Ontario Review Board
Re: Dennis Nergui (a.k.a. Denny Nam)
ORB File No: 3179/7432
Hearing held on: Tuesday, March 10, 2026
Place of hearing: St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton Via Zoom Videoconference
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Ms. M. Labrosse
Members: Dr. S. Bouskill Dr. G. Stones Ms. K. Tomaszewski Mr. S. Duffy
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Dennis Nergui Counsel: Mr. A. Rai
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Mr. S. O’Brien
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. I. M. Shaikh
REASONS FOR DECISION
(Dated March 19, 2026)
Introduction
On July 7, 2000, Dennis Nergui was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (“NCR”) on two charges of mischief and one charge each of uttering death threats, weapons dangerous and cause disturbance, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (the “Criminal Code”).
On October 4, 2018, Dennis Nergui was found NCR on charges of aggravated assault, carry a concealed weapon, assaulting a peace officer and assault with a weapon, contrary to the Criminal Code.
Mr. Nergui is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the “Board”) dated August 14, 2025, detaining him at the Forensic Psychiatry Program of St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton (the “Hospital”), with privileges up to and including the ability to live in the community in accommodation approved by the person in charge.
On January 8, 2026, the Hospital advised the Board that “Mr. Nergui was admitted to Waterfall 3, Forensic Inpatient Unit, at the West 5th Campus of SJHH on December 30, 2025. The admission was prompted by Mr. Nergui providing dilute urine samples which tested negative for his prescribed medications. When the treatment team raised their concerns with Mr. Nergui, he initially could not explain why the samples would have been dilute, but later admitted to using cannabis and alcohol over the holidays. He also admitted to adding water to his UDS..”
On March 10, 2026, the Board convened a hearing via Zoom videoconference at the Hospital to review the period of increased restrictions on Mr. Nergui’s liberty during the Restriction of Liberty (“ROL”) which commenced on December 30, 2025, and ended on January 8, 2026, pursuant to s. 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code.
At the outset of the hearing Mr. Nergui’s counsel advised the Board that Mr. Nergui did not wish to attend the hearing, and that he had instructions to proceed in Mr. Nergui’s absence. The Board therefore permitted the hearing to proceed in Mr. Nergui’s absence, pursuant to s. 672.5(10)(a) of the Criminal Code
Counsel for the Hospital advised the Board that the Hospital had inadvertently failed to provide the Board with notice of a second restriction of liberty exceeding seven days, during which Mr. Nergui was admitted to the Hospital from January 30, 2026, until February 9, 2026.
Mr. Nergui’s counsel indicated that he was aware of a second admission but was unsure of its duration and had instructions for this as well and pointed out that Dr. Naidoo was Mr. Nergui’s attending psychiatrist and could speak to both ROL’s.
All parties agreed that it was appropriate to proceed to review both ROL’s at the hearing.
The Board agreed with the parties, and proceeded to review both ROL’s, referred to as follows in these Reasons: ROL#1 (December 30, 2025 – January 8, 2026) and ROL#2 (January 30, 2026, to February 9, 2026).
The Board considered whether both restrictions on Mr. Nergui’s liberties were necessary and appropriate as well as the least restrictive and least onerous intervention available to the Hospital, both initially and throughout their duration.
For the reasons which follow, the Board found that there were two significant restrictions on the liberties of Mr. Nergui, and that both ROL’s were necessary and appropriate as well as the least restrictive and least onerous intervention in the circumstances, both initially and throughout their duration.
Position of the Parties
At the outset of the hearing, the parties were canvassed as to their recommendations to the Board. Counsel for the Hospital submitted that both ROL’s were necessary and appropriate and the least onerous and least restrictive intervention available to the Hospital in the circumstances.
Counsel for the Attorney-General and counsel for Mr. Nergui both supported the Hospital’s position.
All parties maintained their joint position in closing submissions. There was no request to review the terms of Mr. Nergui’s existing Disposition.
Evidence at the Hearing
- The Board received documentary evidence in the form of a Hospital Report dated July 29, 2025, marked as Exhibit 1, and a Restriction of Liberties Report dated March 6, 2026 (“ROL Report”) marked as Exhibit 2. The Board also heard oral testimony from Dr. Naidoo, Mr. Nergui’s treating psychiatrist.
