Re: S. (N.)
ORB File No: 8038
Hearing held on: Thursday, February 12, 2026
Place of hearing: Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre
Pursuant to: Sections 672.81(2) and 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Ms. M. Labrosse
Members: Dr. S. Lessard
Dr. R. Cormier
Mr. D. Sandor
Ms. B. Naegele
Parties Appearing:
Accused: S. (N.)
Counsel: Ms. M. McMahon
Person in charge of Hospital: Representative: Dr. M. Strike
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. E. Davies
*Pursuant to s. 672.501(1) of the Criminal Code, the Ontario Review Board prohibits the publication, broadcasting, or other transmission of any information that could identify a victim in this matter or a witness who is under 18 years of age.
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated April 1, 2026)
Introduction
On March 17, 2022, S. (N.) was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (“NCR”) relating to charges of abduction of a person under 14, assault with a weapon, possession of weapon for dangerous purpose, assault, and criminal harassment, all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada.
S. (N.) is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board (“ORB”) dated November 24, 2025, which detains her at the Secure Forensic Unit of the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre, with privileges up to and including to live in the community of Ottawa in accommodation approved by the person in charge.
On November 18, 2025, the Board convened a hearing at the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre, hereinafter referred to as the hospital, to conduct S. (N.)’ annual review as well as to review a significant increase in the restriction of S. (N.)’ liberty following her readmission to hospital on September 15, 2025. At that time, the hospital requested a transfer of S. (N.)’ care to the Brockville Mental Health Centre (“BMHC”) which the hearing panel declined to do. A new disposition issued following that hearing and the Board found that the restriction of liberty imposed on September 15, 2025, was necessary, appropriate, and represented the least onerous and least restrictive intervention available to the hospital to manage the risk.
Subsequently, the hospital has requested an early review hearing to address the hospital’s renewed request to transfer S. (N.)’ care to either the BMHC or an all-female secure treatment unit at CAMH in Toronto. The matter was also scheduled for further restriction of liberty hearing.
On February 12, 2026, the ORB convened at the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre, to conduct an early review hearing and a restriction of liberty hearing for S. (N.) pursuant to s. 672.81(2) and 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code. S. (N.) attended her hearing and was represented by her counsel, Ms. Meaghan McMahon. Also in attendance were several members of the treatment team, namely the Case Manager Sara Ferrante, Social Worker, Lindsay McLean, and Addictions Counsellor, Taylor Bleackley-Brown. S. (N.)’ parents attended the hearing virtually from Alberta.
At the outset, the parties provided their preliminary without prejudice positions. Counsel for S. (N.), Ms. McMahon, stated that her client was not taking issue with the hospital decision to restrict her telephone access for a period of eight days and accordingly all parties agreed that the Board need not review that loss of privilege as it did not constitute a signification increase in the restriction of S. (N.)’ liberty. Dr. Strike indicated that the hospital had intended to send a Campbell letter to address that, but there is no indication that was ever done.
With respect to the early hearing, the hospital takes the position that the transfer of S. (N.)’ to either Brockville or CAMH is necessary and appropriate. Counsel for the Attorney General, Ms. Davies, indicated her likely agreement with the hospital recommendation for the transfer in addition to the changes sought to the existing disposition, namely, to remove community living and indirectly supervised community passes such that the outer envelope of the disposition being sought by the hospital would include community passes accompanied by staff.
Counsel for S. (N.), Ms. McMahon, indicated that her client is opposing the transfer and all changes sought to the current disposition.
The parties confirmed these same positions in closing submissions at the conclusion of the hearing.
For the reasons set out below, the Board finds that the request to transfer S. (N.)’ care to the BMHC is necessary and appropriate, but we declined to make any changes to the existing disposition other than those required for the transfer of S. (N.)’ care to Brockville.
