Ontario Review Board

Re: Nicholas Jansen

ORB File No: 6008

Hearing held on: Tuesday January 27, 2026

Place of Hearing: Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care

Pursuant to: Section 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code

Before:

Alternate Chairperson: Mr. R. Bigelow

Members: Dr. J. Bradford

Dr. L. Lightfoot

Ms. K. Tomaszewski

Ms. C. Plyley

Parties Appearing:

Accused: Nicholas Jansen

Counsel: Ms. A. Jervis

The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. J. Zamprogna

Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. K. Dalrymple

REASONS FOR DECISION

(Dated February 26, 2026)

Introduction

1. On November 24, 2011, Nicholas Jansen was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on a charge of repeatedly communicating directly or indirectly with a person contrary to the Criminal Code. He is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the Board) dated May 12, 2025 ordering that he be detained at Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care (the Hospital or Southwest) with privileges up to and including residence in the community of Southwestern Ontario in accommodation approved by the person in charge.

2. By letter dated November 25, 2025 the Hospital advised the Board pursuant to section 672.56(1) (b) of the Criminal Code that there had been a change in Mr. Jansen’s liberty status in that Mr. Jansen previous privilege level, Level 7, allowed for independent access into the community on a daily basis but that as of November 15^th, 2025 his privilege level was reduced to Level 3) which only allows for “unlimited within the hospital access”.

3. On Tuesday January 27, 2026, the Board convened a hearing to review the restriction of Mr. Jansen’s liberty pursuant to section 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code. The issues to be determined at the hearing were whether both the initial and continuing restriction of Mr. Jansen’s liberty were necessary and appropriate and the least onerous and least restrictive option open to the Hospital to manage risk.

Preliminary issued

4. Counsel for Mr. Jansen raised a preliminary issue noting that Mr. Jansen recalled having some contact with Dr. Bradford while he was at the Brockville Mental Health Center some years ago and remembers having a conversation with him on the assessment unit. Dr. Bradford was not his treating psychiatrist but was at that time involved in an administrative role that the hospital.

5. Dr. Bradford indicated that he had no recollection of contact with Mr. Jansen although he was acting in an administrative role at that hospital quite some time ago and the Hospital Report notes Mr. Jansen was at the Brockville hospital from 2012 to 2014.

6. Given that Mr. Jansen indicates his contact with Dr. Bradford was well over a decade ago and Dr. Bradford was not involved in his treatment and has no recollection of any contact with him the Board fails to see any basis for finding that there is a conflict of interest or any basis for a reasonable apprehension of bias.

Initial Positions of the Parties

7. At the commencement of the hearing the parties were requested to provide their initial without prejudice positions with respect to the issues before the Board. Counsel for the Hospital indicated that it was the Hospital’s position that both the initial and continuing restriction of Mr. Jansen’s liberty to the date of the hearing was necessary and appropriate and the least restrictive option available to the hospital to manage risk in all the circumstances.

8. Counsel for the Attorney General supported the Hospital position.

9. Counsel for Mr. Jansen submitted that neither the initial nor the continuing restriction of her client’s liberty was necessary and appropriate.

Evidence at the hearing

10. The evidence at the hearing consisted of a Restriction of Liberty Report dated December 29, 2025, a Hospital Report prepared for Mr. Jansen’s last annual review dated March 27 2025, the oral evidence of Dr. Ardani, Mr. Jansen’s most responsible physician, and the oral evidence of Mr. Jansen.

Findings:

11. For the Reasons that follow, the Board finds that both the initial and continuing restriction of Mr. Jansen’s liberty up to the date of the hearing were necessary and appropriate and the least restrictive option to the Hospital to manage risk in all the circumstances.

Index Offences

12. The rather complicated circumstances surrounding the index offence are summarized at pages 2 to 4 the Hospital Report and, briefly summarized, are as follows:

• From late 2010 to July of 2011, Mr. Jansen engaged in multiple forms of harassing communications, taking the form of telephone calls, voice messages, emails, letters, and text messages. The communications were initially directed to a particular female employee at CTV News in Kitchener. Mr. Jansen was convicted of criminal harassment in February of 2011, received a 30-day jail sentence, and was placed on probation for the maximum term of three years. A term of that probation order directed him not to communicate with a named CTV employee.

