Ontario Review Board
Re: Nathaniel Roderick White
ORB File No: 7388
Hearing held on: Tuesday, March 10, 2026
Place of hearing: St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton Via Zoom Video Conference
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Ms. M. Labrosse Members: Dr. P.L. Darby Dr. G. Stones Ms. K. Tomaszewski Mr. S. Duffy
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Nathaniel R. White Counsel: Mr. A. Rai
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. L. Barney
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. I. Shaikh
REASONS FOR DECISION
(Dated April 13, 2026)
Introduction
On July 31, 2018, Nathaniel White was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (“NCR”) on charges of criminal harassment, forcible entry, and possession of a weapon, all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada.
Mr. White is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board (“ORB” or “the Board”) dated December 9, 2025, which detains him at the Forensic Psychiatry Program of St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton, West 5th Campus, with privileges up to and including to live in the community of Southern Ontario in approved accommodation.
By way of letter dated February 18, 2026, the Board was notified by St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton, hereinafter referred to as the hospital, that Mr. White had been readmitted to hospital on February 5, 2026. As the admission had lasted more that seven days, it triggered the notice provisions under s. 672.56(2) of the Criminal Code.
On March 10, 2026, the ORB convened a virtual hearing to review the circumstances of Mr. White’s admission under s. 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. White attended the hearing and was represented by counsel, Mr. A. Rai.
The issue to be determined at the hearing is whether the hospital’s decision to readmit Mr. White to hospital, thereby significantly increasing the restriction of his liberty, was reasonable and warranted and represented the least onerous and least restrictive decision available to the hospital.
At the commencement of the hearing the parties provided their initial without prejudice positions with respect to the issue before the Board. Counsel for the hospital, Ms. Barney, submitted that the decision to readmit Mr. White to hospital was necessary and appropriate and represented the least onerous and least restrictive intervention available to the hospital to manage the increased risk to public safety as a result of Mr. White’s relapse into substance use. The hospital further submits that the ongoing restriction is reasonable. Counsel for the Attorney General, Mr. Shaikh, supported the hospital recommendations as did counsel for Mr. White, Mr. Rai. At the end of the hearing, the parties maintained this joint position in closing submissions.
For the reasons set out below, the Board finds that the hospital’s decision to admit Mr. White to hospital, which represented a significant increase in the restriction of his liberty, was necessary and appropriate and represented the least onerous and least restrictive decision to manage the risk at that time. We have reached the same conclusion in relation to the ongoing restriction.
As the only issue before the Board was that of the restriction of liberty (“ROL”), there is no need to reproduce the details of the index offences or background information, as these are set out in detail in the very recent Reasons for Disposition dated December 31, 2025.
Evidence at the Hearing
The hospital’s evidence was presented through the hospital report and through the oral testimony of Dr. S. Prat, who has been Mr. White’s attending psychiatrist since January of 2024. Dr. Prat adopted the contents of the hospital reports which were entered as exhibits for the hearing.
Dr. Prat clarified that prior to being admitted to hospital on February 5, 2026, Mr. White had another admission between December 9th and December 15th, 2025, which did not trigger the ROL notice provisions under s. 672.56(2) of the Criminal Code.
Mr. White was living with his parents in Grand Bend and was reporting once per week in person and once per week virtually, in addition to his contacts with CMHA staff in the area where he is living.
The hospital admission was prompted by Mr. White’s use of illicit substances, namely cocaine, which is prohibited under the terms of his current disposition. Mr. White acknowledged he had consumed more cocaine than intended, which prompted him to attend the Grand Bend Hospital, though he left before being assessed by hospital staff.
By this time, Mr. White had already contacted his family, and his uncle drove him to St. Joseph's Hospital where he was admitted on the Waterfall 3 unit of the hospital. Prior to his discharge to the community, Mr. White had been on Mountain 2; however, there were no available beds on that unit.
Dr. Prat testified that Mr. White has been doing well since his admission to hospital but that he is still at risk of relapse. Mr. White plans to involve himself in vocational activities and is not currently exhibiting any active symptoms of psychosis.
Though there were no obvious symptoms of psychosis at the time of his admission, Dr. Prat described that there was some perceptible thought disorder. Mr. White had reported using cannabis in the period prior to his relapse of cocaine use. Dr. Prat believes that there may have also been some subtle auditory hallucinations and that Mr. White may have been responding to some internal stimuli.
The plan for the next few months is to stabilize Mr. White and observe him while he is off medication. With the cooperation of his treatment team, Mr. White has stopped taking his long-acting injectable medication as there is currently a revision of his diagnosis. At the time of the index offences and prior, Mr. White was heavily involved in substance use and it is not clear that he has ever experienced psychotic symptoms without using substances. The hospital has agreed to trial him off medication while he is in hospital.
Dr. Prat confirmed that discharge to the family home in Grand Bend is no longer feasible and that this has been explained to Mr. White. He had received authorization from the person in charge to be discharged outside of the catchment area of the hospital, but this is no longer deemed to be approved accommodation.
Mr. White is not currently on a waitlist for housing, as he is not ready for discharge. Given the general lack of available housing, the hospital will likely add his name to the housing wait lists as he nears discharge from the hospital.
Dr. Prat described Mr. White as a “fairly functional individual” with respect to his activities of daily living. The problem is his substance use and the fact that he has been in the forensic system for approximately nine years without having achieved much progress. If he was discharged now the likelihood of relapse into substance use is very high in the opinion of Dr. Prat. Mr. White’s ability to abstain from drugs until now has been a function of the external controls of his disposition. He does not have the capacity to do this on his own. As evidenced by the recent events, there has been an escalation of substance use on the part of Mr. White including more planning around procuring and using substances.