The following documents were entered as Exhibits at the hearing:
Hospital Report dated January 14, 2026
Psychological Assessment Report dated November 10, 2025
Letter from S. (N.)’ parents dated January 25, 2026
Index Offence
- The circumstances of the index offences are summarized in the hospital report as follows:
“In May 2021, S. (N.) lived with her three children in the rural area of Shawville, Quebec. The victim, M. A., lived in the City of Ottawa. The two women had never met and were strangers to each other.
M.A. gave birth to her son about a week before the offence date of Mother’s Day, Sunday, May 9, 2021.
On Thursday, May 6, 2021, S. (N.) messaged M.A. on social media through a local chat group set up for people looking to give away free items. S. (N.) sent M.A. a message of congratulation on her newborn son. She offered M.A. a box of clothing and a $100 gift certificate. M.A. was happy about this. She responded providing S. (N.) with her Ottawa address.
On Friday, May 7, 2021, S. (N.) attended M.A.’s home. She dropped off the clothing items and gift certificate. She told M.A. that she was pregnant and was going to have a caesarean section within a week. She added this was not her first child. She gave M.A. tips on recovery. She seemed very sincere. At that point, M.A. had no concerns.
Later, S. (N.) sent M.A. another message. She also claimed that she worked as a social worker for the court and had put M.A.’s name in for a Mother’s Day basket, to include delivery of a hot breakfast. M.A. was thankful and agreed to receive delivery on May 9, Mother’s Day.
On Sunday, May 9, 2021, S. (N.) sent several messages: she wished M.A. a Happy Mother’s Day. She added that the delivery company had messed up.
S. (N.) then attended M.A.’s residence. However, she pretended to be the delivery person. She wore a black hoody with a black mask covering her face. Knocking on the door, she had a McDonald’s bag in hand. Before leaving, she said there had been a mix-up and that she had brought the wrong breakfast.
M.A. started to feel something was not right. She messaged S. (N.) about the delivery. S. (N.) sent back a series of texts. By then, M.A. had recognized the delivery person to be S. (N.). M.A. was left confused. Over the next few hours, M.A. heard some light knocking at the door. However, when she looked, she could not see anyone.
At 1:31 p.m., S. (N.) sent M.A. a message to say she was five minutes away and was bringing breakfast. She confirmed with M.A. that the only persons present were M.A., her nine-year-old daughter and newborn son. About ten minutes later, S. (N.) knocked at M.A.’s door.
M.A. opened the door. S. (N.) walked in. She sprayed M.A. in the face and all over her body with bear spray. S. (N.) was yelling nonsensical things at M.A., asking “why did you do that?” M.A. had no idea what S. (N.) was saying.
M.A. was confused. She had a hard time seeing after being bear sprayed. She felt terrified. Her infant son was in the same room not far away.
S. (N.) then said, “I need to take him.” M.A. was panicking, her eyes were burning, and she could not see. She tried but was unable to get S. (N.) out of the house. S. (N.) was pushing and hitting M.A. She noticed S. (N.) had something in her hand, along with keys. She believed it was a knife and that S. (N.) was going to stab her.
S. (N.) got to the baby. She picked him up and was holding him. M.A. feared for her life and the life of her children. She knew she needed help. She managed to run out the front door and start screaming for people to help and that S. (N.) was taking her baby. This alerted neighbors who came quickly. S. (N.) ran out of the house with the infant in hand.
A neighbor, Mr. E., gave chase. He managed to stop S. (N.). S. (N.) put the baby down on the ground and told Mr. E. to just let her go. Mr. E. held on to S. (N.). He told her he was holding her for the police. She punched Mr. E. in the face and was repeatedly hitting and kicking him. Despite this, Mr. E. was able to hold on to S. (N.) until police arrived. The baby was recovered.
Once outside the house, M.A. remembered that her daughter, who is mute, was still upstairs in her room. She ran back inside and found her daughter upstairs with very red puffy eyes, the result of bear spray. Witnesses later reported that in the days leading up to the offence, S. (N.) had been walking around M.A.’s home, both at the front and back, looking into windows.
