Ontario Review Board
Re: Jamie Holmes
ORB Files No: 8488
Hearing held on: Thursday March 5, 2026
Place of Hearing: St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. R. Bigelow
Members: Dr. K. Hand Dr. T. Stirpe Mr. K. McKenna Ms. M. McKinnon
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Jamie Holmes Counsel: Mr. A. Confente
The Person in charge of Hospital: Counsel: Mr. S. O’Brien
Attorney-General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. B. Adsett
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated March 30, 2026)
Introduction
On February 12, 2024, Mr. Holmes was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on charges of uttering threats to cause death or bodily harm (x2) and mischief over $5000, all contrary to the Criminal Code. Mr. Holmes is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the Board) dated March 26 2025 ordering that he be detained at the Forensic Psychiatry Program of St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton (the Hospital) with privileges up to and including residence in the community of Southern Ontario in accommodation approved by the person in charge.
On Thursday, March 5, 2026, the Board convened a hearing to review Mr. Holmes’ disposition pursuant to section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Holmes was present at the hearing and represented by counsel, Mr. Confente. Also present at the hearing were Mr. Holmes’ mother and father.
The issues to be determined at the hearing were whether Mr. Holmes continued to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public as defined in section 672.5401 of the Criminal Code and, if so, what was the necessary and appropriate disposition that was also the least onerous and least restrictive, taking into account the factors set out in 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
Initial Positions of the Parties
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 submitted that Mr. Holmes continued to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate disposition was a continuation of the current disposition with no changes.
Counsel for the Attorney General supported the Hospital’s position.
Counsel for Mr. Holmes advised that there was no issue with respect to significant threat but that in his submission the necessary and appropriate disposition would be a conditional discharge with terms including residence as approved by the person in charge, reporting at least twice per month, submit samples, abstain from consumption of alcohol, drugs or other intoxicants, a weapons prohibition, no contact with the victim of the index offences and remain at least 100 m from anyplace known to him to be the residence, place of employment, education or where he knows he may be, a Young clause and he noted that his client would consent to an order under 672.56 of the Criminal Code that he accept treatment.
Evidence at the hearing
- The evidence at the hearing consisted of the Hospital Report dated February 12, 2026 and the oral evidence of Dr. Baldeo, Mr. Holmes’ most responsible physician.
Findings:
- For the Reasons that follow, the Board finds that Mr. Holmes continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate disposition was a continuation of the current detention order without change.
Index Offences:
- The circumstances surrounding the index offences as summarized in last year’s reasons for disposition are as follows:
(1) Utter Threats to Cause Death/Bodily Harm (May 10, 2023)
Between the dates of Wednesday May 10, 2023, and Sunday May 14, 2023, the accused, Jamie HOLMES sent the victim, MP Vance Badawey of Liberal Constituency Niagara Centre, a total of 23 emails to his business email address.
Contained in these emails included numerous threats to cause death or bodily harm to MP Badawey. Among some of the threats included:
“I want to hit you on the fucking head dead and I am so fucking close to it…” “I am going to beat one of you bad I am going to hit you real real bad…”
(2) Mischief Over $5,000 and Utter Threats to Cause Death/Bodily Harm (May 15, 2023On Monday May 15, 2023, at 6:00 p.m., the accused, Jamie HOLMES attended the residence of Member of Parliament, Vance Badawey, located at [REDACTED] in the City of Port Colborne.
The accused subsequently approached the front door of Badawey’s residence and struck the front door with an aluminum baseball bat, breaking the glass in the door. The accused proceeded to walk around the perimeter of the residence, striking and breaking the windows with his baseball bat, including the rear patio doors.
Upon returning to the front of the property, the accused observed two of Badawey’s neighbours, Eric Gervais and Andrew Reynolds staring at him. The accused brandished his baseball bat toward the two males yelling “do you want a piece of this too” and ran in their direction. The males subsequently retreated and called 9-1-1.
Total damage is estimated at $10,000.
Background Information Regarding the Accused:
As of the date of the hearing, Mr. Holmes was 46 years of age and was born in Port Colborne, Ontario. He is the middle of three children. His parents divorced when he was nine years old. He initially lived with his father and siblings but moved to his mother’s when he was approximately 13 due to his father’s drinking.
When he was 18, Mr. Holmes left his mother’s home and moved in with his girlfriend. They had a son together in February 2001. Both Mr. Holmes and his partner were struggling with alcohol addiction at the time of their son’s birth. Mr. Holmes separated from his partner when his son was nine years old. He obtained custody of his son and lived with him and his father in Welland, Ontario.
Mr. Holmes had behavioural difficulties in school and was transferred to a school with a behavioural plan in grade 7 but eventually stopped attending. He did not attend a formal high school but earned some credits at a section 19 school when he was in youth detention. However, he attended Niagara College between 2005 and 2008 and completed the electronics engineering program.
Mr. Holmes was first employed in 1999 as a form setter working with concrete but developed tenosynovitis and required surgery to repair it. He later was employed as a slot technician at a casino for 5 years but he has not worked since 2015 and was granted benefits from the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP).
