Re: S. (N.)
ORB File No: 8038
Hearing held on: Tuesday, November 18, 2025
Place of hearing: Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre
Pursuant to: Sections 672.81(1) and 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. P. Hageraats
Members: Dr. W. Komer
Dr. R. Cormier
Ms. M. Labrosse
Mr. A. Bouvier
Parties Appearing:
Accused: S. (N.)
Counsel: Ms. M. McMahon
The person in charge of hospital: Representative: Dr. A. Alabi
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. M. Dufort
REASONS FOR DECISION AND DISPOSITION
(Dated January 28, 2026)
Introduction:
On March 17, 2022, Ms. S. (N.) was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (“NCR”) relating to charges of abduction of a person under 14, assault with a weapon, possession of weapon for dangerous purpose, assault, and criminal harassment. These are offences contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada.
S. (N.) is currently subject to a Decision & Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (“ORB” or “the Board”), dated May 8, 2025, ordering her detention at the Secure Forensic Unit of the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre (“ROMHC” or “the hospital”). Privileges were awarded, including to live in the community, if first approved by the hospital.
The Disposition allowed S. (N.) to attend at a residential treatment facility in Ontario, as approved by the hospital.
On November 18, 2025, the Board convened at the ROMHC to conduct an annual review. The Board also inquired into a significant liberty restriction flowing from her readmission to hospital on September 15, 2025.
S. (N.) has remained on the hospital’s most secure Forensic Assessment Unit (“FAU”) since September 15, 2025.
At the review hearing, S. (N.) attended in person. She was represented by counsel, Ms. Meghan McMahon. Other individuals were present:
Ms. Levia Chan, the hospital psychotherapist.
Ms. Sara Ferrante, the hospital case manager
Ms. Lindsey McLean, the hospital social worker
S. (N.)’ parents, Mr. Murray Shanks, and Ms. Bonnee Shanks. They attended by video conference from their home in Alberta
- Documents were filed in evidence, including:
Hospital Report, dated October 31, 2025
Psychological Risk Assessment, dated November 10, 2025
ROMHC Correspondence with the Board, dated August 19 and 22, 2025
Correspondence dated November 6, 2025, from Ms. Quinn of the Brockville Mental Health Centre
Positions of the Parties
At the outset, the parties were canvassed as to the live issues to be decided. The hospital recommended continuation of the existing detention order. They also sought an Order transferring S. (N.)’ care to the Brockville Mental Health Centre (“BMHC”).
Counsel for the Attorney-General endorsed the hospital recommendation, adding they would have questions about the proposed transfer to Brockville.
Counsel for the NCR accused first addressed the restriction of liberty: Ms. McMahon agreed that the restriction was necessary and appropriate. Counsel did not challenge the recommendation for a detention order. Counsel opposed her client being transferred to the BMHC.
For the reasons set out below, the Board found that S. (N.) continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and that maintenance of the current detention order is necessary and appropriate.
The Board found that the restriction of liberty, imposed on September 15, 2025, was necessary and appropriate at the time. It represented the least onerous and least restrictive measure available and continues to be the case.
The hospital’s request to transfer the patient’s care to Brockville was denied.
Current Psychiatric Diagnoses, Hospital Report p. 57
Delusional Disorder with Pseudocyesis, in remission
Stimulant Use Disorder – Cocaine Type, Severe
Cluster B Personality Disorder: Antisocial Personality Disorder Pre-dominant Borderline Traits
- S. (N.) receives the following medications:
REGULAR
Aripiprazole 400 mg intramuscular every 4 weeks
Metformin 1000 mg twice daily
Vitamin D 2000 units every morning
PRN
Trazodone 50 mg nightly
Ibuprofen 200mg Q6H
Index Offences
- The circumstances are set out in the hospital report and in last year’s Reasons dated November 18, 2024:
In May 2021, S. (N.) lived with her three children in a rural area outside Ottawa near Shawville, Quebec. The victim, Ms. M. A., lived in the City of Ottawa. The two women had never met and were strangers to each other.
M.A. gave birth to her son about a week before the offence date of Mother’s Day, Sunday, May 9, 2021.
On Thursday, May 6, 2021, S. (N.) messaged M.A. on social media through a local chat group for people looking to give away free items. S. (N.) sent M.A. a message of congratulation on her newborn son. She offered M.A. a box of clothing and a $100 gift certificate. M.A. was happy about this. She provided S. (N.) with her Ottawa address.
On Friday, May 7, 2021, S. (N.) attended M.A.’s home. She dropped off the clothing items and gift certificate. She told M.A. she was pregnant and was going to have a caesarean section within a week. She added, this was not her first child. She gave M.A. tips on recovery. She seemed very sincere. M.A. had no concerns.
Later, S. (N.) sent M.A. another message. She claimed she worked as a social worker for the court and had put M.A.’s name in for a Mother’s Day basket, to include delivery of a hot breakfast. M.A. was thankful and agreed to receive delivery on May 9, Mother’s Day.
On the offence date, Sunday, May 9, 2021, S. (N.) sent several messages: she wished M.A. a Happy Mother’s Day. She advised that the delivery company had messed up.
Soon after, S. (N.) attended M.A.’s residence in person.
However, she pretended to be the food delivery person. She wore a black hoody. A black mask covered her face. While knocking on the door, she had a McDonald’s bag in hand. Before leaving, she said there had been a mix-up and that she had brought the wrong breakfast.
M.A. started to feel something was not right.
M.A. messaged S. (N.) about the delivery. S. (N.) sent back a series of texts. By then, M.A. realized that the delivery person was S. (N.). M.A. was left confused. Over the next few hours, M.A. heard some light knocking at the door. However, when she looked, she could not see anyone.