• After his release from custody, Mr. Jansen continued to send communications to the CTV station. In May of 2011, he was charged with criminal harassment again, along with breach of probation, and was released on a recognizance. He was ordered to refrain from all communication or contact with the CTV personnel. In June, he was charged with breaching that recognizance as he continued to attempt to send communications to the local CTV station.

• A female Constable of the Waterloo Regional Police Service was the victim of the index offence. She was involved in the investigation of the initial criminal harassment complaint involving the CTV employee and became incorporated into Mr. Jansen’s erotomanic delusions thinking that several particular women were involved in intimate relationships with him.

• Beginning in February of 2011, Mr. Jansen sent repeated text messages, email messages, and letters to the Constable, none of which she answered. He also phoned her on her work cell phone. He continued to do so despite warnings by other members of the police service. Between July 11 and 12, 2011, he sent a “barrage” of 23 text messages, described as having bizarre content, to the Constable. These repeated communications, despite warnings, caused the Constable to fear for her safety. After further incidents of attempted communications, Mr. Jansen was arrested and charged with criminal harassment of the Constable on July 18.

• Mr. Jansen was admitted to North Bay Regional Health Centre in October 2011 for an NCR assessment. There, he continued to send letters to the objects of his erotomanic delusions, including a sexually explicit letter to another female police officer that contained a marriage proposal.

Background Information Regarding the Accused:

13. As of the date of the hearing, Mr. Jansen was 42 years of age, is the eldest of three siblings and was raised on the family farm in Woodstock. He finished high school and enrolled in a machinist program at college but dropped out after one year. He was subsequently gainfully employed for lengthy periods of time but prior to the index offence was in receipt of benefits from the Ontario Disability Support Program and Canada Pension Plan.

Substance Use History

14. Mr. Jansen began drinking alcohol at an early age when he was approximately 14 and was drinking “to excess” every weekend by age 18. He continued to be a binge drinker throughout his life and has incurred criminal charges because of things he has done while intoxicated. However, he advises that his last alcoholic drink was in May 2011 prior to being placed on probation with a term prohibiting consumption of alcohol.

15. Mr. Jansen started using marijuana when he was 16 or 17 and used heavily between the ages of 21 and 24. He also reported that he has tried mushrooms, Percocet’s, cocaine, and methamphetamine.

Legal History:

16. Mr. Jansen has the following criminal record:

Date & Location

Charge(s)

Disposition

2002-01-08 Woodstock, ON

Care or Control while Impaired

$600 & prohibited driving 1 year

2002-12-02 St. Catharines, ON

Driving while Disqualified

30 days intermittent & probation & prohibited driving 2 years

2005-01-27 London, ON

1)Flight while Pursued by Peace Officer 2)Possession of Property Obtained by Crime 3)Driving while Disqualified

1. 69 days & (56 days pre-sentence custody) & prohibited driving 3 years
2. 69 days concurrent & (56 days pre-sentence custody)
3. 69 days concurrent & (56 days pre-sentence custody) & prohibited driving 3 years

2005-02-01 Woodstock, ON

Assault with Intent to Resist Arrest

15 days consecutive to sentence serving

2005-08-29 Woodstock, ON

1)Assault to Prevent Execution of Process 2)Causing a Disturbance

1)30 days & (10 days pre- sentence custody) & Discretionary Prohibition Order, Section 110 for 5 years 2)30 days concurrent

2006-08-22 Woodstock, ON

Failure to Appear

15 days intermittent

2007-01-25 London, ON

1. Unlawfully at Large
2. Failure to Attend Court

1)Time served (21 days) 2)1 day & (21 days pre-sentence custody)

2007-03-28 London, ON

Unlawfully at Large

15 days

2007-09-21 London, ON

1. Theft under $5000
2. Failure to Appear
3. Failure to Appear

1)$100 2)$100 3)$100

2011-02-23 Kitchener, ON

Criminal Harassment

30 days & probation 3 years & (27 days pre-sentence custody) & mandatory Prohibition Order Section 109 CC

2011.07.06 Kitchener, ON

1)Attempt to Fail to Comply with Probation Order 2)Failure to Comply with Recognizance

1)3 months conditional sentence order & probation 3 years 15 days conditional sentence order consecutive & probation 3 years concurrent

Psychiatric History

17. In October 2006 Mr. Jansen was admitted to hospital for an evaluation of possible first episode schizophrenia. He was difficult to control and displayed bizarre behaviour. He improved marginally with medication and his discharge diagnosis was possible first episode psychosis and dependent, avoidant, and psychopathic personality. He stopped taking medications about two weeks after being discharged due to perceived impairment of his creativity.

