Re: Jillian D. Nolan
ORB File No: 8658
Hearing held on: January 13, 2026
Place of hearing: Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences 700 Gordon Street, Whitby
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before: Alternate Chairperson: Ms. L. Banks Members: Dr. R. Sheppard Dr. L.O. Lightfoot Ms. C. Murray Ms. R. Chopra
Parties Appearing: Accused: Jillian D. Nolan Counsel: Mr. M.C. Bebee
The person in charge of hospital: Representative: Mr. K. Dow
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. N. MacDonald
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated February 20, 2026)
Introduction
On November 5, 2024, Jillian Nolan was found not criminally responsible (“NCR”) on account of mental disorder on charges of causing a Disturbance, Disarming Peace Officer, and Fail to Comply with Probation Order (x5), all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (Criminal Code”).
On January 13, 2026, a panel of the Ontario Review Board (“Board” or “panel”) convened to review Ms. Nolan’s current Disposition pursuant to s.672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. At the time of the hearing, Ms. Nolan was ordered detained within the General Forensic unit of the Forensic Program at Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences (“Ontario Shores” or “the hospital”) with the outer limit of privileges including to live in the community in accommodation approved by the person in charge.
Ms. Nolan was present at the hearing and was represented by counsel, Mr. Marc Bebee.
A Hospital Report dated January 5, 2026, (the "Hospital Report") was entered as Exhibit 1.
The issue at this hearing is whether Jillian Nolan remains a significant threat to public safety, as defined in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code. If so, the necessary and appropriate Disposition in the circumstances must be determined, bearing in mind the factors enunciated in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
For the reasons set out below and based on the expert evidence and opinions before it, the Board concluded that Jillian Nolan represents a significant threat to the safety of the public. The Board further concluded that her risk can be properly managed with a Detention Order at a General Forensic Unit of the Forensic Program at Ontario Shores with no change to the terms of her Disposition Order. The Board concluded that this is the necessary and appropriate Disposition in the circumstances.
Current Psychiatric Diagnoses
- Schizoaffective Disorder Substance Use Disorder (Cannabis, Stimulants, Opioids; Severe – in sustained remission in a controlled environment) Cluster B Personality Traits
Position of the Parties
At the commencement of the hearing, the parties were asked for their initial positions. As a representative of the hospital, Mr. Dow submitted that Ms. Nolan represents a significant threat to the safety of the public and recommended detention at a General Forensic Unit of the Forensic Program at Ontario Shores with no change to the terms of her Disposition Order.
Counsel for the Attorney General, Ms. MacDonald, adopted the hospital’s position.
Counsel for Ms. Nolan, Mr. Bebee, did not contest the issue significant threat. He advised that Ms. Nolan is requesting a Conditional Discharge. He specified terms including a term that that Ms. Nolan would agree to live in a monitored facility with support for compliance with medication; she would continue with recommended programming.
Index Offence
- Page 2 of the Hospital Report contains the agreed statement of facts obtained from the Ontario Court of Justice Plea Arraignment, which is extracted as follows:
“On August 21, 2024, at 10:30 am police were dispatched to the Fleming Building at 1005 Elgin Street West in Cobourg. The complainant advised that a female was on scene causing a disturbance; throwing things around and within the building. Officers attended and located Ms. Nolan at the front of the building. She matched the description of the female that had been described. There had been a call earlier that morning at the nearby Northumberland Mall for Ms. Nolan causing a disturbance there as well. There was also another call that morning at 500 Division Street in Cobourg of Ms. Nolan causing a disturbance.
When the officers arrived at the Fleming Building, Ms. Nolan jumped into the rear of the police cruiser. The officers removed her at that point and then placed her under arrest for causing a disturbance and breaching the probation.