At 1:31 p.m., S. (N.) sent M.A. a message to say she was five minutes away and was bringing breakfast. She confirmed with M.A. that the only persons present in the home were M.A., her nine-year-old daughter and newborn son. About ten minutes later, S. (N.) knocked at M.A.’s door.
M.A. opened the door. S. (N.) walked in.
Using bear spray, S. (N.) sprayed M.A. in the face and all over her body. S. (N.) was yelling nonsensical things at the victim, asking “why did you do that?”
M.A. had no idea what S. (N.) was saying.
M.A. was confused. She had a hard time seeing after being bear sprayed. She felt terrified. Her infant son was in the same room, not far away.
S. (N.) then said, “I need to take him.” M.A. was panicking, her eyes were burning, and she could not see. She tried but was unable to get S. (N.) out of the house. S. (N.) was pushing and hitting M.A. She noticed S. (N.) had something in her hand, along with keys. She believed it was a knife and that S. (N.) was going to stab her.
S. (N.) got to the new-born baby. She picked him up and was holding him. M.A. feared for her life and the life of her children. She knew she needed help. She managed to run out the front door and start screaming for people to help and that S. (N.) was taking her baby.
This alerted neighbors who came quickly.
S. (N.) ran out of the house with the infant in hand.
A neighbor, Mr. E., gave chase. He managed to stop S. (N.).
S. (N.) put the baby down on the ground. She told Mr. E. to just let her go. Mr. E. held on to S. (N.). He told her he was holding her for the police. She punched Mr. E. in the face and was repeatedly hitting and kicking him.
Despite this, Mr. E. was able to hold on to S. (N.) until police arrived. The baby was recovered.
Once outside the house, M.A. remembered that her nine-year old daughter, who is mute, was still upstairs in her room. She ran back inside and found her daughter upstairs with very red puffy eyes, the result of bear spray.
Witnesses later reported that in the days leading to the offence, S. (N.) had been walking around M.A.’s home, both at the front and back, looking into windows.
Soon after the arrest, police officers interviewed S. (N.). She claimed to have no memory of the events.
In March 2022, Forensic Psychiatrist, Dr. Brad Booth, interviewed S. (N.) at the jail. S. (N.) provided Dr. Booth with her account of the events.
With Dr. Booth, S. (N.) spoke of significant difficulties in the time leading up to the index offences. She described a complex set of difficult relationships with her former intimate partners. She reported having become pregnant and then terminating the pregnancy in December 2020 but without telling anyone about the termination. She admitted to having left a false impression with those who knew her that she was still pregnant and due to deliver a child in April 2021.
S. (N.) also described the course of her drug abuse involving cocaine from early May 2021.
Personal Background and Relationship History
S. (N.) is 36, the mother of three children. Following her arrest in May 2021 for the index offence, all three children are still being raised by her parents, Murray, and Bonnee Shanks.
S. (N.) spent the first part of her childhood in Saskatchewan. She moved with her family to Barrie, Ontario, at the age of 9. At 18, she went to Drumheller, Alberta, living there for a year with her maternal grandfather. She spent the next year in Regina before returning to live with her parents in Barrie. In 2012, S. (N.) moved to Kanata, following which she relocated to Shawville, Quebec.
While raising their family, S. (N.)’ parents were steadily employed. Mr. Murray Shanks spent several years with Lowes Hardware. Mrs. Bonnee Shanks spent the last years of her career as a full-time school secretary. S. (N.) has described her father as a great dad and her mother as a great mom.
As reported by the parents, S. (N.) was very diligent in school and did well academically, winning several awards. After 2012, when she left Barrie, there were fewer chances to visit. Despite this, they provided S. (N.) with ongoing financial and moral support. Following her incarceration in 2021, they would initially drive every six weeks to Ottawa to see her.
S. (N.)’ history of intimate relationships is varied. Her first child was born in April 2009. This was following a relationship with a 28-year-old married man who she had met in western Canada when she was 18. S. (N.) and her infant child stayed with her parents for more than two years, living in a separate apartment downstairs.
In March 2012, S. (N.) gave birth to her second son. Her parents were not fully aware of her dating habits during the time she lived in their home. They never had the chance to meet their second grandchild’s father, who had left before S. (N.) gave birth.
S. (N.) met her third partner, T.M., in December 2011. She was still pregnant and had already separated from the previous partner. T.M. told her he would raise the baby on his own. She left her parents’ home to live with T.M. in the spring-summer of 2012.
On April 16, 2015, S. (N.) gave birth to her daughter. By then, she and T.M. were living in the Ottawa region, in Kanata. In July 2015, the Children’s Aid Society (CAS) became involved. The police had arrested T.M. and removed him from the home following a reported assault on S. (N.) and her older son. To ensure that T.M. would not return, S. (N.)’ father moved in with his daughter for several weeks. According to reports, T.M. is no longer in contact. He may be somewhere in southern Ontario.
From April 2016 to July 2019, S. (N.) was with ‘Luc’, a local man from the Shawville area. He did not initially disclose he was married with two children. She became close to Luc’s children as hers did with his.
After relocating to Shawville, S. (N.) found it difficult to live in the country. In June 2017, she and Luc bought a house, large enough to accommodate all five children. When the relationship ended in July 2019, S. (N.) rented a different house in Shawville for herself and her three children.
S. (N.) has reported that she began to use substances in the summer of 2019. That same year, she met another man from the Shawville area, S.P. He had his own landscaping and snow removal company and drives transport trucks. At the time, he had custody of his two sons, ages 9 and 10. Although they did not cohabit, by March 2021 they were ‘engaged’.
S.P. was supportive of S. (N.), even though she chose not to be in monogamous relationship with him. She continued to see Luc and another man, ‘Nick’. The relationship with Nick continued until March 2021.