18. In October 2007 Mr. Jansen was admitted to hospital after having written approximately 60 letters to the Mayor of London Ontario many of which threatened the Mayor’s life and included bizarre sexual themes. He was escorted to hospital by police after appearing at City Hall and being escorted off the premises. On admission it was noted that he had been off medication for a year, using cannabis and cocaine and had delusions of grandeur, flight of ideas and increased activity level. On discharge after a two week admission his diagnosis was acute psychosis and antisocial personality disorder.

19. After being discharged from hospital Mr. Jansen had further contact with community mental health and addiction resources in the community until shortly before the index offences and was diagnosed with bipolar disorder and depression.

Current Diagnosis

20. Mr. Jansen’s current diagnoses are:

Unspecified Schizophrenia and other Psychotic Disorder (Query Schizoaffective Disorder vs. Delusional Disorder with affective components)

Personality Disorder – Narcissistic and Antisocial Traits

Alcohol Use Disorder, in sustained remission

Cannabis Use Disorder, in sustained remission

Circumstances Surrounding the Restriction of Liberty

21. The Restriction of Liberty Report briefly summarizes the circumstances surrounding the initial restriction of Mr. Jansen’s liberties as follows:

On Saturday November 15, 2025, Mr. Jansen utilized an indirectly supervised (IS) community pass to the St. Thomas area from 4:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Mr. Jansen did not return from his pass at 9:00 p.m. as expected. He called the B1 Rehabilitation unit (where he resided) at 9:40 p.m., stating he lost track of time and would be back in 25-30 minutes. However, he did not return, and a decision was made to initiate a Code Yellow (missing person) at 11:00 p.m., which involved notifying the local police. Mr. Jansen then returned to the hospital at 11:40 p.m. via taxi and was escorted to the unit by security staff. He stated, "I figured my privileges would be reduced, so I turned around.” The pattern of missing curfew was observed during the previous week, and therefore, the team became concerned about the risk of decompensation of his mental disorder. As a result, Mr. Jansen’s privilege level was reduced to level three (unlimited independent access within the hospital) for the period of the weekend. Prior to the incident, Mr. Jansen’s privilege level allowed him daily independent access to the community. Mr. Jansen’s privilege level has remained the same since, as he has repeatedly voiced an unwillingness to work collaboratively with the treatment team, that he reached a treatment impasse with the team, and requested a transfer to another forensic facility.

Evidence of Dr. Ardani

22. Dr. Ardani indicated that:

• He was the author of the Restriction of Liberty Report and adopted its contents. At the time of the initial restriction of liberty Mr. Jansen had level 7 privileges allowing daily indirectly supervised access to the community. After his return to hospital late in the evening of November 15 his privilege level was reduced to level 3, which did not allow for indirectly supervised privileges outside of the hospital. As of January 15, 2026 Mr. Jansen’s privilege level has been raised to level 4 allowing access to the hospital and hospital grounds. The initial decision to reduce privileges was made based on a possible risk of absconding.

• He met with Mr. Jansen after the reduction in his pass level and Mr. Jansen indicated that he believed that the reduction was inappropriate, demanded an immediate return to level 7 passes and stated that he was not prepared to cooperate with the treatment team until that occurred. In the following weeks elements of decompensation were noted including sleep pattern changes, paranoia, labile effect, delusional thinking, and impulsivity. Some of those changes had also been noted from early October.

• From early October staff noted persistent communication with persons in authority including delusional beliefs which had some similar elements to the index offences. He was pushing boundaries such as purchasing items knowing that they were contraband.

• In a meeting with Mr. Jansen on November 18 the staff discussed with him increasing his privilege level from 3 to 5 if he showed some stability on the unit. However, Mr. Jansen indicated that he would only accept an immediate return to level 7 and would continue to be uncooperative until that occurred.

• There had been a recent change in his antidepressant medication and he has been more stable since that change. He and the team are currently working collaboratively. His pass level was increased to level 4 on January 15 and is expected to be raised to level 5 later in the week of the hearing. In order to regain level 7 Mr. Jansen will have to follow the Hospital rules, disclose his plans for community access, and engage in programming.