Soon after the arrest, police officers interviewed S. (N.). She claimed to have no memory of the events.
In March 2022, Forensic Psychiatrist, Dr. Brad Booth, interviewed S. (N.) at the jail. By then, she was able to provide more details.
In her account to Dr. Booth, S. (N.) spoke of significant difficulties in the time leading up to the index offences. She described a complex set of difficult relationships with her former intimate partners. She reported having become pregnant and then terminating the pregnancy in December 2020 but without telling anyone about the termination. She had left those who knew her with the false impression that she was still pregnant and due to deliver a child in April 2021.
S. (N.) also described a course of her own drug abuse involving cocaine from early May 2021. She related details of the May 9 index offences to Dr. Booth.”
Background History
S. (N.)’ personal, legal and psychiatric history is set out in detail in the hospital report. Briefly summarized, S. (N.) is 37 years of age and is the mother of three children. She spent the first part of her childhood in Saskatchewan. At age 9, she moved with her family to Barrie, Ontario. At the age of 18, she lived with her maternal grandfather in Drumheller, Alberta for one year. She then spent the next year in Regina before returning to live with her parents in Barrie. She then moved to Shawville, Quebec, and was living there at the time of the index offences.
S. (N.)’ father worked for 30 years as a national accounts manager for a paint manufacturer. S. (N.)’ mother, Bonnee, trained as a cake decorator and interior decorator after finishing high school. She was primarily a homemaker until the children were older and, in 2006, worked as a supply teacher, and now works as a school secretary.
Following S. (N.)’ incarceration in May 2021, S. (N.)’ three children have resided with their grandparents who now live in Alberta.
In December 2019, S. (N.) met her current fiancé, P. (S.). P. (S.)is 44 years of age. He owns a landscaping and snow removal company and drives a transport truck. He also has started up a “Port a Potty” business. Having been in a previous five-year common-law relationship, P. (S.)has two sons, ages 9 and 10. He lives in Ladysmith, Quebec, outside Shawville and has sole decision-making and primary residence of his two sons.
P. (S.)and S. (N.) have never lived together, although P. (S.)did move S. (N.) and her children’s personal belongings to his home following the arrest in May 2021. They reportedly got engaged in March 2021.
The hospital report notes S. (N.) other intimate relationship with L. (N.), apparently from March 2020 until March 2021. According to the assessment of Dr. Booth, “S. (N.)’ report of being pregnant twice with a late-stage termination and a miscarriage cannot be confirmed. Further, it appears there was a significant delusional component to much of this”.
In March 2021, S. (N.) was charged with criminal harassment, as indicated in her criminal record. S. (N.) was reportedly charged with various offences by at least two police forces. The criminal record notes resulting convictions on charges laid by the Renfrew O.P.P. and separately, by the Ottawa Police Service.
Legal History
- S. (N.) said that other than her current string of offences, she had never been convicted of any crime; however, her criminal record shows a conviction for theft under, while living in Regina in 2008. She was given a suspended sentence and probation of 2 years. Around the same time, there were four charges of theft under, five charges of forgery, five charges of uttering a forged document and five charges of drawing document without authority that were stayed. In 2014, there was a withdrawn charge of theft of a credit card and failure to appear, in addition to a 2015 withdrawn charge of theft under.
Substance Use History
S. (N.) began to regularly drink alcohol at age 18. She reported that her drinking was mostly social during earlier years and that alcohol had not been an issue for her. In the summer of 2017, when she moved to Shawville, however, her use increased. Her heaviest period of drinking was in the summer of 2020.
At age 18, S. (N.) tried cocaine. She did not really use it at other times until the fall of 2017. She started to snort cocaine regularly and escalated to using an 8-ball (“1/8^th^ of an ounce”) twice per week. She continued doing so until 2019. In June 2019 she further escalated to the point where she was using an 8-ball every night when her children were not with her. She reported continuing this up until the date of the arrest on May 9, 2021. Shortly before May 9, 2021, S. (N.) was asking her drug dealer for something stronger and she began to use crack cocaine, smoking all day, until her arrest.