Officer spoke with the various witnesses who described Ms. Nolan attending the building yelling, screaming, swearing and throwing things around. The officers read her rights to counsel and caution. She was transported to the Cobourg police station for booking. During that booking process, Ms. Nolan attempted to disarm Constable Cunningham. Ms. Nolan was cautioned for her actions. Directly after, she then grabbed a hold of Constable Cunningham’s firearm again and she was, at that point, arrested for the additional offence of attempting to disarm a police officer. She was given her rights to counsel and caution again.
At the time of these events, she was on five separate probation orders; all of which had terms to keep the peace and be of good behaviour.”
Background Information
The Hospital Report and Exhibits contain extensive background information, which need not be repeated here in detail. In brief, Ms. Nolan is a 42-year-old of no fixed address. She is a mother of two children. She has no contact with her children.
Ms. Nolan has a grade 10 education. Ms. Nolan’s longest period of employment was at a Wendy’s at age 15. She worked there full-time for three years but then experienced attendance issues when “drugs got involved”. Ms. Nolan is financially supported through Ontario Disability Support Program.
She has often been homeless, had trouble maintaining residences provided to her, and she had been “banned” from shelters.
The CPIC report indicates that Ms. Nolan has an extensive criminal history with 65 various charges commencing in 2007. It is noteworthy that the CPIC records show she has committed violent offences. She was convicted of assault with intent to resist arrest in 2018 and uttering threats in August 2023. Many other offences listed in the CPIC were theft under $5000 and fail to comply with undertaking. The Hospital Report states that she also was charged with two counts of assault police officer on August 6, 2024. On August 15, 2024, Ms. Nolan was charged with a further assault for attacking a person without reason.
Ms. Nolan has used many illicit substances including cannabis, cocaine, amphetamines, fentanyl, and opioids. She attended residential treatment twice at Renascent House, without lasting success. At age 18, Ms. Nolan was diagnosed with bipolar disorder. She did well on lithium until she became noncompliant at the age of 22. After the birth of her daughter, Ms. Nolan resumed substance use. She was able to remain off substances during her second pregnancy through to the third trimester.
Ms. Nolan has had multiple psychiatric admissions to hospital commencing in 2001.
Course Since NCR Finding
Ms. Nolan is considered to be marginally capable of consenting to her psychiatric treatment. There have been a number of changes to Ms. Nolan’s treatment regimen during this reporting period due to the brittleness of her illness, despite adhering to treatment.
On January 28, 2025, Ms. Nolan was transferred from a secure forensic unit (FAU) to a general forensic unit (FPRU).
Ms. Nolan has partial insight into her illness. She understands that she suffers from Bipolar Disorder and acknowledges a history of substance use. She has consistently reported that she “wouldn’t be acting properly, I’d go manic” if her medications were discontinued. However, she is unable to identify early signs of psychiatric deterioration.
Ms. Nolan experienced two periods of deteriorated mental status this reporting year, despite adherence to medications. The first deterioration, from March to May 2025, involved hypomania, paranoia, psychosis, sexually inappropriate behaviour, and aggression. From September to November 2025, Ms. Nolan experienced near-identical breakthrough symptoms at a reduced intensity and without associated physical aggression. Risperidone seemed to be the most effective medication to stabilize her mental state.
Ms. Nolan attended some structured programming this year, with variable levels of engagement.
Ms. Nolan does not have an Approved Person nor did she have any visitors this year. She indicated that she had telephone contact with her mother, who is the custodian of Ms. Nolan’s pre-teen son.
Oral Evidence at the Hearing
Dr. Leslie Wong (Ms. Nolan’s inpatient psychiatrist since January 2025 and co-author of the Hospital Report) provided viva voce evidence at the hearing as follows.
Dr. Wong testified that there have been changes to Ms. Nolan’s medications throughout the year. Most recently in December 2025, her dose of oral risperidone was increased from 5mg daily to 6mg daily because she was continuing to experience residual paranoia and suspiciousness. He plans to maintain this dose change.