In response to questions posed to him by counsel for Mr. White, Mr. Rai, Dr. Prat confirmed that Mr. White has not engaged in any aggression or violence since his admission to the hospital. He is abiding by all the unit rules. He currently has Level 2 and Level 3 indirectly supervised hospital and grounds for up to 30 minutes. There have been no positive urine drug screens since his admission to hospital.
Though Mr. White could be placed on a housing waitlist now, the hospital wants to ensure that it is clear to him that this is not the current priority and they do not want him to feel like the only thing to be done is to find him an apartment.
Dr. Prat confirmed that Mr. White has gone on some escorted passes while on the Waterfall 3 unit but is not sure what other programming Mr. White has done.
In response to questions posed to him by members of the panel, Dr. Prat believes that it will take two or three months to see how the absence of antipsychotic medication affects Mr. White.
Regarding vocational and educational plans, Mr. White has expressed wanting to take computer coding courses. The treatment team is not certain that this is a realistic goal for him. He has been successful working in a kitchen in the past and it may be more realistic for him to seek out restaurant work. Despite receiving this feedback from the treatment team, Mr. White is intent on following his own plan and thinks that he can do this if he receives some accommodations for his attention deficit disorder.
Dr. Prat confirmed that the explanation given to him by Mr. White as to why he was found with a second mobile telephone in his possession was that he planned to bring contraband to a former co-patient at St. Thomas Hospital.
Both the Waterfall 3 and Mountain 2 units of the hospital offer the same privileges. Waterfall 3 tends to house more acutely symptomatic patients, whereas the Mountain 2 tends to have patients who are closer to being ready for discharge. Dr. Prat confirmed that both units offer the same programs.
Mr. White’s current disposition allows for him to attend at a residential substance use treatment program anywhere in the Province of Ontario at the discretion of the person in charge. In the opinion of Dr. Prat, Mr. White is not ready for residential treatment program, given his recent relapse into substance use and his deceitfulness. It is also concerning that Mr. White was looking to renew relationships with antisocial peers at St. Thomas Hospital. Dr. Prat stated that the hospital may review his suitability to attend a residential substance use treatment program in the future.
In response to a question arising from by Ms. Barney, Dr. Prat stated that Mr. White was found with several different items of drug paraphernalia upon his admission at the hospital. Dr. Prat was not part of that search but has seen photographs of the items which included little paper bags used to distribute drugs, a fentanyl testing kit as well as items to tamper with urine samples.
Other Evidence
Mr. White read out a prepared statement that had been distributed to the parties, and which was entered as Exhibit 3 for the hearing. Mr. White read out his statement and was then questioned by Ms. Barney regarding his assertions that antipsychotic medication caused him to hallucinate. Mr. White responded that because the medication supressed the dopamine in his brain, he was using drugs to stimulate that dopamine and the combination of drug use, and the medication caused him to experience psychosis. Mr. White believes that without the antipsychotic medication, he will not have a need for drugs, and he will be free of addictive behaviour, though he stated that he cannot promise that he will never again do drugs.
Mr. White was asked when he last experienced a hallucination to which he answered that he had had one earlier today but that his hallucinations are not very memorable and he is experiencing less of those lately.
Mr. White confirmed that his last injection of antipsychotic medication was on February 18, 2026.
Lastly, Mr. White was asked about his statement regarding the fact that he plans not to pursue Dr. Prat in potential litigation. Mr. White indicated that he did not wish to discuss the details of his plans at this time.
Analysis and Conclusion
Regarding the law applicable to restriction of liberty hearings, 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, 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, para 65).
Having considered all of the evidence tendered for this hearing and the submissions of the parties, the Board finds that the hospital’s decision to admit Mr. White to hospital on February 5, 2026, which amounts to a significant increase in the restriction of his liberty, was reasonable, warranted and represented the least onerous and least restrictive course of action available to the hospital at that time given the serious relapse of cocaine, and Mr. White’s propensity to experience increased psychotic symptoms when using drugs.
The necessity of the restriction arose from Mr. White’s inability to maintain abstinence from drug use, which is prohibited by his current disposition and known to trigger symptoms of disorganization and delusional thinking. Mr. White had been living with his parents in Grand Bend, which is outside of the catchment area of the hospital, with permission of the person in charge of the hospital. Despite frequent reporting, both in person and virtually, Mr. While engaged in escalating drug use and planning of drug use in the months leading to his second hospital admission. The hospital has concluded that Mr. White can no longer be managed safely in the community in his current accommodation.
Though Mr. White did not exhibit a major psychotic symptom, nor did he engage ensuing aggressive and inappropriate behaviours, the hospital decided that the admission was both necessary and appropriate, having regard to its obligation to ensure the safety of the public (as the primary objective) and its duty to ensure that Mr. White’s mental and physical health, and his other needs, are being met.
The ongoing restriction of Mr. White’s liberty also remains necessary and appropriate at this time. With his consent, Mr. White is currently undergoing a diagnostic review and has discontinued antipsychotic medication. He will need to be prepared once again for discharge to the community. In the meantime, the hospital must ensure that Mr. White is receiving maximum privileges as may be warranted by his condition and the hospital’s ability to manage the risk that he poses to public safety.
The Board is hopeful that Mr. White will continue to progress, as he has in the past few weeks, and we wish him the best.
DATED this 13th day of April 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.
Ms. M. Labrosse Alternate Chairperson Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board