Psychiatric History
S. (N.) reported that others in her family have had significant substance issues. A paternal grandmother was alcoholic. A paternal cousin died in April 2021 of a drug overdose. Both grandmothers have suffered from depression. When S. (N.) was in her early twenties, a paternal aunt suffering from depression committed suicide.
S. (N.) reported to Dr. Booth that when she was younger, she did not have any mental health issues. She added though that when 17, she was drugged and raped. She explained this was at a time when she had been rebelling from her parents somewhat. She provided details of a very serious sexual violation committed on her by others which, she claimed, saw her brought to hospital suffering serious trauma. She claimed the offences saw her victimized over a period of four days when she was living in Barrie and that she was being raped by multiple people and left dumped behind an alley, wrapped in a sheet before being brought to hospital. She claims three men were arrested with jail sentences imposed, including a six-year sentence for one of the perpetrators.
Dr. Booth discussed this account with S. (N.)’ parents. They were very surprised to hear the story and confirmed that when S. (N.) was 17 she was living with them and they were never advised of this, and to their knowledge there was no such trial. They further confirmed that at that age there was no possibility that Nicole would have gone missing for three or four nights without their knowledge.
Dr. Booth noted S. (N.) reports further depressive periods in her life, as detailed in the hospital report. Dr. Booth noted that S. (N.) endorsed symptoms of PTSD, arising from the traumatic events she claims to have experienced at age 17. In addition, she has had some panic attacks, likely related to general anxiety, short of symptoms of panic disorder.
Following S. (N.)’ incarceration at OCDC in May 2021, Dr. Selaman of the ROMHC provided primary psychiatric care. S. (N.) reported that on May 9, 2021 (the date of the index offences) she went to Hull Hospital to deliver her baby at 39 plus four weeks. However, according to S. (N.), during the delivery, the baby lacked oxygen, resulting in a still birth. She described not remember much of the events that followed but feeling devastated after delivering her deceased baby.
When Dr. Booth checked further with the office of S. (N.)’ family physician to assess the reliability of S. (N.)’ report of pregnancy, he found no mention of her being pregnant in May 2021. According to medical records from the Hull hospital, S. (N.) attended and saw a Dr. Papadopoulos. According to a shorthand note, S. (N.) was reporting that she was 32 weeks pregnant. On April 20, 2021, S. (N.) was given an air cast with a diagnosis of a stable fracture (ankle or foot).
A separate emergency note dated January 29, 2021, from the Pembroke Regional Hospital saw S. (N.) report that she was five months postpartum.
Current Psychiatric Diagnoses
Antisocial personality disorder with borderline traits
Cocaine use disorder, moderate
Evidence at the Hearing
The hospital’s evidence was presented through its report and through the oral testimony of Dr. Melanie Strike, who recently took over S. (N.)’ care from Dr. Alabi. This evidence is summarized below.
S. (N.) remains on the Forensic Assessment Unit (“FAU”) and is currently not on the wait list for a transfer to the Forensic Rehabilitation Unit (“FRU”), nor is she having any off ward passes.
Dr. Strike confirmed that S. (N.) is currently unmedicated. She received her last dose of antipsychotic medication five weeks ago. The hospital believes that antipsychotic medication is no longer indicated as she does not suffer from a psychotic illness. Medication was stopped with her consent.
S. (N.) finds it quite difficult on the FAU as she is among the hospital’s most ill patients who are quite disruptive to her and wake her up at night. She is doing her best to maintain a routine including regular recreation and meals and trying to maintain regular sleep. S. (N.)’ urine drug screens have all been negative for substances and there is no evidence that she is currently using any. S. (N.) is very bored and states that she wans to go to addiction treatment as she believes that this is what she needs.