The ongoing relationship with S.P. is difficult to understand. By his accounting, S. (N.) has obtained considerable sums of money from him, up to $100,000 over six years.
There are recent reports of ongoing fraudulent activities committed by S. (N.) in 2024 and into late 2025 whereby she allegedly has gained substantial sums of money from unsuspecting members of the public. The hospital recently tried to learn more about this. Eventually, they had to refer matters to the police. Details appear in the hospital report at pages 64 and 76.
Work History
- S. (N.) worked as lifeguard when she was in high school. In June 2011, she graduated from a law clerk program and worked at a law firm until February 2012 when she took pregnancy leave. In August 2013, she ran a day-care in her Kanata home until 2015, when she gave birth to her daughter. After moving to Shawville in about 2016, she resumed the same work, again based out of her home.
Substance Use History
Regular use of alcohol began at age 18. In 2017, after the move to Shawville, S. (N.)’ drinking increased beyond social drinking. By the summer of 2020, there were times when she could not recall going to bed and would be sick. Reportedly, she was drinking three times a week, with about four to six drinks at a sitting.
S. (N.) reported having first tried cocaine at age 18. She did not use it again until the fall of 2017. She started to snort cocaine regularly and escalated to using an 8-ball (“1/8th of an ounce”) twice per week. She continued until 2019. By June 2019, she had escalated to the point where she was using an 8-ball every night when her children were not with her. She continued at this level until August 2019.
People started to notice she was unwell. She tried to decrease but did not completely stop. S. (N.) continued using cocaine until August 2020, when she learned – at least as she has claimed – that she was pregnant.
According to self-reports – S. (N.) then abstained from substance use until April 24, 2021, when she quickly relapsed to cocaine. She resumed using an 8-ball daily and was consuming at the same rate as before. For the period leading to her arrest on Mother’s Day in May 2021, she was asking her drug dealer for something stronger. She began to use crack cocaine and was smoking all day, right up until the arrest.
Legal History
- In November and December of 2021 - and while still incarcerated without bail on the index offence - S. (N.) appeared in more than one court. She was convicted and sentenced for a previous series of offences committed before May 2021 at both the City of Ottawa and in the County of Renfrew. Multiple convictions were registered for thefts, fraud, use of a forged document, identity fraud, obstruct police, fail to attend, and break and enter.
Psychiatric History
S. (N.) reported that some family members have had significant issues. A grandmother was an alcoholic. A cousin died in April 2021 from a drug overdose. Another likely had schizophrenia, leading to suicide ten years ago. Both grandmothers suffered depression. When S. (N.) was in her early 20s, an aunt committed suicide.
Her parents confirmed that S. (N.)’ uncle had died by suicide. However, they were not completely aware of certain details about other family members as she had described. They did confirm there had been some depression among a few persons in the family.
In March 2022, Dr. Brad Booth was called upon to assess S. (N.)’ criminal responsibility. As set out in the Board’s Reasons following her initial ORB hearing held on May 30, 2022, S. (N.) told Dr. Booth she had not had any mental health issues in her youth. However, she went on to describe having suffered a violent and very disturbing attack at age 17 while still residing in her parents’ home.
According to S. (N.) and as recorded by Dr. Booth, she was victimized and abused over a period of four days. She ended up in hospital, having suffered extensive trauma. She further claimed three men were arrested for having attacked her. At the court case, jail sentences were imposed, including a six-year sentence on one of the perpetrators.
Dr. Booth discussed S. (N.)’ account with Murray and Bonnee Shanks. They were very surprised. They confirmed to Dr. Booth that S. (N.) did live with them at the time. There were never any news stories about their daughter, nor was there any trial in which three men had been convicted and jailed. During that part of S. (N.)’ younger life, there was no possibility she would have gone missing for three or four nights without them knowing about it.
During the same NCR assessment conducted in March 2022, S. (N.) told Dr. Booth that, following the attack, she felt her life had gotten out of control. She felt she did not deserve to be loved by “good men in my life… my parents showed me a good relationship, but I could not do that – men use me for sex and that’s what I have done.”
S. (N.) reported having experienced depressive periods in her life. Dr. Booth noted that S. (N.) endorsed symptoms of PTSD about the traumatic events she claimed she had experienced at age 17.
In her account of the 2021 Mother’s Day index offence, S. (N.) told Dr. Booth she had gone to the Hull hospital in Gatineau that day to deliver her baby at ‘39 plus 4 weeks’. She related that during delivery the baby lacked oxygen, which resulted in a still birth. She described not remembering much of the events but was devastated with having lost her baby in childbirth.
Dr. Booth checked with S. (N.)’ family physician to assess the reliability of her pregnancy report. He found no mention of her being pregnant in May 2021. Medical records from the Hull hospital documented that S. (N.) had been seen by a Dr. Papadopoulos. On April 20, 2021, S. (N.) was given an air cast with a diagnosis of a stable fracture (ankle or foot). In a shorthand note, there was mention of S. (N.)’ self-report that she was ‘32 weeks pregnant’.
In a separate emergency note - dated January 29, 2021, at the Pembroke Regional Hospital - S. (N.) had earlier reported she was ‘five months postpartum’.
In Dr. Booth’s criminal responsibility report for the Court, and as was noted in the Board’s Reasons following the initial ORB hearing held on May 30, 2022, the following passage appears (para. 78):
The profile produced by S. (N.) suggests a severe and sometimes chronic disorder associated with a thought disorder diagnosis. These individuals are alienated, deeply resentful and suspicious of others, and are often defensively hostile. Some may show antisocial personality traits. They are hypersensitive, critical, argumentative, and evasive. Extreme sensitivity can shade to paranoid ideation. They are easily hurt by criticism and can experience breakdowns in reality testing. They ruminate about real or imagined threats and injustices and may show delusions or ideas of reference. Grandiosity may be present. Primary defences are acting out, projection, reaction formation, and rationalization. Anger and rage are often rationalized as self-protective. Although complaints of depression are associated with this pattern, apathy and emotional alienation from self and others may be contributing factors.
