Ontario Review Board
Re: Erin Lynn Nicholson
ORB File No: 7163
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: Erin Lynn Nicholson Counsel: Mr. D. Northcott
Person in charge of Hospital: Representative: Ms. T. Newman
Attorney-General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. S. Curry
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated February 18, 2026)
OVERVIEW
- Erin Lynn Nicholson was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on June 19, 2017, for the offence of assault, contrary to the Criminal Code. She is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board (“the Board”) dated December 23, 2024, detaining her at the Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care – Brebeuf Program for Regional Forensics, Penetanguishene, Ontario (“Waypoint” or “the Hospital”). The disposition includes privileges up to and including the ability to live in the community within the catchment area of Waypoint, in accommodation approved by the person in charge.
ISSUES
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 Ms. Nicholson 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.
At the outset of the hearing, the parties submitted an initial position. Ms. Nicholson 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. At the conclusion of the hearing, all parties maintained their initial positions, and a joint submission was put forward for the Board’s consideration.
FINDINGS
- After hearing the evidence, the Board found that Ms. Nicholson continues to pose a significant threat to public safety. Although she is relatively stable in a highly supervised setting, her ongoing psychotic symptoms, limited insight, and reliance on structured monitoring requires the need for continued detention at Waypoint, under the current disposition, with no change at this time.
BACKGROUND
The Hospital Report dated October 20, 2025, was entered as an exhibit at the hearing. The following information, including the events surrounding the index offence has been taken from the Hospital Report, summarized here as follows.
On January 14, 2010, Ms. Nicholson and the victim were in a coffee shop, located in the City of Toronto. They were not known to each other. Ms. Nicholson approached the 83-year-old male victim and asked him for money to buy tea. The victim refused to provide her with any money, at which time she cursed at the victim, and picked up the victim’s cup of tea and threw it onto the victim’s face and arms. She then left the coffee shop. Police attended and located her a short distance away, and she was arrested.
Ms. Nicholson is currently 49 years old. She was born and raised in Northern Ontario. Her mother and stepfather separated when she was five years old, however Mr. Nicholson continues to support Ms. Nicholson. When she was 17 years old, she sustained serious injuries in a motor vehicle accident while driving, including the loss of an eye. After that, Ms. Nicholson continued academically, completing high school, and attending Queen’s University, with a plan to go to medical school. She did not continue her studies due to the onset of her mental illness. She has a history of polysubstance abuse, including cannabis, crack cocaine, ecstasy, heroin, and alcohol.
A check of the Canadian Police Information Centre database indicates that in 2007 Ms. Nicholson was charged with possession of a substance and received a stay of proceedings. In 2009, she was found guilty of criminal harassment and received a conditional discharge. Other criminal charges involving offences of violence, including the use of weapons, and not complying with court orders, were either withdrawn or dismissed.
Information regarding psychiatric hospital admissions dates back to 2004 when Ms. Nicholson first attended for mental health issues. She was described as actively psychotic, physically, and verbally aggressive and threatening, and sexually preoccupied. At times she required physical and chemical restraints to manage her agitation and aggression. She eloped from hospitals and discharged herself against medical advice. Her history shows a significant pattern of not engaging in psychiatric treatment and non-compliance with psychiatric medication.
After the commission of the index offence, Ms. Nicholson was admitted to Waypoint on a treatment order, having been found unfit to stand trial in March 2011. Ms. Nicholson was started on clozapine in July 2014, which resulted in significant improvements to her mental health and behaviour. She was granted community living privileges in 2016, and she continues her placement in the Brebeuf Program at Waypoint.
Ms. Nicholson’s current diagnoses are Schizoaffective Disorder and Polysubstance Abuse Disorder. She is currently incapable of making decisions about her psychiatric treatment. She is also incapable of managing her finances independently. Her stepfather is her substitute decision maker.
Ms. Nicholson has the continued support of her family. Her mother lives in Northern Ontario and her stepfather lives in Barrie with his biological daughter. Ms. Nicholson speaks regularly with her mother, stepfather, and her stepsister. Notwithstanding a community living privilege, and the continued encouragement to use it, she has had no interest in leaving the hospital.
CURRENT COURSE
Ms. Nicholson continues her placement on the Brebeuf Program. Overall, Ms. Nicholson has demonstrated some improvement in her mental state, however, her symptoms persist despite ongoing treatment, and she requires reminders to take medication. She continues to experience episodic anxiety and delusional thoughts, particularly following community passes, during which she may become tearful and seek staff support. Her increased anxiety is associated with delusional beliefs about celebrity connections, and a general mistrust of others.
Ms. Nicholson independently participates in structured leisure, family, and community activities while abstaining from substance use. She requires some support with her attire, and cluttered living space, which necessitates ongoing monitoring for safety and appropriateness. Despite familiarity with community based programs, she consistently refuses transition planning and expresses a strong preference to remain hospitalized. Ongoing encouragement to consider future community living continues.