According to Dr. Strike, S. (N.) desperately wants to get off the FAU and is also prepared to go to the FRU even though the patient, J.M., who she alleged assaulted her sexually, is currently on that unit. She is also prepared to go to the inpatient Substance Use and Concurrent Disorders (“SUCD”) unit if they will have her. Dr. Strike confirmed that Dr. Saveland, who heads that unit, had previously declined the referral and that there is no indication that this will change.
In Dr. Strike’s opinion, S. (N.)’ risk cannot be contained on a unit where she has access to telecommunications, male patients and patients going on and off the unit who are able to bring drugs onto the unit.
S. (N.)’ risk is to the public with respect to her relentless fraud related activities. She is a risk to children, given the nature of the index offences and is also at risk of allowing partners to mistreat children. Additionally, she has a history of victimizing male partners. Access to telecommunications is how she accomplishes much of her harm.
With respect to the co-patient J.M., Dr. Strike advises that the police have declined to lay any charges against him and there is ample evidence that S. (N.) and J.M. are engaging in some level of communication whenever possible, including S. (N.)’ recently being observed lifting her shirt and exposing her breast to him as he was walking by a window. Despite S. (N.) having claimed she was very afraid of him, she now says that it would not cause a problem for them to be on the same unit. She also denies that she made those allegations to secure a change of unit.
Dr. Strike describes S. (N.) as a demanding patient. She is ambivalent about a transfer to Brockville as she does not want to go to another assessment unit. She would rather go to a treatment facility such as MacKay Manor where she was previously discharged because of ongoing drug use.
S. (N.) currently has visitor requests by her boyfriend P. (S.) and other friends in the community, including two friends that are considered by the hospital to be prosocial friends. They were asked to contact the social worker, Lindsay McLean, in order for the visits to be approved, but have not done so to date.
S. (N.) continues to be upset with the treatment team for placing her in a shelter last year after her discharge from MacKay Manor. This was a contingency plan because of her expulsion from the addiction treatment facility.
In Dr. Strike’s opinion, there is no addiction treatment facility that can adequately manage Mrs. Shanks’ risk. If S. (N.) was to go to such a facility at this time she would have ready access to telecommunications, is likely to use drugs, abscond and pursue inappropriate behaviours with men. This has been her repeated pattern of behaviour since coming under the ORB. The treatment team estimates that there are 10-11 male patients in the hospital with whom S. (N.) has engaged in inappropriate sexual behaviours and one of these individuals is currently on the wait list for admission to the Forensic Assessment Unit.
In the opinion of Dr. Strike, there is no foreseeable possibility of community placement in Ottawa because of past incidents of fraud with housing providers and landlords and roommates.
S. (N.) has maintained consent for her parents to speak with the treatment team though she is now reconsidering this because of the letter that they filed in advance of this hearing. S. (N.) claims that her parents are blackmailing her regarding contact with her children.
In the opinion of Dr. Strike, the hospital has reached a treatment impasse with S. (N.), including the various members of her treatment team, notably Ms. Levia Chan, the social worker who has been doing psychotherapy with S. (N.) and who recently terminated the file because of S. (N.)’ non-engagement. This has also been the case with previous addiction workers and most recently with the transfer of care to a new psychiatrist.
The hospital is recommending the removal of community living and indirectly supervised community passes from S. (N.)’ disposition. In the opinion of Dr. Strike, those conditions do not act as a motivator for S. (N.). They are counter-productive to her rehabilitation as she becomes solely focused on them, to the detriment of everything else.
The hospital is recommending the transfer to either the BMHC or the all-female secure treatment unit at CAMH. Brockville has four separate units which are all predominantly male at this time. In view of S. (N.)’ issues with domestic violence and her various manipulations of co-patients a transfer to an all-female unit would be better, but the wait for such a bed at CAMH is likely to be very long. Both Brockville and CAMH responded to the Rule 13 notices stating that they were not opposed to S. (N.) being transferred to their facility. It is clear that a transfer to Brockville would be much quicker than a transfer to CAMH.