Poor judgment, lack of insight, and impulsive angry episodes are typical. In some cases, these individuals can be assaultive. They often abuse chemical agents, which would aggravate impulsive behaviour and breakdowns in reality testing. Threats of suicide or violence toward others should be taken seriously. Problems in interpersonal, marital, and sexual adjustment are common. There is also a risk of impulsively acting out.
This is a difficult profile to treat because the individual is vulnerable to paranoid ideation and often feels angry, resentful, and suspicious of others. These individuals show deficits of empathy and feel emotionally isolated. Supportive non-confrontational psychotherapy is required for the development of trust…
… Medication is often indicated, but rapport needs to develop before it is suggested.
Course in Treatment:
Reporting period ending in October 2023
S. (N.) had a difficult year. While hospitalized, she was involved romantically with a male peer on the Forensic Assessment Unit (FAU). It is documented that she lied to him for several months about being pregnant. The hospital report describes the elaborate course of her lies and deception to the treatment team as well. Her behaviour was reminiscent of aspects surrounding the index offence.
S. (N.) engaged in a separate chain of deceit regarding her efforts to have her children live with her, notwithstanding the clear position of the Children’s Aid Society (CAS) and her parents regarding custody of the children. Supported by a later Court Order awarding them custody in June 2024, her parents ended up moving with the children to Alberta.
The hospital report noted that S. (N.)’ pathological lying and deceitfulness had become even more evident. At page 33, the hospital recommendation for the following year included the following remarks:
Based on this evidence and risk assessment, it is the opinion of the hospital that S. (N.) represents a significant risk to the safety of the public. She has repeatedly deceived and financially exploited relationship partners, peers at the hospital, and her landlords. This has been active and willful and not reflective of any ongoing psychosis. This in the hospital’s view is antisocial and potentially criminal conduct and similar to the types of behaviour S. (N.) has displayed throughout her adult life. The hospital remains concerned that S. (N.) would at some point attempt to abscond with her children if she believes that she were going to lose custody of them. Somewhat protective against this is the agreement by her parents and sister to adopt her children if they are not back in S. (N.)’ care when their foster home placement reaches its end.
The use of a nonexistent pregnancy to deceive a romantic partner is highly reminiscent of the lead up to S. (N.)’ index offences. The hospital remains concerned that this may have had the seeds of delusion behind it.
Reporting Period ending in October 2024
In October 2023, S. (N.) used cocaine while an inpatient at the ROMHC. Following her return to community living at her own apartment in November, use of cocaine continued. Treatment team members, including nursing, social work, and counselling reported she was quite difficult to work with. Positive testing for substances (cocaine and methamphetamine) was becoming more frequent.
In November 2023, S. (N.) agreed to a short voluntary admission to the Brockville Forensics Facility, while still formally detained at the ROMHC. On February 9, 2024, she was discharged from the BMHC, contrary to medical advice, and following her many repeated demands. She returned to Ottawa to resume community supervision under the ROMHC.
While an inpatient at the BMHC, S. (N.) used substances. Once back in Ottawa and living in the community, she continued to do so. Confronted with consistently positive urine screens for cocaine, she would lie, denying her use. She also lied about her failures to pay rent to her landlord.
On April 4, 2024, after all attempts to manage S. (N.) in the community had failed, and faced with flagrant disregard of the ORB disposition, the hospital activated a Form 49 to have her admitted.
On October 18, 2024, the Board reviewed the restriction of liberty flowing from S. (N.)’ return to hospital in April. By Reasons dated November 18, 2024, the Board concluded that S. (N.) had been appropriately kept on the more secure FAU for the time that she had been there. The Board added (para. 32) that the treatment team needed to fully engage her with the Concurrent Disorders Group, and that the team was correct in proceeding very cautiously and not relying on her self-report about being ready for transfer. The Board noted her extensive problematic history of lying and her incomplete insight into the consequences of her behaviour.
Reporting Period, October 2024 to November 2025
While on the less secure Forensic Rehabilitation Unit (FRU) at the ROMHC, S. (N.) was able to gain community access privileges, supervised indirectly. She attended programs in the City of Ottawa, including Amethyst and NA groups. Unfortunately, she did not abstain.
On January 22, 2025, S. (N.) relapsed to using cocaine after she had fabricated having an appointment in the community. She tested positive after first trying to avoid providing a urine sample. Privileges were revoked.
In early February, she again relapsed to cocaine use, this time while living on the more secure FAU. It was learned she had snorted cocaine in her room. This was after she had given her bank card to a co-patient to get cash to buy the drug. She was asking co-patients for cash. She also breached security by bringing drug paraphernalia into her hospital room for personal use.
On March 31, 2025, after working with the Addiction Counsellor for the Forensic Intensive Recovery Support Team, S. (N.) was transferred back to the less secure FRU. She was placed on a wait list for MacKay Manor, an extended-stay inpatient program for women. A separate application was made at her request to the Empathy House program, which is also for women and where patients will stay anywhere between 3 to 12 months, or longer.
On June 3, 2025, S. (N.) was suspected to have used substances. She was appearing somewhat altered, with rapid speech, dilated pupil, and blunted affect. No drugs or paraphernalia were found in her room. However, a second unauthorized mobile phone was found. The next day, June 4, staff retrieved cocaine and drug paraphernalia in S. (N.)’ room. On direct questioning, she later admitted to receiving both contraband items from a male co-patient, as she said, ‘to hold for him.’ She admitted to having done six lines of cocaine the previous day.
