Ontario Review Board
Re: Sean Michael Nolan
ORB File No: 8662
Hearing Held On: Monday, December 1, 2025
Place of Hearing: Waypoint Centre for Mental Health
Pursuant To: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before: Alternate Chairperson: Ms. J. Mills Members: Dr. P. L. Darby Dr. G. Kerry Ms. A. La Viola Ms. D. Smith
Parties Appearing: Accused: Sean Michael Nolan Counsel: Mr. N. Xynnis (via Zoom)
Person in charge of Hospital: Representative: Ms. M. Kraftscik
Attorney-General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. S. Curry
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated February 18, 2026)
OVERVIEW
1. Sean Nolan was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on September 23, 2024, for the offences of arson and assault of peace officers with a weapon, contrary to the Criminal Code. He is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board (“the Board”) dated December 23, 2024, detaining him at the Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care – Brébeuf Program for Regional Forensics, Penetanguishene, Ontario. The disposition includes privileges up to and including the ability to live within the catchment area of Waypoint (“Waypoint” or “the Hospital”), in accommodation approved by the person in charge, and permission to attend a residential treatment program anywhere in Ontario for up to six months, indirectly supervised.
ISSUES
2. On December 1, 2025, the Board convened at Waypoint for a hearing further to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code to review the disposition. The Board was asked to determine whether Mr. Nolan represented a significant threat to the safety of the public at the time of the hearing, and further, what the necessary and appropriate disposition is in the circumstances according to the factors set out in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
3. At the outset of the hearing, the parties all submitted an initial position. Mr. Nolan continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. The necessary and appropriate disposition is a continuation of the current detention order, under the same conditions and privileges, with no change at this time. At the conclusion of the hearing – all parties maintained their initial positions – a joint submission was put forward for the Board’s consideration.
FINDINGS
4. After hearing the evidence, the Board found that Mr. Nolan continues to pose a significant threat to public safety. While he has shown clinical stability and improvement in a structured setting, this stability remains dependent on supervision for medication compliance and abstinence from substance use, in addition to the lack of approved accommodation at this time. The necessary and appropriate disposition is continued detention in the Brébeuf Program with the ability to live in the community, in approved, supervised accommodations.
BACKGROUND
5. The Hospital Report dated October 22, 2025, was entered as an exhibit at the hearing. The following information, including the events surrounding the index offences has been taken from the Hospital Report, summarized here as follows.
6. Mr. Nolan was residing in Sundridge, Ontario with his common law spouse. On May 5, 2024, he called police on a number of occasions. Officers attended his residence and noted that he appeared to be experiencing a mental health episode. He did not appear to be a danger to himself or others at that time, so the officers took no action. The following day, Mr. Nolan used gasoline and lighter fluid to light numerous fires in his residence. When police arrived, the door was barricaded, and Mr. Nolan refused to exit the building. Three officers made their way into the building and found Mr. Nolan lying on the floor with a knife in his hand. When the officers went to remove him from the building, Mr. Nolan attempted to stab the officers. He then used the knife to stab himself several times.
7. Mr. Nolan is currently 50 years old. He was born in British Columbia, and moved to Ontario with his family, eventually moving to Rockport, Ontario when he was 18 years old. After completing high school, he had a number of jobs before he started having contact with law enforcement beginning in 1983. He has reported a history of substance use, including alcohol, cannabis, cocaine, and methamphetamines.
8. Mr. Nolan has had a number of relationships and has four children with two different women. In 2009, he met his current spouse, and they have been cohabiting since 2010. She was admitted to hospital for medical problems seven days before the index offences. She is currently residing in an assisted living facility in Bracebridge.
9. A check of the Canadian Police Information Centre database indicates that Mr. Nolan has an extensive criminal history. Records include convictions for numerous assaults (including spousal assaults), robberies, break and enter, theft related offences, firearm related offences, impaired driving, and persistent failures to comply with court orders, probation, and release conditions. The records also show convictions in recent years, involving assaults against female partners.
