Ontario Review Board
Re: Nicole Jones
ORB File No: 8902
Hearing held on: Tuesday, February 10, 2026
Place of Hearing: Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre
Pursuant to: Section 672.47(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. D. Sandor
Members: Dr. S. Lessard
Dr. R. Cormier
Ms. M. Labrosse
Ms. B. Naegele
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Nicole Jones Counsel: Mr. D. Baum
Person in charge of Hospital: Representative Dr. A. Alabi
Attorney-General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. M. Dufort
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated April 1, 2026)
Introduction
On November 7th, 2025, Nicole Jones, was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on charges of Uttering threats – Cause death or bodily harm and fail to comply with probation order, all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada. At the time of the finding, the Honourable Court did not make a disposition and referred the matter to the Ontario Review Board.
On February 10th, 2026, the Ontario Review Board convened at the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre (hereinafter referred to as “the Hospital”) to conduct an initial hearing for Ms. Jones pursuant to s. 672.47(1) of the Criminal Code. Ms. Jones was in attendance accompanied by her parents. Mr. Baum also attended and requested an order appointing him as counsel for Ms. Jones. That order was made on the consent of all parties.
The record for the hearing included the:
Revised Notice of Hearing dated December 29, 2025
CPIC Report
Warrant of Committal
Disposition Hearing Outcome
Crown Brief Synopsis
Information
Section 486(3) Appointing counsel to the proceedings
Assessment Order
Forensic Assessment relative to Fitness dated August 28, 2025
NCR Report dated November 6th, 2025
Transcript for the NCR Hearing in the Ontario Court of Justice
On the consent of all parties, a Hospital Report dated January 19th, 2026, was entered into evidence as Exhibit No. 1.
The parties were canvassed for their positions at the outset of the hearing. Dr. Alabi, Ms. Jones’ treating psychiatrist, spoke for the Hospital and expressed the position that Ms. Jones represented a significant threat to the safety of the public as that term is defined in section 672.5401 of the Criminal Code and as it has been further explained in Winko v. British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute), 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625. Dr. Alabi further submitted that the evidence would support the imposition of a detention disposition in satisfaction of the objectives set out in section 672.54, the primary of which is the assurance of the safety of the public.
Both the representative of the Attorney General and counsel for Ms. Jones joined Dr. Alabi in those positions, the latter stressing that a broad range of privileges would be appropriate in the context of any detention disposition ordered. Ultimately all parties agreed on both the nature of the disposition and the terms and conditions associated with it.
For the following reasons, the Board has concluded that Ms. Jones does represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and that a detention disposition as requested by the parties is necessary and appropriate to ensure the safety of the public (as a primary objective) and to assure that Ms. Jones
mental health and other needs are addressed, inclusive of the ultimate objective of her reintegration into the community.
Evidence at the Hearing
- The evidence at the hearing came from the Hospital Report mentioned above and from the viva voce evidence provided by Dr. Alabi. Turning first to the Hospital Report, it includes a summary of the index offence that matched the summary provided to and accepted by the court at Ms. Jones’ NCR hearing.
January 24 and 25, 2024
CC 267(a) – Assault with a weapon(1count)
CC 266 – Assault – Spousal (1count)
CC 264.1(1)(a) – Uttering threats – cause death or bodily harm – spousal (1 count)
According to the Crown Brief Synopsis, Ms. Jones and the victim, Justin Dunn, were in a dating relationship for about three years, where they were on-and-off and separated in early 2023. It was noted that Ms. Jones’ mental health had deteriorated, where she had become violent with people that were attempting to help her with her mental health and addictions issues.
On January 24, 2024, at 11:45 PM, Ms. Jones and Mr. Dunn were in Ms. Jones’ bedroom, where Ms. Jones had been in a mental health crisis all day, seeking help and then rejecting Mr. Dunn’s efforts to support her through her state of mental health. While in the bedroom, both Ms. Jones and Mr. Dunn were lying beside each other on the bed. At the time, Mr. Dunn was rubbing Ms. Jones’ leg while she was playing an iPad game. Suddenly, Ms. Jones began muttering under her breath and expressed the paranoia, stating “you’re in on it too,” “you’re out to get me,” and “it’s all your fault.” She then turned towards Mr. Dunn and began striking him in the face with multiple strikes using both hands. Mr. Dunn got up from the bed and attempted to leave. Ms. Jones closed the bedroom door and turned off the lights, picked up a triangular glass tabletop and attempted to strike Mr. Dunn. She then stated to Mr. Dunn “I’m going to kill you.” Mr. Dunn avoided the incoming strike and grounded her in order to escape from her. He then contacted police. Ms. Jones informed police that she was open to seeking mental health treatment for her addictions and anger issues. She was also referred to the Mental Health Crisis Team.