In response to questions posed to her by counsel for the Attorney General, Ms. Davies, Dr. Strike responded as follows:
(a) Should a transfer request not be granted, S. (N.) will remain on the FAU though the hospital will continue to reassess her suitability to be put on the FRU transfer list. In this case, Dr. Strike will likely get a second opinion from another psychiatrist to ensure that this is reviewed objectively, on a continuous basis. Concerns regarding her access to telecommunications, drugs and male patients is likely to keep her on the FAU.
(b) If she is accepted to Brockville, S. (N.)’ privileges will not be vastly different; however, she would be more quickly assessed for suitability to progress to different units and path levels. There is more potential for advancement in Brockville because she does not have history with male patients currently hospitalized there.
(c) Brockville has an onsite FITT house from which patients can be transferred or readmitted to hospital more dynamically because of lower bed pressures in Brockville.
(d) Dr. Strike does not believe that S. (N.)’ risk to other co-patients is significantly different at Brockville, other than the fact that she is less known there. Her risk could be better managed in Brockville due to the more dynamic approach with privilege levels.
(e) With respect to treatment team impasse, Dr. Strike confirmed that S. (N.) now has an inpatient social worker, Lindsay McLean, and that her case manager Ms. Ferrante’s file is still open but that it is likely to be closed as this is an outpatient case management.
(f) Despite believing that she has a good plan for community discharge, S. (N.) is not open to meaningful interventions and tends to manipulate and obfuscate in how she deals with interventions from members of her treatment team.
(g) Brockville offers a Prosocial Model Program specifically designed to target antisocial behaviours. The established CBT for Psychosis Program also targets antisocial behaviours. Dr. Strike acknowledged that though this type of work could be done in Ottawa, there is currently not such program offered at the hospital.
- In response to questions posed to her by counsel for S. (N.), Ms. McMahon, Dr. Strike responded as follows:
(a) S. (N.) has participated in all of the addiction programming offered to her in the hospital. She has been working with Ms. Bleackley-Brown using a mix of modalities, including CBT. She has attended all sessions and has participated well. S. (N.) is also attending two groups connected with concurrent disorders in which she does some co-facilitation peer work.
(b) Since being back on the FAU since December 22, 2025, S. (N.) has been requesting passes to travel to Alberta to see her children. She continues to have regular calls with her children through her parents. S. (N.)’ parents have told her that she needs to be sober for a year in order to have in-person visits with her children and that she needs to demonstrate honesty, engagement, and compliance with her disposition.
(c) Between September 16, 2025, and today, there is no evidence that S. (N.) has used any drugs. Dr. Strike acknowledged that sobriety does decrease S. (N.)’ risk.
(d) Dr. Strike does not believe that having travel passes in her disposition is currently a motivator for S. (N.). She tends to be very much focussed on her wants and needs to the severe detriment of her recovery. She continues to take shortcuts with fraudulent and manipulative behaviours, which have continuously set her back.
(e) S. (N.) has acknowledged from time to time that she has essentially lost the last four years of her life. In the opinion of Dr. Strike, S. (N.) should focus on having a successful year.
(f) With respect to the hospital’s last request for transfer to Brockville, which was denied by the panel at the hearing on November 19, 2025, there have been four further incidents on the unit, including two incidents in December involving telephone access and having a telephone brought on the unit that S. (N.) knew was against the rules. In addition, S. (N.) also had P. (S.)impersonate her on Facebook in order to manipulate her mother into buying her a television which she then brought on to the unit, knowing that it was not permitted.
(g) Lastly, there have been repeated situations of communications with the co-patient J.M. despite his behaviours toward her and her allegations of assault against him. This poses serious concerns for the hospital.