• The Hospital has decided to move Mr. Jansen to a treatment unit because he has requested a second opinion with respect to his diagnosis which can take place on that unit with a different doctor. Also, there is another individual who is more ready for community access and is being transferred into the rehabilitation unit. If things go well on the new unit, the treatment team will likely consider returning Mr. Jansen to the rehabilitation unit within a few months although bedspace availability could delay an actual transfer. All units in the Hospital save and except for the Assessment Unit allow for access to the community including level 6, when community access is for specific periods of time which can be up to six hours, while level 7, which is only available on the Rehabilitation Unit, allows for almost unrestricted community access.

Evidence of Mr. Jansen

23. Mr. Jansen indicated that he had read the Restriction of Liberty Report and noted that he had much experience in reviewing reports given his lengthy period under the jurisdiction of the Board. He stated that portions of the Report contained misquotations from some of his written complaints. He also noted that the Report “tries to manipulate the Board as opposed to influence the Board and by that I mean that there are repetitive and redundant statements, a form of inculcative inundation, and that the repetition of certain events for example simple emails to persons within the hospital requesting an employment program this was cited as delusional”. The Hospital also claimed other actual events were delusional as well.

24. The police had interviewed him at police headquarters with respect to drug use at his residence and asked him to provide them with access to the residence and he suspected this was a result of Dr. Prakash accusing him of using drugs with another patient.

25. He is prepared to work with the Hospital but there are certain members of the outreach team that he does not like due to their opinionated reporting to the Hospital.

26. With respect to the specific incident giving rise to the restriction of liberty, Mr. Jansen noted that he did not decompensate to a state that he was floridly psychotic, had not used any illicit substances or alcohol and was adherent to medication at the time. His actions were a “intentional self defence action” due to statements by hospital staff with respect to reducing his privilege level. He also noted that at the time of the incident he was suffering from a flu which may well have influenced his decision making.

Analysis and Conclusion, Restriction of Liberty:

27. Based on all the evidence, the Board concludes that both the initial and continuing restriction of Mr. Jansen’s liberties was necessary and appropriate in all the circumstances. Over the weeks leading up to the restriction of liberty Mr. Jansen began to show early signs of decompensation and a return to actions similar to those surrounding the index offence as well as prior related type behaviours.

28. In an email to Employment Services Elgin and several staff members at the Hospital he clearly expressed delusional ideation when he introduced himself as an individual:

active in promotion of justice reform for a good part of my adult life; this includes reorganization of the RCMP, policy and adjustment within police services (municipal), and as an offender under auspices of the offender management program of the OPP (working with peace officers, in formulating better means of intervention, regarding mental health and enforcement interactions). In addition, I am recognized as a political activist, supporting many causes, many (if not all) linked to Justice services/legislative enforcement organization activities.

29. Prior to the restriction of liberties when he was asked about his insight into the similarities between recent events and his index offence he indicated that there had been no paranoid ideation or delusional thinking either currently or at the time of the index offence. This clearly raises significant issues with respect to his insight into his illness as well as the index offence and other related behaviours.

30. The Board finds that the evidence establishes that in the weeks leading up to the restriction of liberty there were clear signs of decompensation and that the incident on the evening of November 15 was “the straw that broke the camel’s back”. Given the recent history and defiant attitude shown by Mr. Jansen on that evening, the Hospital had reasonable grounds to be concerned with respect to a potential elopement as well as further decompensation and a return to a mental state similar to that existing at the time of the index offence.

31. Subsequent to the initial restriction of liberty, Mr. Jansen chose to refuse to cooperate with the treatment team or accept anything other than an immediate return to his prior level of privileges and the treatment team noticed elements of decompensation including sleep pattern changes, paranoia, labile affect, delusional thinking and impulsivity which clearly require a careful and gradual reintroduction of privileges in order to manage risk. Only recently has there been cooperation with the treatment team and a process of increasing privileges has begun.

32. The Board hopes that the recent cooperation will continue allowing for a return of privileges without placing the public at risk.

DATED this 26^th day of February 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.

Robert Bigelow

Alternate Chairperson

Office of the Registrar

Ontario Review Board