Index Offences
- The circumstances of the index offences are summarized from last year’s Reasons for Disposition:
"NCR Date July 7, 2000
“May 8th, 2000
Mall security at the Quinte Mall in Belleville had asked the accused to leave the property. Upon his refusal, the police were called. He became argumentative and verbally abusive towards an attending officer and continued to refuse to leave the property. He was arrested for fail to leave premises upon demand. Once in handcuffs he became verbally abusive towards the officers, swearing, cursing, and using obscene language.
May 21st, 2000
The victim and his dog were walking in the direction of the accused who was standing between a couple of vehicles. As the victim got closer, the accused drew out a broken pair of metal scissors from his jacket and gripped them by the handle and pointed the blade at the victim's dog. He lurched at the dog and said he was going to stab it. The victim managed to pull his dog back at which time the accused stated, "get away from me or I'll take care of you and your dog". The accused was making stabbing motions with scissors towards the dog. The accused was eventually located by police and arrested. He was held for a bail hearing and ordered to undergo a 30-day psychiatric assessment.
May 23rd, 2000
Two days later another victim was driving his 1995 Cadillac into Victoria Park in the City of Belleville. For no reason the accused kicked the vehicle causing two dents and began to scream and yell and appear to be out of control. The accused picked up some rocks and started throwing them towards the victim. The police were called and he was arrested but resisted being put into the cruiser and yelled to the police "bullet to the head, bullet to the head fucking cops ... you're out to get me ... bullet to the head bullet to the head".
Once police managed to get the accused into the cruiser, he kicked out the back window using both feet and damaged the door frame. He continued to kick the door and scream uncontrollably. The Police Service had had many contacts with the accused on previous occasions for begging for money, stopping vehicles or kicking or banging cars.”
NCR Date October 4, 2018
“Mr. NERGUI is believed to have been suffering from a mental disorder at the time of the alleged offences and was likely "not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder". He was at the time, and continues to be, under the jurisdiction of the Ontario Review Board at Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health. His annual review hearing had been held on April 4, 2018, in relation to a July 7, 2000 finding that he was not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder in relation to charges of mischief x 2, utter threats, weapons dangerous, and cause disturbance. At that hearing, he had been ordered detained at Ontario Shores. He had been a part of the "Transitional Rehabilitative Housing Program" (TRHP) at the time.
On July 2nd, 2018, Mr. NERGUI stabbed Mr. Jonathan Tylzanowski once in the arm.
The parties were unknown to each other, and the attack was essentially unprovoked. Mr. Tylzanowski was walking to a grocery store when he came across Mr. NERGUI. Mr. NERGUI began barking and screaming at Mr. Tylzanowski, and mumbling about Mr. Tylzanowski not being Canadian, before stabbing Mr. Tylzanowski in his left tricep. Mr. Tylzanowski ran away from Mr. NERGUI and phoned police.
Multiple officers responded. Mr. NERGUI made threatening gestures towards the responding officers with the knife and pointed his fingers at them as if it were a gun.
Officers had to use a conducted energy weapon to subdue Mr. NERGUI and arrest him. Mr. NERGUI was taken to the hospital and was admitted to the Forensic Assessment
Unit TAU) on July 3rd after a fitness and NCR assessment was made.”
Personal Background
The Hospital Report outlines Mr. Nergui’s history and background and need not be repeated here in detail. In brief, Mr. Nergui is 51 years old. Mr. Nergui was born in Canada to parents who were both immigrants from Korea. Growing up Mr. Nergui's first language was Korean. This led to difficulties for him in his early years at school as he was not fluent in English. Mr. Nergui attended secondary school, including one year at a military academy. He obtained a grade 11 education and completed part of grade 12. He also attended one semester at Seneca College. Mr. Nergui has a limited employment history. Mr. Nergui is single with no dependents.
Prior to the index offences, Mr. Nergui did not have a criminal record. However, he had a history of involvement with the Belleville Police Department primarily because of panhandling, stopping vehicles in the street, kicking, and banging on cars and acting paranoid.
Mr. Nergui has a significant history of substance abuse beginning when he was 15 years old. Mr. Nergui first began to show signs of mental illness at around the age of 22, when he began to believe that he was the balance between the world and the devil. Between 1997 and 1998, Mr. Nergui had four admissions to hospital due to the onset of psychosis. Substance use was noted in each admission.