(h) S. (N.) is well aware of her situation, but it has become clear that she cannot control her impulses to access contraband and to contravene unit rules. Dr. Strike acknowledged that there is no indication that either Brockville or CAMH would be better at controlling contraband.
(i) Dr. Strike acknowledged that S. (N.) has not demonstrate any symptoms of psychotic illness since coming under the ORB.
(j) S. (N.) previously had a three-month stay in Brockville which did not have positive results. She was under a detention order and had been staying in unapproved accommodation. The hospital decided to admit her but given that there were no beds in Ottawa, she consented to go to Brockville.
(k) Dr. Strike acknowledged that P. (S.) has said that he will not visit S. (N.) in Brockville but that he does visit her in Ottawa.
(l) A transfer to CAMH is likely to take more than a year. If one is ordered, the hospital will continue to reassess S. (N.) while awaiting the bed at CAMH. Dr. Strike acknowledged that if S. (N.) had a surprisingly good trajectory during the wait, the hospital could seek to cancel the transfer as has already been done in the case of other patients.
(m) With respect to a discharge to the community, Dr. Strike acknowledged that there was one instance where S. (N.) was not paying rent in 2023 to 2024 to her landlord Ms. L., but that there were also at least three other landlords to which she defaulted on rent. She also improperly claimed $1,600.00 from the Ontario Housing Benefit, that she has since repaid.
- In response to questions from members of the hearing panel, Dr. Strike testified as follows:
(a) Dr. Strike believes that S. (N.) did contemplate appealing her NCR finding but has never initiated the appeal.
(b) S. (N.) has not expressed any remorse about the index offences.
(c) S. (N.) is no longer taking Abilify, which can be detected in her urine. The treatment team will have to be aware of this when collecting samples of urine drug testing as there would no longer be a marker to confirm that the urine is in fact hers.
(d) Dr. Strike acknowledged that in the last Reasons for Disposition, the panel found that there was still some therapeutic benefit to S. (N.) relationships with members of the treatment team. Since then, there has been further disengagement on the part of S. (N.), who now says that she does not have a problem with drugs or alcohol, which has not been tested beyond the FAU.
(e) Dr. Strike does not believe that her therapeutic relationship with S. (N.) has yet reached an impasse.
(f) The treatment team members are aware that they are dealing with someone with an antisocial personality disorder, and that deceit and manipulation are at the crux of her behaviours.
(g) Travel passes will not be available for consideration until S. (N.) progresses through the privileges ladder and pass progression.
(h) Dr. Strike stated that it is difficult to say whether S. (N.) is any further ahead in her rehabilitation since coming under the Board. It could be said that there has been some progress because she has little access to drugs and contraband; however, there has been little progress with respect to her antisocial personality disorder.
(i) Dr. Strike acknowledged that after only one month of being S. (N.)’ attending psychiatrist, she sent out the Rule 13 Notice for the transfer. Dr. Strike does not believe that she will make a difference in the overall situation. Moreover, the hospital’s request for an early hearing came after extensive discussions with the treatment team. There are many valid reasons for a transfer which were not brought forward at the last hearing as the sole focus was the issue of S. (N.) and the co-patient J.M.
- Dr. Strike clarified that she had been mistaken about the ongoing involvement of the addiction counsellor, Ms. Bleackley-Brown. According to the hospital notes, the one-to-one sessions with S. (N.) have been paused. In response to Ms. McMahon’s question about whether the sessions were paused on consent, in part because S. (N.) has been abstinent for 5 months and no longer has the same need for them, Dr. Strike was unsure about this being the case but confirmed that the referral has been left open for now. Dr. Strike also confirmed that S. (N.) continues to attend group sessions.
Other Evidence
S. (N.) read a brief statement acknowledging and accepting responsibility for the three instances of rule-breaking on the unit in November and December 2025 that led to her transfer from the FRU to the FAU, on December 22, 2025. Following her transfer to the FAU, her access to the unit telephone was severely restricted for a period of eight days and then restored.