Despite the fact that Ms. Nolan has worked well with the treatment team this year, has engaged in discussions around treatment, and has had no confirmed substance use, she nonetheless had two periods of mental status decompensation for two to three months each. The first decompensation in the spring of 2025 was more severe than the fall 2025 decompensation. Although the fall decompensation was not as severe, it took two to three months for Ms. Nolan to return to a baseline mental status.
The treatment team is exploring options for housing for Ms. Nolan. The team agrees that she will require placement in a complex care facility or in 24-hour highly supervised housing. MacKay House is potentially a good option for her. There may be other housing options that provide the level of care she will require, which will be explored. Ms. Nolan is not ready for discharge to the community at this time. She requires an additional six month period of stability of her mental status before a referral can be made. The doctor advised that Ms. Nolan has only been at her baseline for the past month. Her housing will be paramount to her successful transition to community living. The hospital needs to be able to approve her housing to ensure that she will be adequately supported, monitored and supervised in order to safely manage her risk to the public.
The hospital must have the option of being able to return Ms. Nolan to the hospital expeditiously in the case of decompensation.
Over the next year, Dr. Wong hopes to see a period of stability in the very structured setting of the hospital before she will be recommended for community living.
In response to questions of Ms. MacDonald, Dr. Wong opined that a Conditional Discharge would not be appropriate at this time, even though Ms. Nolan may currently agree to supervised housing. If Ms. Nolan was to change her mind and not follow recommendations for housing, the hospital would be left in the position that they would not be able to approve housing. If Ms. Nolan became unwell in the community, it would become less likely that she would return to hospital voluntarily as she got progressively more ill. Dr. Wong reiterated that stable supervised housing will be necessary for her success in the community.
In response to questions of Mr. Bebee, Dr. Wong testified that in the spring of 2025 Ms. Nolan decompensated progressively over the course of a month. There were obvious signs that she was unwell. If she had been living in the community, he hopes that housing staff would notice the decompensation. However, he does not think it is likely that she would have returned to hospital voluntarily at that time. It is possible that she would have been certifiable pursuant to the Mental Health Act (“MHA”) but not likely if she had not yet decompensated beyond hygiene issues and not maintaining her room properly (i.e. flooding her room).
In August 2025, medication changes could have prompted her decompensation. At that time, Ms. Nolan had been switched to paliperidone at Ms. Nolan’s request as it is easier to manage injections on a less frequent basis. Dr. Wong testified that Ms. Nolan did self-report the August decline in mental status in some respects.
In response to Mr. Bebee’s questions, Dr. Wong noted that since Ms. Nolan has been under the ORB she has abstained from substance use. She has insight into the fact that substance use has caused problems for her in the past.
Dr. Wong testified that Ms. Nolan has been adhering to treatment and has partial insight into the need for treatment. He stated, “the big picture is that she was generally cooperative with the team, but there were other times she did not go with their recommendations.”
Ms. Nolan has had limited engagement in structured programming. The doctor testified that even when well in the past year, she had variable to poor engagement in programming.
In response to questions of the Board, Dr. Wong testified that there are deficits in Ms. Nolan’s executive functioning, even when she is at her baseline mental state. In the context of a Conditional Discharge Disposition, the most significant issue is Ms. Nolan’s ability to determine her own residence. Her judgment is not always good due to her issues with executive functioning. Therefore, the hospital needs to maintain the ability to authorize and oversee her placement in the community as a critical risk management tool.
Dr. Wong testified that it was Ms. Nolan’s decision to discontinue lithium. In the spring of 2025, Ms. Nolan consented to gradually increasing lithium to 1200mg daily as they attempted to optimize her medication regimen. Then Ms. Nolan stopped the medication abruptly. To this day, it is not clear why she wanted to discontinue this medication abruptly. The treatment team did not notice common side effects of lithium nor did she complain of side effects. There are questions surrounding how compliant Ms. Nolan would be if she required the addition of oral medications, such as clozapine, to her medication regimen.