March 31, 2024
CC 430(1)(a) – Mischief – destroys or damages property (1 count)
According to the Crown Brief Synopsis, on this date at 4:43 PM, Ms. Jones was placed into cells at the Renfrew Detachment after being charged with one count of mischief and two counts of assault. At 11:35 PM, it was noticed that Ms. Jones had lit toilet paper on fire on top of a blanket. She was subsequently searched twice, once by a male officer and once by a female officer before being rearrested for an additional charge of mischief.
July 26, 2024
CC 145(5)(a) – Failure to comply with release order – other than to attend court (1 count)
CC 267(a) – Assault with a weapon (1 count)
According to the Crown Brief synopsis, on this date at 11:08 PM, officers were called to an assault with a weapon incident by Ms. Jones’ grandmother, Hazel Schnob, who reported that Ms. Jones had attacked her and stabbed her several times with a knife and she was currently bleeding. Officers arrived and located Ms. Jones in the driveway of the residence requesting that officers help her grandmother. She stated she had left the knife back in the kitchen. Officers found the grandmother in the bedroom with several puncture wounds to both her chest and back, all about one inch in diameter. Ms. Schnob confirmed that she was unsure what had upset Ms. Jones, however, she began stabbing her with the knife. As a result, Ms. Jones was arrested and transported back to the Renfrew Detachment to await a bail hearing. Furthermore, officers formed grounds that Ms. Jones breached her bail conditions by using the kitchen knife as a weapon against her grandmother.
The Hospital Report provides guarded background information associated with Ms. Jones due to the interview occurring at her cell door and lacking privacy while also focusing primarily on the primary purpose of the fitness assessment. It does make out that Ms. Jones was born in Ottawa and raised in Arnprior, where she resided with both her parents in a setting that suggests she experienced physical abuse as a child. Ms. Jones is an ODSP recipient but has some work history at Tim Hortons, as a bar tender and more recently at KFC in 2019.
The Hospital Report indicates that Ms. Jones denied any police involvement prior to her assault charges against her boyfriend in January 2024. A review of a CPIC showed one prior youth charge in 2010 for possession of marijuana. Ms. Jones’ parents confirmed that their daughter lacked any significant history of criminality prior to her mental health becoming unstable. The Attorney General confirmed at the end of the hearing that Ms. Jones does have a conviction dating back to May 16, 2025, for assaulting a peace officer, for which Ms. Jones received a sentence of one day deemed served followed by a period of probation.
Psychiatric History
According to the Hospital Report, Ms. Jones and her parents both reported that she suffered from postpartum depression after the birth of her children. It was worse after her second son was born and she reported experiencing psychosis. Ms. Jones stated that she would hear her baby crying, even when the child was not in the home. Her mother explained that Ms. Jones’ hygiene became poor, and her sex drive significantly increased. Ms. Jones’ mother stated that she took her daughter to see a psychiatrist, Dr. Valentine, in Pembroke due to her concerns. According to Ms. Jones’ mother, Dr. Valentine declined the prescribing of any medications, leaving both her and her daughter with an impression that their concerns relative to Ms. Jones’ mental health were being minimized.
Ms. Jones’ parents stated that she struggled with periodic episodes of depression leading up to her obtaining a job with a butcher when she was 25 years old. They indicated that, in that environment, Ms. Jones befriended some other employees who were into using ADHD medications as a way to lose weight and be up all night. Ms. Jones ended up losing a significant amount of weight in just over a month and was not sleeping. She ended up stopping Vyvanse cold turkey giving rise to serious signs of psychosis. She began expressing persecutory delusions, talking about her and her children being raped and tortured. She thought people were after her and began blocking doors and setting up booby-traps around the house. She cut a hole in her furnace thinking something was hidden inside. Her parents reported they brought her to the Pembroke Hospital then Queensway Carleton Hospital, but she was quickly released. Ms. Jones’ parents stated they were desperately trying to get their daughter help.