On June 12, 2025, her urine remained positive for cocaine. A June 16 sample came back as borderline. Further tests, on June 27 and 30, were positive for cocaine. On July 2, she tested positive for a non-prescribed medication, buspirone.
S. (N.) sought hospital approval to rent a basement apartment following her anticipated program at MacKay Manor. The team did not support this. She had been evicted multiple times over the past 3.5 years for non-payment of rent, even when receiving a COHB rent supplement, which she did not direct to rent payments.
On July 23, 2025, the hospital discharged S. (N.) to begin the abstinence-based all women 90-day residential treatment program at MacKay Manor. The hospital forensic team gave her a structured outpatient schedule which she was directed to follow while at MacKay Manor.
Restriction of Liberty, Imposed on September 15, 2025
MacKay Manor set out clear expectations about the need to follow rules and to remain on premises unless strictly authorized. Permissions are granted to go out into the community for only limited times.
S. (N.) broke the rules at MacKay Manor. On August 17, 2025, she left the premises without permission. Upon her return and following a demand that she provide a urine sample, she instead provided clear cold water. She insisted it was urine. MacKay Manor staff could only believe she had consumed substances contrary to their rules and the ORB disposition.
On August 19, 2025, S. (N.)’ urine was tested at the ROMHC. The result was positive for cocaine.
It was also learned that S. (N.) had tested positive on an earlier urine screen for bupropion, following a test sample taken on July 31, 2025. When confronted, S. (N.) denied having used.
On August 19, 2025, MacKay Manor discharged S. (N.) from their program.
Soon after, the hospital issued a Form 49 to have S. (N.) apprehended. She initially presented at a case conference during which the hospital made efforts to find alternate lodging. Two shelters were contacted: Cornerstone Housing for Women and the Shepherds of Good Hope. With space available only at the Shepherds of Good Hope, she was directed to attend there for crisis accommodation.
S. (N.) was told that a Form 49 arrest warrant would issue if she were to stay in any other unapproved accommodation. The treatment team provided her with a weekly daytime program at the hospital and required her to faithfully attend.
Soon after the August 19 case conference, S. (N.) disappeared. She left the shelter without hospital approval. She did not attend the hospital for her daily treatment care plan. She did not come in for required random urine drug screening, nor did she attend any other form of hospital programming.
In a subsequent phone conversation with the hospital case manager, S. (N.)’voice was slurred - a sign that she was under the influence of drugs. S. (N.) rejected the team’s urging to present to the hospital as she was in daily breach of her disposition.
On September 4, 2025, S. (N.) failed to attend for her scheduled monthly injection of Abilify medication. The team became even more concerned: a Form 49 warrant was issued for her arrest.
S. (N.) evaded the medical and police authorities over the next several weeks. On September 12, 2025, the police issued a missing person report. This was later updated to a ‘wanted person’. Her boyfriend, S.P., was aware of her situation but withheld information when the police spoke with him. This made things even more difficult.
On September 15, 2025, S. (N.)’ lawyer phoned the hospital to ask if they had an available bed or if approved accommodation could be provided. The hospital advised counsel that S. (N.) was required to present herself to hospital. Later that same day, S. (N.) did so, in the company of S.P.
When S. (N.) received her intramuscular Abilify injection, it was overdue by 12 days. She reported having used cocaine two weeks earlier.
Once kept in hospital on the FAU, S. (N.) began making demands. She was aware the police had been looking for her. She had not wanted to turn herself into care because she was worried about admission to the FAU. Instead, she demanded admission to a non-forensic unit. At one point, she expressed a preference to go back to the BMHC, where she had previously been an inpatient.
On September 26 and 28, 2025, S. (N.) violated unit rules by going to a male co-patient’s room. This was confirmed by CCTV. Footage showed the male co-patient waiting in his room. S. (N.) entered the room after first scanning back and forth to make sure no staff were in sight.
When confronted about this, S. (N.) denied the event. When told about the CCTV recording, she did not know what to say but later disclosed she did not have sex with the co-patient but that they had “just kissed”. The unit’s procedural security had been breached. The hospital arranged for enhanced therapeutic intermittent observation.
On October 7, 2025, S. (N.) was told that the team did not support her request for a change of assigned psychiatrist. She acknowledged she was not ready for rehab and had earlier admitted how she saw it was a way to get off the forensic assessment unit.
S. (N.)’ mother, Bonnee Shanks, participated in the case conference held on October 7, 2025. Bonnee Shanks described her daughter’s deception to herself about what had led to termination at MacKay Manor, adding that S. (N.) had also denied having used cocaine when in fact she had.
On October 27, 2025, S. (N.) reported that a male co-patient was making unwanted contact with her. She claimed this person had become verbally hostile, hit her on the leg and spat on her. S. (N.) was ambivalent about pressing charges with the police. The hospital put the co-patient on continuous therapeutic engagement to prevent any access to S. (N.)’ corridor. On October 30, 2025, S. (N.) advised of her decision to press charges and that she had contacted the police.
The hospital report contains written summaries from four team members: the case manager, Ms. Ferrante, the psychotherapist, Ms. Chan, MSW, RSW, the hospital registered nurse, Ms. Morris, and from the addiction counsellor, Ms. Bleackney-Brown.
From the materials, the following can be noted: During her three weeks at MacKay Manor S. (N.) pushed boundaries and engaged in rule-breaking behaviour. She made unauthorized repeated use of more than one cell phone. Following her discharge from MacKay Manor, S. (N.) repeatedly breached the hospital’s requirement to attend daily programming. She kept her whereabouts unknown. She successfully evaded apprehension despite both the hospital’s repeated communications and police efforts to locate her.