10. Mr. Nolan has a history of psychiatric hospital admissions. Reports indicate the first admissions began when he was 45 years old, under the Mental Health Act. A series of admissions to the North Bay Regional Centre between 2020 and 2024 have been documented. Mr. Nolan exhibited paranoid delusions involving his spouse, his neighbours, and criminal organizations tunneling under his house. He was noncompliant with antipsychotic medication, and he tested positive for cannabis and amphetamines.
11. After the commission of the index offences, Mr. Nolan was admitted to Waypoint for an assessment of criminal responsibility. After the finding of not criminally responsible in 2024, Mr. Nolan returned to Waypoint, and his placement on the Brébeuf Program, where he continues to reside.
12. Mr. Nolan’s current diagnoses are Schizophrenia, Unspecified Amphetamine-Type Substance Related Disorder, and Unspecified Cannabis Related Disorder. Mr. Nolan is currently capable of making decisions about his psychiatric treatment. He receives financial support through the Ontario Disability Support Program.
CURRENT COURSE
13. Mr. Nolan continues his placement on the Brébeuf Program. Overall, Mr. Nolan has demonstrated ongoing stability, and he is described as ‘calm and cooperative, pleasant and polite.’ As indicated in the clinical risk assessment, Mr. Nolan has demonstrated significant improvement in symptoms of psychosis. There have not been any documented incidents of concern throughout the review period, and all urine drug screens have tested negative.
14. He is currently prescribed a long acting injectable antipsychotic medication and has expressed an intention to continue treatment in the future. However, long term compliance has not yet been established. Although Mr. Nolan continues to be on a waitlist for community housing, a potential move into a suitable, accessible apartment has been delayed due to municipal permit issues, and the treatment team has decided to wait for the township of Midland’s decision because the apartment remains the best fit for accessibility and location.
15. Mr. Nolan maintains regular contact with his partner, who currently resides in Penetanguishene. Mr. Nolan has indicated he would like to resume living with her, but he also acknowledged the treatment team’s concerns at this time (Mr. Nolan reported that his partner had recently consumed alcohol). He remains hopeful that the decision may be reconsidered in future. He attended a pre-Board hearing conference and stated that he did not have any specific requests at this time. He is looking forward to securing community housing and living independently again.
EVIDENCE AT THE HEARING
16. The evidence at the hearing included comprehensive testimony from Dr. A. Jones regarding Mr. Nolan’s current mental health status, behaviour and updates regarding community living.
17. Dr. Jones stated that Mr. Nolan continues to present a significant risk. The current recommendation is for a detention order with community living, ongoing monitoring, and abstention from substances. The treatment plan includes frequent follow up to monitor his mental state, ensure medication compliance, and conduct substance monitoring through sampling. The detention order would allow the team to act proactively should any concerns arise.
18. Dr. Jones noted that the plan includes discharging Mr. Nolan to live in the community, provided suitable accommodation can be secured. He is considered ready for community living, in approved accommodations. Mr. Nolan has significant mobility issues (uses a cane and requires a second hip replacement). A ground level apartment under construction was identified as ideal, but the project did not proceed due to municipal approval issues. Securing community accommodation is therefore important both clinically and to facilitate surgery.
19. Unfortunately, living with his partner in an unsupervised setting is not supported at this time due to her reported substance use, the history of domestic aggression, and uncertainty regarding Mr. Nolan’s ability to maintain abstinence. Dr. Jones stated that the risks could eventually be managed if they reside in supervised accommodation with staff present. Supervision would allow early identification of substance use or interpersonal conflict and timely intervention by the treatment team.
20. In terms of community housing, unfortunately, Mr. Nolan has been assessed as not suitable for independent living at this time. A neuropsychological assessment has raised concerns regarding changes in Mr. Nolan’s cognitive abilities, including significant decreases in visual perceptual reasoning, working memory, processing speed, and visual memory, and delayed recall. Dr. Jones stated that further recommendations include a repeat occupational therapy life skills assessment, neurological examination, physiotherapy referral, and follow up testing to determine whether the condition is considered progressive.