EVIDENCE AT THE HEARING
The evidence at the hearing included comprehensive testimony from Dr. A. Jones regarding Ms. Nicholson’s current mental health status and behaviour. Dr. Jones stated that the treatment team’s risk assessment and recommendations remain unchanged. There have been no significant changes in Ms. Nicholson’s clinical status, and the documented assessment continues to reflect the team’s unanimous opinion. She has been assessed as capable of living in the community, but she remains unwilling to do so.
Ms. Nicholson reports feeling unprepared, expresses unrealistic timelines, and has indicated that she may discontinue medication or resume substance use if discharged. She has declined further discussion or exploration of community options. Her reluctance is partly influenced by fear of relapse and observation of other patients being readmitted. The treatment team believes that forced discharge would increase risk through noncompliance and destabilization. She currently uses supervised community privileges appropriately, seeking staff support when distressed.
After further inquiries, Dr. Jones expressed that Ms. Nicholson lacks the skills for independent living and requires a supervised setting. A supported housing option has been identified, but it is subject to an age requirement that has not yet been waived. Her stepfather has expressed willingness to assist with placement planning. Dr. Jones opined that if supportive housing became available and she agreed to transition, she would likely be better able to maintain activities with the benefit of 24 hour staffing, medication supervision, and nursing support, however, Ms. Nicholson’s consent remains essential.
In terms of medication adherence, it is closely monitored and should continue to be because prior reductions in supervision led to decreased medication levels. In addition, substance use screening over the past year has remained consistently negative. Dr. Jones stated that overall, Ms. Nicholson maintains stable and supportive contact with her family, including regular visits with her mother in the community, without evidence of dysregulation.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
(a) Significant Threat
The Board must first determine whether Ms. Nicholson 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, and recent clinical findings, the Board has determined that Ms. Nicholson continues to pose a significant threat to public safety.
Ms. Nicholson has a long standing history of serious mental illness, including a diagnosis of Schizoaffective Disorder, complicated by a history of polysubstance abuse. While her current presentation reflects some stability within a highly structured and supervised environment, the evidence also demonstrates that this stability is contingent upon ongoing monitoring, medication supervision, and immediate staff support. Ms. Nicholson continues to experience persistent psychotic symptoms, including episodic anxiety and delusional beliefs, particularly following her use of community passes. She requires reminders to take medication and remains incapable of making decisions regarding her psychiatric treatment. Of particular concern is her expressed ambivalence toward medication adherence and her stated intention that she may discontinue medication or resume substance use if discharged to the community. These factors significantly elevate the risk of psychiatric destabilization.
The Board further notes Ms. Nicholson’s longstanding pattern of non-engagement with treatment and non-compliance with medication prior to her current period of structured care. Her reluctance to engage in transition planning, despite being assessed as capable of community living with appropriate supports, reflects limited insight into her illness and the risks associated with premature or unsupported discharge.
Taken together, the evidence supports a finding that, although Ms. Nicholson has not engaged in recent overtly violent conduct, the risk she poses is real. The likelihood of decompensation, medication nonadherence, and relapse into substance use, in the absence of a supervised setting, constitutes a significant threat to public safety.
(b) Necessary and Appropriate
Having found that Ms. Nicholson continues to pose a significant threat to public safety, the Board must determine the disposition that is necessary and appropriate in the circumstances, in accordance with the factors outlined in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code. The Board is required to impose the least onerous and least restrictive disposition that adequately protects the public, while also taking into account Ms. Nicholson’s mental condition, her reintegration into society, and her other needs.
The Board accepts the unanimous opinion of the treatment team that there have been no material changes in Ms. Nicholson’s clinical status since the last disposition. Her current level of stability is achieved within the context of detention at Waypoint, where medication adherence is monitored, substance use is screened, and staff support is immediately available when she becomes distressed.
While the evidence indicates that supported housing options have been identified, and that Ms. Nicholson could benefit from a supervised community placement, with 24 hour staffing, medication supervision, and nursing support, such a transition is not presently viable without her consent and engagement. Ms. Nicholson has consistently refused transition planning and has expressed a strong desire to remain hospitalized. We agree with the treatment team, that a forced discharge would increase risk, rather than reduce it, by increasing the likelihood of non-compliance, destabilization, and relapse.
The Board also places weight on Ms. Nicholson’s ongoing incapacity to manage her psychiatric treatment and finances independently, as well as her expressed uncertainty about maintaining sobriety and medication adherence in the community. Although she uses her current community privileges appropriately, and she seeks staff support when distressed, these privileges are exercised within a framework of oversight that cannot be replicated absent a structured and supported placement.
In these circumstances, the Board is satisfied that a continuation of the current detention order at Waypoint, under the same conditions and privileges, represents the least onerous and least restrictive disposition available that adequately protects the public. This disposition also permits continued therapeutic engagement, preserves Ms. Nicholson’s existing community privileges, and allows for future reconsideration should her insight, engagement, and readiness for transition improve, in keeping with her ultimate recovery, and the goal of her reintegration into society. The Board encourages the treatment team to continue their efforts in supporting a transition to supervised community living, and Ms. Nicholson, with the assistance and support of her stepfather, to continue working towards the goal of community reintegration.
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