During times when she has been in hospital S. (N.) attended weekly psychotherapy with Ms. Chan. Starting in May 2025, she participated in 21 out of 22 scheduled sessions, the last 5 of which were done after her return on September 15.
Shortly before S. (N.) began the MacKay Manor program on July 23, 2025, the team was noticing some positive changes in her behaviours. This was likely attributable to her efforts in CBT and DBT psychotherapy with Ms. Chan.
In late August 2025, Ms. Chan encouraged S. (N.) to be honest. She then admitted to having lied to her therapist in a previous session about not using cocaine when she had in fact used.
Once back on the FAU by September 15, 2025, S. (N.) blamed her psychiatrist for having sent her to the shelter in August following her discharge from MacKay Manor. She also blamed the team for having caused her to abscond and stay away. She did not seem to take her actions seriously.
S. (N.) recently described a plan by which she had applied to study at Algonquin College in their social service worker program. She claimed they had accepted her into the program. The team discouraged her from pursuing a career in that field. Her prospects would be poor by having to first go through a police check to work in a vulnerable sector. She was instead encouraged to reflect on her needs and intentions regarding addiction treatment and to not just focus on trying to get out of the FAU.
The hospital report contains the following passage, p.70:
S. (N.) is well aware of her anti-social behaviours and cocaine use problems.
She sees her compulsive lying and manipulation having been hardwired already as an automatic self-defence mechanism and a way to get what she needs or wants. She shows little or no remorse to her anti-social behaviours. She showed some improvements when she was more mindful of these targeted behaviours at FRU. However, the positive changes were driven by extrinsic motivation. The increased awareness and mindfulness did not last after her discharge to Mackay Manor.
- Regarding addiction counselling, p. 73:
S. (N.) had expressed a desire to change her addictive behaviour, highlighting how this has negatively affected her. She began sessions by justifying her substance use, explaining that her team set her up for failure and not taking accountability for her actions leading to her re-admission.
There are concerns S. (N.) has recently engaged in fraud. It is reported that she may have defrauded the Canada-Ontario Housing Benefit (COHB) by activating an account in November 2024 without the team’s knowledge and receiving a payment while still admitted to hospital.
On June 6, 2025, her boyfriend, S.P., told the social worker S. (N.) was defrauding the public on Marketplace. She would sell things online and receive payment but never deliver promised items. The boyfriend described several instances when S. (N.) would ask him for money, intending to pay him back, but not follow through. He claimed he had provided her with as much as 100,000 dollars over the past six years. He said he has reached his limit and would no longer have contact with her. Despite this, the same man accompanied S. (N.) to the hospital on September 15, as noted above in para. 73.
During her unauthorized absence, the treatment team did a Google search under S. (N.)’ name. Her name was linked to a ‘Go Fund Me’ page. S. (N.) was listed as the beneficiary. Online funding was claimed to be for ‘survivors in Gaza’. By September 15, 2025, about $22,190 dollars USD had been raised. The information was turned over to the Ottawa Police for further investigation as a potential fraud.
Regarding S. (N.)’ complaint to the police about having been assaulted by the male co-patient, the police have since spoken to S. (N.). They wish to first view CCTV footage at the hospital before conducting a more formal interview.
Testimony at the Hearing: Dr. Adedayo Alabi, Forensic Psychiatrist
Dr. Alabi explained their reason for seeking a transfer to Brockville. The recent event involving the male co-patient, along with S. (N.)’ persistent efforts to breach hospital security by organizing illicit substances, causes concern. Following S. (N.)’ allegation of having been physically assaulted, the team has provided her with more support.
A week later, she made a further allegation, adding that the same co-patient had sexually assaulted her. With this new information, Dr. Alabi advised, they now feel S. (N.)’ treatment needs can be better addressed at the BMHC.
Counsel for the Attorney-General, Ms. Dufort, had some questions for Dr. Alabi. Regarding S. (N.)’ comments about an inter-provincial transfer to Alberta, none of this has been discussed with S. (N.)’ parents. Murray and Bonnee Shanks maintain contact and involvement with the ROMHC treatment team. S. (N.) is currently consenting to having the hospital share information with her parents. However, at other times S. (N.) withholds such consent.
Bonnee Shanks and Murray Shanks are completely involved in parenting S. (N.)’ three children. They do not support a potential move to Alberta. This topic was not raised at the last case conference, but only now, at the present hearing.
Dr. Alabi agreed that a transfer to BMHC would offer therapeutic benefit. The transition would not be difficult because S. (N.) was previously there as a patient.
Dr. Alabi confirmed that since her admission to hospital on September 15, 2025, S. (N.) has not produced any further positive urine drug screens. However, the team is concerned S. (N.) may be involved, now that she is back on the less secure FRU, in orchestrating drug deliveries. Asked if S. (N.) engages in impression management, Dr. Alabi agreed, ‘This is a lot of the picture they see’.
The team had asked S. (N.) about the Go Fund Me page for Gaza. She denies any involvement. Dr. Alabi is not able to check the account to see whether any funds were accessed or by who. However, given S. (N.)’ extensive history of lying and deception, and with a proven history of fraud, the hospital has concerns.
Counsel asked if S. (N.) could realistically achieve independent living in the community within the coming year. Dr. Alabi believes this would be very difficult.
In terms of apartment living, S. (N.) does not have a good credit rating. Asked about the long-term boyfriend, Dr. Alabi stated, the couple’s relation is very conflicted. The police were met with no cooperation from the boyfriend in September 2025 when S. (N.) was keeping her whereabouts hidden. The police had to specifically caution the boyfriend about his expressions of misdirection to the officers.
Dr. Alabi agreed S. (N.) requires supervision in any residence to which she might be assigned. Counsel asked if S. (N.) has made use of travel passes outside Ontario. She has not done so in the last year. For S. (N.) to travel to Alberta for family visits in the coming year, much will depend on how she manages with any future hospital privileges.