21. Mr. Nolan is taking Suboxone, which he reports was initially obtained after falsely reporting that he had an opioid addiction when his family physician declined to prescribe opioids. He reported that Suboxone significantly alleviates his pain. Earlier in the year, he requested a dose reduction due to sedation, decreasing from three doses daily, to two. The use of Suboxone may complicate anesthesia for hip surgery, but this can be managed perioperatively.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
(a) Significant Threat
22. The Board must first determine whether Mr. Nolan continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public as defined in Winko v. British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute), 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625. Based on the totality of the evidence, including the testimony of Dr. Jones, the contents of the Hospital Report, and recent clinical findings, the Board has determined that Mr. Nolan continues to pose a significant threat to public safety.
23. Mr. Nolan was recently found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for serious violent offences, including arson and assault of peace officers with a weapon. The index offences occurred in the context of untreated psychosis, substance use, and significant behavioural dysregulation, resulting in grave risk to police officers, and to Mr. Nolan himself. He has a lengthy criminal history marked by repeated violent offences, failures to comply with court orders, and interpersonal aggression, including within intimate relationships. This history remains a relevant risk factor in assessing his risk to the safety of the public.
24. The Board accepts that Mr. Nolan suffers from schizophrenia, along with substance related disorders, and that when untreated or non-compliant with medication, he is at high risk of psychiatric decompensation and behavioural escalation.
25. While Mr. Nolan has demonstrated clinical improvement over the review period, long term medication adherence in the community has not yet been established. In the absence of sustained compliance, the evidence indicates that Mr. Nolan would be at significant risk of relapse, with a corresponding increase in risk to public safety.
26. Further, the neuropsychological assessment raised concerns regarding changes in Mr. Nolan’s cognitive functioning, noting significant declines which emphasize the conditional nature of his current stability. As a result, further interventions are necessary, including a repeat occupational therapy life skills assessment, a neurological examination, a physiotherapy referral, and additional follow up testing to determine whether the condition is progressive. On that basis, the Board is satisfied that Mr. Nolan continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public at this time.
(b) Necessary and Appropriate
27. The Board must next determine the disposition that is necessary and appropriate in the circumstances. The disposition must embrace the principle of the ‘least onerous and least restrictive’ outcome, with due consideration given to Mr. Nolan’s liberty interests, which must also be weighed together with concerns about public safety, his mental condition, and his reintegration into society, as required by s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
28. The Board agrees that Mr. Nolan has demonstrated clinical improvement while residing on the Brébeuf Program. He is described as calm, with no documented incidents of violence or behavioural concern during the review period, and he has been compliant with antipsychotic medication, has transitioned to a long acting injectable, and has consistently tested negative on urine drug screens.
29. The Board also accepts that Mr. Nolan is motivated to continue treatment and has expressed a desire to live independently in the community. However, the evidence establishes that significant risk factors remain. These include the absence of a demonstrated history of long term medication adherence outside of a structured environment, ongoing concerns regarding cognitive functioning, risk of relapse for substance use, and the lack of suitable, approved accommodation. Further, notwithstanding Mr. Nolan’s current stability, he requires proactive intervention should his mental state deteriorate, or substance use recur.
30. The Board further accepts that living with his partner in an unsupervised setting is not appropriate at this time, given the history of domestic aggression and concerns regarding substance use. While the treatment team considers Mr. Nolan clinically ready for community living in principle, this readiness is contingent upon the availability of appropriate accommodation, close monitoring, and the continued oversight of a detention order to allow for rapid intervention should risk escalate.
31. In these circumstances, the Board finds that a detention order remains the least onerous and least restrictive disposition capable of adequately managing the risk posed by Mr. Nolan, while supporting his continued rehabilitation and eventual reintegration into the community. The current disposition appropriately balances public safety with Mr. Nolan’s treatment needs and liberty interests, while permitting graduated community access when clinically appropriate and approved by the person in charge. The Board concludes that the necessary and appropriate disposition is a continuation of the existing detention order, with no change at this time.
DATED this 18th day of February 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Ms. A. La Viola Legal Member
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board