Mr. Nergui is currently diagnosed as suffering from schizophrenia, cannabis use disorder-severe, cocaine use disorder-severe-in sustained remission in a controlled environment and antisocial personality disorder traits. Mr. Nergui is capable to consent to psychiatric treatment.
Evidence: ROL#1
Mr. Nergui was discharged from the Hospital to live in the community in a supportive residence on November 18, 2025. ROL #1 began on December 30, 2025, because of suspicions that Mr. Nergui had tampered with a urine sample to conceal use of substances, and that he had used substances in breach of his Disposition.
Dr. Naidoo described the events which led to this admission. Earlier in December 2025, it appeared from laboratory analysis that a urine sample had been tampered with by dilution. Mr. Nergui is required to provide random urine samples for urine drug screens (“UDS”). Mr. Nergui initially denied having tampered with the urine sample. Later in December, the UDS detected cannabis in the urine. When confronted with this information, Mr. Nergui admitted that he had purchased and consumed cannabis on two occasions in December 2025 and had also consumed a quantity of alcohol (3-5 tall cans of beer) at Christmas. According to Dr. Naidoo, Mr. Nergui was remorseful and said that he had wanted a “buzz” and to feel good during the holidays. Mr. Nergui eventually admitted to adding water to his urine sample.
Mr. Nergui cooperated fully with the team during this admission.
The ROL Report states at page 2 that during this admission:
The team met with Mr. Nergui to provide education and support. He was cooperative with treatment efforts. It was noted that he did not exhibit exacerbation of his symptoms of psychosis and he was not aggressive or threatening. His insight into the negative effects of cannabis continues to be limited. He agreed to commence relapse prevention substance use treatment to meet with the outpatient team. His motivation to avoid cannabis was described as pre-contemplative, and externally driven.
After the above follow-up plan was put into place and two negative urine drug screens were provided, Mr. Nergui was discharged back to his residence.
Mr. Nergui agreed to enroll in the Smart Recovery program, a substance relapse prevention program base on a harm-reduction model and attended this program on a weekly basis after discharge from the Hospital.
Dr. Naidoo indicated that the goal of this program is to prepare Mr. Nergui to eventually work toward complete abstinence.
Dr. Naidoo indicated that Mr. Nergui’s mental status remained stable throughout ROL#1.
Evidence: ROL#2
ROL#2 began when Mr. Nergui was admitted to the Hospital on January 30, 2026. He was discharged to his residence in the community on February 9, 2026.
The circumstances surrounding ROL#2 were described by Dr. Naidoo asset out below.
The team remained alert to the possibility of substance use relapse, because substance use after a period of abstinence commonly leads to increased cravings for the substance, and potential instability in mental status.
In January 2026, a UDS showed no traces of Mr. Nergui’s antipsychotic mediation, clopixol, which is taken in the form of a long-acting injection. The standard assumption is that when a patient is taking medication, that medication should appear in a UDS. If it does not, this raises the suspicion that the urine sample has been tampered with. This could take the form of diluting the urine sample or submitting urine from another person’s stored urine sample.
Because Mr. Nergui had tampered with his urine sample recently, in December, he was admitted to the Hospital on January 30, 2026.
Mr. Nergui was fully cooperative but denied tampering with the urine sample.
Further laboratory investigations were completed. Dr. Naidoo spoke with the biochemist, who explained that for various reasons, it was possible that the urine sample had been tampered with, but there was an equal or possibly more likely chance that the clopixol was not detected by the UDS because the urine sample was given so close to the next injection date.
In the meantime, four consecutive UDS were negative for substance use. Dr. Naidoo concluded that Mr. Nergui had likely not used substances or tampered with his urine sample, and he was discharged from the Hospital on February 9, 2026.
Mr. Nergui remained stable and cooperative throughout the admission.
Dr. Naidoo emphasized that the team had taken the time to fully investigate the situation and had discharged Mr. Nergui as soon as it was clear that he had not likely used any substances or tampered with the urine sample.
Dr. Naidoo pointed out that Mr. Nergui was diagnosed with a severe cannabis use disorder before his involvement with the forensic system, and that cannabis is a highly psychoactive drug.
In Dr. Naidoo’s opinion, there is a risk that use of cannabis can destabilize Mr. Nergui’s mental state, and that this leads to a risk of violence to members of the community.