Counsel for S. (N.), Ms. McMahon, had questions for Dr. Alabi. She suggested S. (N.)’ long-term goal is to reunite with her children. Dr. Alabi replied, her parents do not support an inter-provincial transfer to Alberta. Bonnee and Murray Shanks want S. (N.) to first demonstrate complete sobriety for at least one year before they will permit any access to the children.
A very lengthy exchange ensued where questions were put to Dr. Alabi about the recent sexual assault complaint from late October 2025. Dr. Alabi cannot take any further steps to investigate the patient’s allegation. For various reasons, including the therapeutic relationship, it is not up to him to do so. He can only leave it in police hands.
Dr. Alabi noted that despite the hospital’s efforts to separate S. (N.) and the co-patient, a lot is still happening. There is an ongoing dynamic between them. It was suggested that the individual, “Jonathan”, has provided her with a letter of apology. The provenance of the letter remains unclear. Counsel advised that S. (N.) had shown the letter to Ms. Chan during a therapy session. According to counsel, Ms. Chan made notes in her discussion with S. (N.) that Jonathan is still in love with S. (N.), that he acknowledged what he did was wrong, that he has her picture in his room and uses it to masturbate.
Dr. Alabi candidly admitted he has not discussed such details with S. (N.). He further noted that the most recent allegation presented by S. (N.) arose on November 3 regarding an incident of sexual contact, alleged to have happened on November 2, 2025. Dr. Alabi could comment no further, beyond saying the police will have to decide what happened and what is to be done.
The hospital’s main concern is to keep Jonathan and S. (N.) separate while they happen to occupy different areas of the same rehabilitation unit. The hospital’s proposed solution is to send S. (N.) to Brockville, which will keep them apart. Dr. Alabi wants to have S. (N.) in a therapeutic environment where she will not be presented with any further physical distractions.
Ms. McMahon inquired about the hospital’s recently provided psychological risk assessment. Dr. Alabi acknowledged that S. (N.) did make some gains with CBT therapy. Dr. Alabi also believed S. (N.) would benefit from attending the concurrent disorders program which can be offered here in Ottawa or elsewhere.
Dr. Alabi emphasized how the parents have set very clear boundaries. They will not let S. (N.) see the children unless she is sober for a longer duration. The parents have made it clear to the treatment team that S. (N.) continues to engage in lies and deception. She still needs to work on honesty.
Ms. McMahon suggested to Dr. Alabi that S. (N.) believes she is now ready for substance use treatment. Dr. Alabi responded diplomatically: S. (N.) is entitled to say when she is ready. However, the treatment team’s view is she would be better advised to wait and first stabilize her condition and situation before considering any commitment to such treatment. To arrange any form of residential treatment for substance abuse, a creative approach is needed. Before discharging the patient to residential treatment, one needs to also identify stable approved accommodation for S. (N.) once she completes such addictions treatment.
Counsel asked if S. (N.) could be ready for discharge to an addictions’ treatment program within six months. Dr. Alabi replied, this could potentially happen, but it is tricky. The team needs to keep an eye on S. (N.)’ motivations and to be satisfied that she is not merely voicing an intention to seek treatment only to get back into the community.
Dr. Alabi responded to questions posed by Board members. Asked about the “Jonathan situation”, Dr. Alabi conceded this was their main reason for recommending transfer to Brockville and that otherwise they would not have considered it.
A Board member noted that S. (N.) is now saying she is ready to attend for residential treatment. Dr. Alabi explained, this was a sudden decision arrived at only after S. (N.) had heard from her lawyer and had most recently read the hospital report, dated October 31, 2025. Dr. Alabi advised that S. (N.) can still participate in further counselling sessions with the hospital’s psychotherapist, Ms. Chan.
The hospital presented no further evidence.
Evidence of Bonnee and Murray Shanks
Counsel for the Attorney-General, Ms. Dufort called upon Mr. and Mrs. Shanks to inquire about their legal status regarding the three children. Mr. and Mrs. Shanks confirmed they have custody of the children. This was provided by an order of the Ontario Family Court. Mr. and Mrs. Shanks deal with all aspects of the children’s care, including home life, school, sports, medical care and others. They will permit weekly video contact between the children and S. (N.). Regarding the future, they do not foresee any changes taking place.
Mr. and Mrs. Shanks advised that the Children’s Aid were legally responsible for the children during the first two years, starting in 2021. During that time, S. (N.) was given the opportunity to put her affairs in order. Bonnee Shanks explained, S. (N.) did not do so.
When the two-year period came to an end, the CAS proposed to Mr. and Mrs. Shanks that they assume custody of the three children. Had they not taken on this responsibility, Bonnee Shanks explained, CAS would then have had to place the children elsewhere. This included possibly separating the children and placing them in different homes.
The parties presented no further evidence.
Submissions of the Parties
The hospital representative asked the Board to transfer S. (N.) to the BMHC.
Counsel for the Attorney-General, Ms. Dufort, began by submitting that the restriction of liberty leading to the current and continuing hospital admission was and remains necessary and appropriate. Indeed, this is no longer an issue.
Ms. Dufort submitted that S. (N.) needs to stabilize and make progress on her addictions issue. S. (N.) social connection to Ottawa is very limited, so that her reintegration would not be compromised if she were sent to Brockville. In any event, for the coming year, it is not realistic to anticipate she will become ready to reside in the community.
Ms. Dufort asked the Board to consider removing condition 2(g), regarding travel passes. Counsel submitted; we cannot anticipate that approved travel out of Ontario could realistically be granted in the coming year.
