ottawa Hospital, Mr. Simard was admitted to the FAU of the Royal Ottawa on September 25, 2025, under the Form 49.
Over the course of his admission to the FAU, which lasted until November 10, 2025, Mr. Simard made significant progress to the point where he felt ready to make another attempt at the five-week program of the Concurrent Disorders Unit. He was transferred there as a voluntary patient on November 10, 2025.
Dr. Strike testified that following his overdose on amphetamines, Mr. Simard presented with very aggressive and threatening conduct towards members of his forensic treatment team as he wanted to avoid, at all costs, being transferred back to the Royal for a period of further hospitalization on the FAU. Specifically on the 10th of September, Mr. Simard expressed to another member of the treatment team that he was going to “beat up Dr. Strike the next time I see her”. Since being back to his baseline mental condition, there have been no further threats or aggression, and Mr. Simard expressed great remorse for having made these threats.
By way of update, Dr. Strike stated that in the eight days since he has been transferred to the Concurrent Disorders residential five-week program within the hospital, Mr. Simard has maintained a high level of engagement and is working very well with the members of his treatment team now that he is back to his baseline mental condition. He is not experiencing any residual symptoms and is taking treatment without complaint or any attempts to seeking to reduce it. Moreover, Mr. Simard is exhibiting good insight into his major mental illness and most significantly on the impact of substances on his mental condition and his life in general.
Mr. Simard is demonstrating that he clearly sees the link between his pattern of drug use and the fluctuations in his mental condition and his overall risk factors. Mr. Simard appears to have internalized and is also expressing to members of his treatment team that he understands that he must refrain from all substance use and that it is not possible for him to use from time to time without derailing his life. Mr. Simard is demonstrating a level of insight that has never been seen before from him, and he is demonstrating a level of resolve that he has never demonstrated before. Prior to that Mr. Simard always seemed ambivalent about the need to abstain absolutely from substance use and he has been working very well with his treatment team and in particular with his addiction counsellor, Heather Potter-Gilmour, who has continued to support him through his journey.
The treatment team has been discussing what will happen after the 5-week Concurrent Disorders program, which will end December 12, 2025. Since the summer, Mr. Simard has been on a waitlist for Sobriety House, another four-week treatment program that also has second-stage housing available for the people who complete the residential treatment program. Mr. Simard appears willing to start this program once he completes the Concurrent Disorders program and has remained on that waitlist. He has maintained his spot by calling in once every two weeks, which he has done without fail.
There may be a gap of time between the end of the CD program and the start of the program at Sobriety House. The treatment team is looking at options for the period between both programs. Mr. Simard does not wish to go to one of the hospital’s step-down group homes as there tends to be a lot of drug use involved in these residences and it would not be advisable for him to be exposed to this while waiting for his spot at Sobriety House. Mr. Simard may spend a few days with his parents over the Xmas holidays, but ideally, Dr. Strike stated that it would be best if Sobriety House could make a bed available for Mr. Simard immediately after he completes the Concurrent Disorders Program.
In response to questions posed to her by counsel for the Attorney General, Ms. Dufort, Dr. Strike confirmed that Mr. Simard appears committed to do the four-week residential program at Sobriety House where he has been on the wait list since last summer. Additionally, Dr. Strike confirmed that the hospital has no concerns about Mr. Simard spending a few days with his parents as they are very reliable, are very aware of his situation, and see the importance of him abstaining from substance use.
In response to questions posed to her by counsel for Mr. Simard, Ms. Lord, Dr. Strike confirmed that the main reason for the admission to the Civic Hospital was the extreme use of a drug which almost ended Mr. Simard’s life. As a result of that overdose, Mr. Simard had a number of medical problems due to the amount of amphetamines ingested. This appears to have been a wake-up call for him, not only because he nearly died, but also because he better appreciates the impact of this cycle of drug use on his life.
With respect to the ROL notice provided by the hospital, it appears that a first letter dated October 3rd may not have been sent to the parties. It is also noted that this letter was copied to a lawyer other than Ms. Lord. A second letter was sent to the Board and to Ms. Lord on the 10th of October which Dr. Strike acknowledged was beyond the seven days requirement of the Criminal Code. Dr. Strike stated that the hospital is working to improve its practices and to ensure that these notices are sent out in a timely manner.
No other evidence was presented.
Analysis and Conclusion
Having considered all of the evidence tendered at the hearing and the submissions of the parties, the Board finds that the hospital’s decision to admit Mr. Simard to FAU of the hospital between September 25, 2025 and November 10, 2025, when he became a voluntary patient on the Concurrent Disorders Unit of the hospital, amounts to a significant increase in the restriction of his liberty, that was reasonable and warranted and represented the least onerous and least restrictive course of action available to the hospital at that time. Mr. Simard almost died from an overdose of amphetamine, following which he exhibited aggressive and threatening conduct towards the members of his treatment team, including threats against his attending psychiatrist.
Regarding the law applicable to restriction of liberty hearings, the analytical framework established by Campbell (Re), 2018 ONCA 140, requires the Board to consider the liberty norm and the liberty status of an accused on a restriction. The liberty norm and liberty status for each restriction must be examined to determine the significance of the increase (if any) on the restriction of an accused’s liberty caused by the restriction. In determining the liberty norm of an accused at the outset of each period of restriction, the Board must “take a contextual approach – one that considers the individual’s pattern of liberty in the recent past.” (Campbell, para. 66). The liberty she/he was actually experiencing (rather than what she/he was entitled to) at the time of the increase is what the Board is to consider, and that “liberty must be of sufficient duration to have become, objectively speaking, the NCR accused’s norm” (Campbell, para 65).
Mr. Simard is currently subject to a detention order and had been residing in the community in a group home. It is clear that the admission to the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre represented a significant change to Mr. Simard’s previously enjoyed liberty norm.
The hospital submission presented to this Panel is appropriate on the evidence on each of the issues set out for consideration in Campbell. The necessity of the restriction arose from the decompensation of Mr. Simard’s mental condition. There was, accordingly, a significant restriction of his liberty that was undertaken out of necessity, having regard to both the hospital’s obligation to ensure the safety of the public (as the primary objective) and its duty to ensure that Mr. Simard’s mental health and other needs are being met.
Taken as a whole, the hospital report and Dr. Strike’s testimony clearly established that the hospital was aware of the principles of minimal intrusion on Mr. Simard’s liberty and appropriately discharged him from the FAU, as soon as it was deemed safe to do so.
The Board is hopeful that Mr. Simard will continue the forward progress he has made in the past few months, most notably the unprecedented level of insight that he is demonstrating into the impact of drug use on his mental condition and his life in general, and we wish him the best.
DATED this 7th day of January 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Ms. M. Labrosse
Alternate Chairperson
__________________
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board