No further evidence was presented.
Closing Submissions
- The parties maintained their positions as set out at the commencement of the hearing.
Analysis and Conclusion
Having considered all of the evidence tendered at the hearing, and the submissions of the parties, the Board does find that S. (N.) continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public as defined in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code of Canada and as further defined in the Supreme Court of Canada decision Winko v. British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute), 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625.
According to R. v. Winko, a significant threat to the safety of the public means a real risk of physical or psychological harm to members of the public that is serious in the sense of going beyond the merely trivial or annoying. The conduct giving rise to the harm must be criminal in nature.
Though the issue of significant threat was not contested at this hearing, the basis for our finding is that S. (N.) remains at risk of committing further criminal offences which would cause serious psychological or physical harm to others due to her antisocial personality disorder. If she was not subject to the oversight of an ORB disposition, the likelihood risk of S. (N.) committing further instances of fraud, threats, criminal harassment, assault or child abduction, remains very high.
S. (N.) has recently discontinued antipsychotic mediation, with the approval of her treatment team, as she does not suffer from a primary psychotic illness, according to the revised diagnosis of the hospital.
The uncontroverted evidence of the hospital is that S. (N.) has made little progress in terms of better controlling her behaviours and in her rehabilitation in general. There is currently little or no prospect that she will be discharged to the community of Ottawa. The hospital does not believe that she is yet ready for transfer to the FRU, due in part to the problematic relationship between S. (N.) and co-patient J. M. who is currently on the FRU and against who S. (N.) made allegations of sexual assault, which the Ottawa Police has declined to lay charges against J.M.
Recent evidence suggests that S. (N.) has successfully abstained from using substances for several months, though this has occurred while in a highly controlled environment, and has not otherwise been tested. S. (N.)
continues to participate in groups on the unit, and she is described as an active participant.
Because of her recent behaviours and because there is currently no other unit for her to transferred to other than the FRU, S. (N.) is effectively stuck on the FAU. She has virtually no privileges and is housed with some of the most ill patients of the hospital.
Though the hospital acknowledges that there is not yet a complete treatment impasse between S. (N.) and the treatment team, several team members have paused their work with S. (N.) because of her lack of engagement.
It is difficult to conceive of a trajectory for S. (N.) to progress in her rehabilitation, let alone to the point of being considered for community discharge in the next year, if she remains at the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre.
A transfer to an all-female unit could have been positive for S. (N.), who has engaged negatively with several male patients, since being in hospital. The prospect of waiting at least a year or more for a bed at the all-female secure unit at CAMH does not appear to us to be a viable plan.
By letter dated January 27, 2025, Brockville Mental Health Centre has indicated a willingness to accept S. (N.), and this is likely to happen much faster than a transfer to CAMH. Brockville has several units which will offer more options, as well as a graduated privilege structure which could lead to a greater prospect of discharge to the community, if the risk can be appropriately managed. Brockville also has established programs which target the management and treatment of patients with antisocial personality disorders.
We are not persuaded that a removal of community living and indirectly supervised community access is necessary and appropriate. S. (N.) has made progress in some areas of her treatment, and the evidence does not persuade us that her disposition needs to be more restrictive. S. (N.) is a high-functioning individual. If she commits to progressing in her rehabilitation, it is not inconceivable that she could be ready for greater privileges over the course of the next year. We hope that she will be able to achieve this.
We have taken into consideration the factors at s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code of Canada, namely the protection of the public, which is the paramount consideration, the mental condition of the accused, her reintegration into society and her other needs in coming to the unanimous finding that a transfer to Brockville Mental Health Center and a detention order on the same terms and conditions is the necessary and appropriate and least onerous and least restrictive disposition in all of the circumstances.
DATED this 1st day of March 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Ms. M. Labrosse Alternate Chairperson
__________________
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board