Substance Use History
Mr. Holmes began drinking alcohol at the age of 12 and has experimented with LSD, hash oil, marijuana and cocaine. He has used marijuana since his early 20s. He has indicated that he attended the North Bay Treatment Centre in 2001 has been abstinent from alcohol since December 2001.
Mr. Holmes began smoking cannabis recreationally around age 14. In 2015 he requested a medical cannabis prescription to help him manage pain and sleep. At the time of his NCR assessment he reported smoking 5 to 7 grams a day and did not believe that his use was problematic.
Legal History:
- Mr. Holmes has no prior criminal record.
Psychiatric History
- Mr. Holmes had no admissions to hospital with respect to mental health related issues prior to the index offences. However, he has had contact with Niagara Regional Police on 35 separate occasions due to mental health concerns. In 2017 his family doctor asked him to attend hospital due to symptoms including rapid speech, agitation and thought disorganization. In 2018 he reported to his family doctor the possibility of a foreign body or monitoring device in his left side and the doctor observed significant flight of ideas and pressured speech.
Current Diagnosis
- Mr. Brown’s current diagnoses are schizoaffective disorder and cannabis use disorder – severe, in remission in a controlled environment.
Evidence of Dr. Baldeo
- Dr. Baldeo indicated that:
He had been Mr. Holmes’ most responsible physician since July 2024 and had reviewed and adopted the contents of the Hospital Report. Mr. Holmes had a positive reporting year overall and had moved into the community in an apartment with his father in 2025. He was currently working full time and in a positive relationship. He had attended all of his required appointments, was adherent to medication and abstinent from substance use.
However, the treatment team had ongoing concerns with respect to his insight into his illness and the need for treatment. Mr. Holmes questions whether his psychotic symptoms were caused solely by substance use rather than a mental illness exacerbated by the use of substances. He also has limited insight into the significant impact of substance use on his mental health and a significant history of substance use.
If granted an absolute discharge, there was a significant risk that he would return to substance use, become nonadherent to medication and make lifestyle choices which would result in a return of the symptoms he experienced at the time of the index offences. Mr. Holmes also has a tendency to take on too much resulting in his experiencing stressors which could well have a significant impact on his mental health.
The provisions of the Mental Health Act would be insufficient to protect the public.
Before the treatment team would likely be prepared to recommend a conditional discharge he would need to continue on his current trajectory for a period of time, learn to control his impulsive decision-making and develop better insight.
Should Mr. Holmes return to the use of cannabis, even if adherent to medication, he would likely decompensate within days.
Analysis and Conclusion, Significant Threat:
Although the issue of significant threat was not contested at the hearing, the Board nevertheless makes an independent finding that the evidence supports a finding that Mr. Holmes continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. He suffers from a major mental illness as well as a severe cannabis use disorder. His initial presentation in hospital involves severe thought disorder and acute somatic, persecutory and bizarre delusions with no insight. While his insight into his diagnoses is improving he continues to question whether his symptoms at the time of the index offences were solely the result of cannabis use.
The Hospital report summarizes Mr. Holmes’ risk which the Board accepts as follows:
Importantly, Mr. Holmes has repeatedly expressed genuine regret and remorse for his actions and has appropriate insight into the seriousness of the index offences. With that said, his insight into his diagnosis remains incomplete. Mr. Holmes recognizes that he was experiencing a psychotic episode during the index offences, however, he struggles to link his behaviour during the offences to an underlying mental disorder. Similarly, while he has expressed his willingness to continue psychiatric treatment indefinitely, he does not fully appreciate the risk of relapse to a psychotic and/ or mood episode in the setting of treatment nonadherence. If Mr. Holmes were to discontinue antipsychotic treatment it is likely that his psychotic symptoms would recur, and he would be further vulnerable to experiencing a manic or depressive episode. In a state of psychosis and/ or mania, Mr. Holmes is at risk of impulsive and dysregulated behaviour that may involve threats, intimidation, and harassment. These behaviours may escalate to the point of aggression toward property and/ or violence toward others. Similarly, if Mr. Holmes were to relapse to cannabis use, his mental state would likely deteriorate to the point of psychosis and disorganized behaviour.
- Mr. Holmes has only been in the community since April 2025 and given his lack of insight, those risk factors continue to support a finding of significant threat.
Analysis and Conclusion Necessary and Appropriate Disposition
- Mr. Holmes’ risk factors require a careful and gradual progression to community living with close oversight and monitoring to ensure medication adherence and abstinence as well as to note any early signs of decompensation. The hospital requires the authority to approve housing in order to ensure that he is monitored appropriately and resides in an environment conducive to adherence to treatment and abstinence. In addition, given the potential for rapid decompensation should he not be adherent to medication or recommence using cannabis, the Hospital needs to be able to respond rapidly prior to meeting the criteria of the Mental Health Act in order to manage his risk to the public. Accordingly, a conditional discharge would be insufficient to manage risk.
DATED this 30th day of March 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Robert, Bigelow
Alternate Chairperson
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board