Once Ms. Nolan has achieved six months of ongoing clinical stability on her current medication regimen, she will likely be considered Alternate Level of Care (“ALC”) and will be ready for discharge to the community. Following this reasonable period of stability (6 months), the hospital will take steps to put her on a waitlist for a complex care facility, likely MacKay House. If Ms. Nolan was granted a Conditional Discharge, Dr. Wong is not confident that she would remain in hospital while she waits for appropriate supervised housing.
Ms. Nolan currently appropriately exercises indirectly supervised hospital and grounds privileges for 1 hour with check ins every half hour.
Dr. Wong reiterated that given the fairly significant decompensations in mental state that Ms. Nolan has experienced in the past year, she needs to have stability in the hospital before she is Conditionally Discharged.
Submissions
Mr. Dow, for the hospital, submitted that it is the early days of Ms. Nolan’s recovery. Ms. Nolan’s medication regimen has had recent changes and the team is hopeful her medications are now optimized but given the brittle nature of her illness, that remains to be seen. She suffered two significant decompensations this past year despite full adherence with her prescribed treatment. Ms. Nolan has not yet exercised the ceiling of her passes under her current Disposition. The hospital requires the ability to approve Ms. Nolan’s housing because she will require a high level of supervision. She has not yet achieved stability long enough to be placed on the waitlist for housing that would provide an appropriate level of care.
Ms. MacDonald supported the hospital’s submissions and noted further that Ms. Nolan has historically been unable to abide by recognizances issued by the courts. Therefore, it is not likely that she would be able to comply with terms of a Conditional Discharge at this time.
Mr. Bebee submitted that Ms. Nolan indicated her unwellness to staff appropriately when she experienced decompensation in the spring and fall of 2025. He stated that she consented to changes in medications. This shows that Ms. Nolan had sufficient insight that she needed help. She has abstained from substances. MacKay house seems to be the ideal placement in the community, but there may be other appropriate housing opportunities.
Analysis and Conclusions
Significant Threat
Having heard and considered the entirety of the evidence as well as the submissions from the parties, the Board finds Ms. Nolan poses a significant threat to the safety of the public.
Counsel for Ms. Nolan did not dispute the issue of significant threat to the safety of the public. Despite this, the Board makes its own finding of significant threat based on the oral evidence, the Hospital Report, Winko and its related authorities.
Ms. Nolan suffers from a chronic and brittle mental illness and she has been prone to suffer significant decompensations in her mental health despite adherence to treatment. During her two decompensations this reporting year, Ms. Nolan exhibited psychosis, hypomania, and other breakthrough symptoms and she presented with physical aggression during the first period of decompensation.
Ms. Nolan’s index offences were serious, she was mentally ill at the time, and she attempted to take an officer’s firearm. She has accumulated over 65 criminal charges. She has a history of violence and aggression, particularly when mentally unwell.
Ms. Nolan suffers from schizoaffective disorder along with a severe substance use disorder. Historically, Ms. Nolan has repeatedly been non-compliant with psychotropic medications and has lived transiently without access to treatment. To her credit, Ms. Nolan has been adherent with her medication regimen in hospital (with the exception of stopping lithium), and she has remained abstinent from substances. Unfortunately, she nonetheless suffered breakthrough symptoms for extended periods this year.
Ms. Nolan has a history of severe substance use problems. She has been unsuccessful in the past abstaining from substances despite two admissions to residential treatment facilities. During this reporting year, Ms. Nolan has had limited engagement in substance use programming. However, the Board notes and congratulates Ms. Nolan for remaining abstinent in hospital. This is a major step toward her recovery and the Board considers this very positively.
Ms. Nolan also has deficits in executive functioning (e.g., planning, sequencing, etc.) that negatively impact her judgment.
The treatment team is of the unanimous opinion that Ms. Nolan continues to present as a significant risk to the safety of the public. The Board finds that there is sufficient evidence to accept the opinion of the team.