Analysis and Conclusion
The analytical framework established by Campbell (Re), 2018 ONCA 140 requires the Board to consider the liberty norm and the liberty status of an accused on a restriction. The liberty norm and liberty status for each restriction must be examined to determine the significance of the increase (if any) on the restriction of an accused’s liberty caused by the restriction. In determining the liberty norm of an accused at the outset of each period of restriction, the Board must “take a contextual approach, one that considers the individual’s pattern of liberty in the recent past.” ((Re) Campbell, ibid at para. 66). The liberty she/he was actually experiencing (rather than what she/he was entitled to) at the time of the increase is what the Board is to consider, and that “liberty must be of sufficient duration to have become, objectively speaking, the NCR accused’s norm” ((Re) Campbell, supra at para. 65).
Pursuant to the decision of (Re) Campbell, the Board agreed that two restrictions of liberty had taken place. The Board found that the restrictions of liberty imposed on Mr. Nergui, from December 30, 2025 to January 8, 2026, and from January 30, 2026, to February 9, 2026, both represented the least onerous and least restrictive option in the circumstances at each time for the following reasons.
As observed in last year’s Reasons for Disposition at paragraph 22 and 24, substance use is one of Mr. Nergui’s risk factors:
….concerns remain regarding Mr. Nergui’s risk. The Hospital Report indicates that he continues to exhibit variable and often limited insight into his illness and his need for treatment, his need to abstain from substances and his potential for violence. The Hospital Report also indicates that Mr. Nergui continues to struggle to appreciate the role of his psychotic symptoms in contributing to his past violence and he continues to struggle to appreciate the role that cannabis plays in impacting his mental health. Notably, at baseline he continues to exhibit symptoms of psychosis which demonstrates the brittleness of his illness. Mr. Nergui has a history of committing acts of violence towards strangers in the context of psychosis, non-adherence with treatment and substance use. The Hospital Report indicates that in those instances he has justified his violent actions as being due to his perceived persecution. Given the brittleness of Mr. Nergui’s illness, his history of non-adherence with medication and his ongoing desire to use cannabis, the Board finds that Mr. Nergui continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. …
…Mr. Nergui’s insight into the impact of substances on his mental health remains underdeveloped. While it is to his credit that he has openly discussed his desire to use cannabis and has requested that he be permitted to do so, the Board accepts the evidence of Dr. Naidoo and finds that given his history of substance use and mental health deterioration, this would not be a good risk management strategy. The Board is also mindful that even at his baseline in the context of medication adherence, Mr. Nergui has symptoms of psychosis and this likely makes him more vulnerable to the negative impact of substance use.
The Hospital Report provides details with respect to the impact of substance use on Mr. Nergui’s risk to the public. (See pages 72-73 and 75)
Given the violent nature of both sets of index offences, and Mr. Nergui’s long-standing diagnosis of cannabis use disorder – severe, the Board agrees with Dr. Naidoo’s opinion that to protect the safety of the public and manage Mr. Nergui’s risk to the public, it is necessary and appropriate to be able to determine whether Mr. Nergui uses substances and to intervene when Mr. Nergui uses substances. It is also necessary and appropriate to support Mr. Nergui’s potential move toward abstinence through appropriate support, education, and programming.
Tampering with urine samples is serious because it interferes with the team’s ability to accurately detect substance use and to protect the public by providing appropriate support and intervention.
For these reasons, ROL #1 was necessary and appropriate.
ROL #1 was no longer than necessary and ended as soon as two consecutive negative UDS were obtained.
ROL#2 was necessary and appropriate for the same reasons. Because Mr. Nergui had recently tampered with his urine, and because he did not admit to the tampering until objective evidence of his use of cannabis was presented to him, it was reasonable for the team to suspect tampering when the January UDS did not detect his antipsychotic medication.
Dr. Naidoo took Mr. Nergui’s denials seriously and completed further investigations to determine whether the results could be explained by anything other than tampering. These results, combined with four consecutive negative UDS, satisfied Dr. Naidoo that Mr. Nergui had not used substances or tampered with the urine sample. He was discharged as soon as possible after these results were available.
ROL#2 lasted no longer than was necessary or appropriate.
In reaching our Decision, the Board carefully considered public safety, Mr. Nergui’s mental condition, his integration into society and his other needs.
The Board wishes Mr. Nergui every success in remaining abstinent, and in remaining in the community.
DATED this 19th day of March 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Ms. K. Tomaszewski
Legal Member
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board