On behalf of S. (N.), Ms. McMahon advised they took no issue with having the current detention order continue. Substance use still presents as a risk factor. Permitting S. (N.) to attend residential treatment will address the risk she presents to the public. The evidence points to S. (N.) needing to demonstrate a period of stability of six months before proceeding further.
Since September 15, 2025, S. (N.) has now been in hospital for two months. When she left MacKay Manor in August, no housing arrangement was offered. Ms. McMahon took serious issue with the hospital’s decision to assign her client to the shelter at the Shepherds of Good Hope. The environment there exposed her to substances and other unstable individuals. Ms. McMahon agreed with Dr. Alabi’s comment that when a suitable residential rehabilitation program is identified, the hospital will need to confirm that suitable transitional housing will be in place once addictions treatment is completed.
Counsel asked the Board to maintain the community living clause as written, i.e., for “hospital approved accommodation” - as opposed to “supervised”. This will still leave the hospital able to more precisely determine the appropriate level of support and supervision.
Ms. McMahon pointed out that the question of charges against ‘Jonathan’ remains outstanding. Now that this man has apparently issued a letter of apology, to push S. (N.) out of the Royal to go to Brockville is not the solution. Counsel submitted that her client is making gains in therapy with Ms. Chan.
In opposing the hospital request for transfer to Brockville, Ms. McMahon also submitted that S. (N.) has experienced a great deal of turnover during her short years as a forensic patient. She had her first contact with psychiatry with Dr. Booth. She went on to Dr. de Laplante, followed by Dr. Gulati, and is now with Dr. Alabi. Ms. McMahon submitted that having her assigned to yet another treating psychiatrist in Brockville will only make things more difficult.
In final remarks, Ms. McMahon advised they were not requesting an inter-provincial to Alberta at this time. S. (N.) may consider this in the future.
Conclusions and Disposition
Ms. S. (N.) presents a significant threat to the safety of the public. Indeed, the parties did not dispute this. S. (N.) remains at risk of committing further criminal offences likely to cause physical and-or psychological harm of a serious nature to others, including assault, child abduction, threats, and fraud. This is more than well documented by the lengthy history, both behavioural and based on clinical observation.
Regarding the restriction of liberty imposed on September 15, 2025, when S. (N.) was required to remain in hospital under strict controls, again, the parties took no issue with the hospital’s decision to admit and to keep her. S. (N.) had violated the trust placed in her by the treatment team and by MacKay Manor soon after her discharge from hospital on July 23, 2025. She then engaged in a period of substance abuse with cocaine, extending to September 15, 2025, by which time she had managed to evade apprehension by the hospital and police. Throughout those months, S. (N.) engaged in an extended course of avoidance and ongoing deception to both her concerned parents and her dedicated hospital-based counsellors.
The risk presented by S. (N.) is even more elevated by recent allegations that she is currently involved in frauds being committed on unsuspecting members of the public. In exercising future supervision of S. (N.), wherever she might find herself placed - whether in hospital or in the community - the hospital will need to exercise great care at monitoring her interactions with others, including on-line, not to mention future providers of any accommodation that she might acquire.
The serious concerns about S. (N.)’ tendency to engage in duplicity and misrepresentation extend even further. There remains the realistic possibility that she is still manipulating others, in particular male acquaintances, by confabulating stories about either being pregnant or having been sexually assaulted. Her reports are difficult to follow and lack consistency. There is documented concern that some parts of her reporting in recent years could resemble conduct seen in the time leading up to the index offence.
Most recently, S. (N.) has alleged that a male patient sexually assaulted her. In wanting to keep her safe, the hospital requests she be transferred to Brockville, a hospital where she had previously volunteered to be admitted. Presumably, she understands this would protect her from further exposure to the man who she claims was abusing her at the ROMHC. Despite this, at the hearing, S. (N.) and her counsel vigorously opposed any suggestion of transfer to the BMHC.
The Board cannot help but observe that S. (N.) is a difficult patient to manage. The hospital continues to have serious concerns that she may still be involved in some form of drug trafficking on their units. For as long as these concerns remain, S. (N.) will not be able to move forward with accessing hospital-granted privileges. Nor will the hospital have any justification to offer her the chance of attending residential treatment for her long-term raging drug addiction.
Regarding the hospital’s request to transfer care from Ottawa to Brockville, the Board finds that the case presented was not persuasive. Only one reason was stated by the hospital, namely, to separate S. (N.) from her alleged abuser. Had other reasons been established on the evidence, such as a complete impasse in treatment, the case for transfer might have succeeded.
Moreover, as was pointed out by counsel for the patient throughout the hearing, S. (N.) appears to still have something of a working connection to members of the treatment team. These include the case manager, social worker, addictions counsellor, psychotherapist and of course, Dr. Alabi. The Board agrees that short of a major treatment impasse arising, transfer to a different hospital is, for now, neither necessary nor appropriate in terms of advancing S. (N.)’ treatment needs.
The Board considered the recommendation made by Counsel for the Attorney-General to remove an existing privilege to travel outside Ontario. For the coming twelve months, we do not foresee it as at all likely that S. (N.) will qualify for travel within Ontario, much less to any farther destinations. That said, having regard to the need to maintain some hope for her future ability to work with the treatment team over the longer term, we prefer to leave condition 2(g) in place.
We bring a similar approach to our thinking about conditions 2(f) and 2(h). No doubt, the hospital will continue to carefully assess whether and - if the case - by what means S. (N.) may, or may not, be discharged to accommodation with higher supervision or to an acceptable form of residential treatment.
Accordingly, having regard to the primary consideration of keeping the public safe, while balancing the patient’s mental condition, her reintegration and other needs, a detention order is made, on the same terms and conditions, with no changes.
DATED this 28th day of January 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.
Mr. P. Hageraats
Alternate Chairperson
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board