Necessary and Appropriate Disposition
Given the Board’s finding of significant threat, it is charged with shaping a Disposition for the coming year. The Board agrees with the hospital recommendation and joint position of the hospital and Crown, that the necessary and appropriate Disposition to manage Ms. Nolan’s risk in the coming reporting year is a Detention Order on a General Forensic Service at Ontario Shores.
The panel relies on the Summary and Risk Management Plan at page 22 of the Hospital Report, which is extracted in part as follows:
“Based on present static and dynamic risk factors, Ms. Nolan’s risk for violent reoffending is estimated to fall in the ‘low’ range and well-managed under her current disposition.”
Considering the brittleness of her condition, the Board finds that without the current level of supervision and treatment, Ms. Nolan’s mental status would likely quickly deteriorate and her risk to the public would rise. If not under a Detention Order with a very high level of supervision, history shows she would be non-compliant with medication and likely relapse to substance use. Her mental status would decompensate quickly. In this case, she would present a real risk of serious physical or psychological harm to the public.
The Board carefully considered Ms. Nolan’s request for a Conditional Discharge and found that it is not the appropriate and necessary Disposition at this time. The Board agrees that the hospital continues to need to be able to approve housing for Ms. Nolan in the community. Her treatment team opines that she will need 24-hour highly supervised housing specific to the complex care she requires. In Durham, MacKay House would be appropriate housing for Ms. Nolan. It is the treatment team’s intention to place Ms. Nolan on the waitlist for MacKay House once Ms. Nolan has achieved a sufficient length of stability. Dr. Wong was clear, and repeated on numerous occasions, that appropriate housing remains paramount for Ms. Nolan’s successful transition to the community. The Board finds that anything less would be setting Ms. Nolan up for failure and potentially prolonging her time detained.
Mr. Bebee submitted that Ms. Nolan would agree to a term under a Conditional Discharge that would require she live in monitored facility with support for medication compliance. The Board finds that this would not be sufficient to manage Ms. Nolan’s risk to public safety. At the present time, the expert evidence clearly indicates that she requires ongoing hospital admission. When she is ready for discharge to the community, her housing needs will be extensive and more complex than just securing a residence that provides supervision over medication administration. She requires a high level of care for her brittle mental illness. She experienced lengthy decompensations of her mental state twice this year regardless of hospital oversight. Despite adhering to treatment and remaining abstinent, she developed hypomania, paranoia, and agitation. She made verbal threats to co-patients and staff. Ms. Nolan tossed a cup of water onto her roommate. She engaged in environmental aggression, which required locked seclusion. The Board finds that the hospital requires the ability to approve housing to ensure that she is placed in appropriate housing that is able to recognize and manage potential decompensations.
The hospital would need to be able to bring Ms. Nolan back to hospital expeditiously in the event of decompensation in the community. Though Ms. Nolan alerted her team to mental health changes at the time of her decompensation in the fall of 2025, there is no certainty that when in a decompensated state, she would agree to a voluntary readmission for a period long enough to allow her to be fully stabilized. The doctor indicted that it is possible that in the early stages of decompensation, Ms. Nolan might not meet the MHA threshold for an involuntary readmission. It is important that there be quick and effective response early in any decompensation to ensure steps can be taken to limit the degree of decompensation and risk to the safety of the public.
The Board in no way minimizes Ms. Nolan’s progress this year. We congratulate her on working with her treatment team to maximize healthy periods. The Board is very pleased that Ms. Nolan has abstained from substances. We wish her the best of health in the coming year.
Upon consideration of all the evidence, the submissions of the parties, and the criteria set forth in s. 672.54, the paramount consideration being the safety of the public, in addition to the mental condition of Ms. Nolan, her reintegration into society and her other needs, we conclude that the necessary and appropriate Disposition is that Ms. Nolan be detained within a General Forensic Unit at Ontario Shores, with no change to the terms and conditions, as set out in our formal Disposition.
DATED this 20^th^ day of February 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Ms. C. Murray Legal Member Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board