According to the Hospital Report, Ms. Jones stated that apart from her postpartum depression, her psychosis started around September 2021. She recalled she was not sleeping well and started to feel people were after her. She stated that she thought people were going into her home, eating food out of her fridge, and raping her at night. Ms. Jones reported that she turned to harder substance use to try and cope with the thoughts.
Ms. Jones further stated that the paranoia continued whether she was using substances or not. She stated she was 30 days sober when she stabbed her grandmother in July 2024 as she thought at the time her grandmother had been replaced with a male entity. She stated that she was in psychotic torment and had knives in her room due to the paranoia. Ms. Jones’ grandmother reported to family that the stabbing was out of nowhere and completely unexpected.
According to the Hospital Report, Ms. Jones’ mother, Mrs. Martin, stated that her daughter could get aggressive when psychotic and has hit her in the eye and burned her hand with a cigarette. She would also stand at the foot of her parents’ bed in the middle of the night staring at them.
Ms. Jones was incarcerated from July 2024-May 2025 for stabbing her grandmother. When released she continued to be psychotic and have thoughts that she was being sex trafficked in a scheme that was being supported by the police. She struggled with consistency in taking prescribed medications and became increasingly upset and irritable. Her paranoid delusions incorporated a belief that family was trying to sexually traffic grandchildren.
Ms. Jones stated that when she was released from jail in May 2025, she was struggling with leaving the house and continued to have thoughts that people were after her. She stated that she was hearing voices telling her about dead kids and it was tormenting her. She denied using any substances at this time. Ms. Jones reported that she was asking her parents to have a lock put on her bedroom door as she feared people were going in at night. She agreed to go with her mother to the police station and to try and get a rape kit done believing she had been sexually assaulted. Ms. Jones stated that she thought her parents were involved with the assaults when she was verbally aggressive towards her mother.
Ms. Jones’ parents reported that their daughter has talked about hearing voices. They stated that the voices will tell her she is not a good person and will tell her to hurt herself or others. She has also been seen laughing to herself on occasion or saying “shut the fuck up” out loud in response to the voices in her head.
There is a history of alcoholism in Ms. Jones family. Her sister reportedly has a diagnosis of borderline personality disorder. Ms. Jones’ father stated that he has ADHD and a history of alcoholism. Ms. Jones’ paternal grandmother “was manic depressive” according to Mr. Jones.
Ms. Jones is currently diagnosed with
Borderline Personality Disorder.
Substance Use Disorder (Crystal meth, cocaine),cannabis use disorder & Alcohol Use Disorder
Unspecified Schizophrenia Spectrum and Other Psychotic Disorder
In his evidence, Dr. Alabi adopted the contents of the Hospital Report and provided the panel with a helpful update. He explained that Ms. Jones’ medications had been optimized, and she was currently stable with no acute symptoms of psychosis being noted. He said that she was showing no emotional dysregulation or psychotic disturbances. Dr. Alabi addressed Ms. Jones’ risk for violence as set out in the Hospital Report, employing the HCR-20v13 – an instrument commonly accepted in the professional community for the assessment of risk whose sufficiency and appropriateness was not questioned over the course of this hearing. According to Dr. Alabi, Ms. Jones represents a moderate risk of re-offending violently in the context of a detention disposition. This conclusion is driven by Ms. Jones diagnosis, the role of her major mental illness in the commission of recent violent criminal offences, her history of noncompliance with recommended medications, and the family stressors she continues to experience as a result of her psychotic symptoms.
Dr. Alabi indicated though that Ms. Jones had made progress since the index offences. He attributed this to her developing insight into her mental illness and need for medications, as well as her compliance with treatment recommendations at this time. He explained that Ms. Jones is family oriented and hopes to reunite with her two sons in the future. She is expected to move from the Hospital’s Forensic Assessment Unit to the Forensic Rehabilitation Unit as soon as a disposition permitting that transfer is provided. Dr. Alabi said that the only thing holding her back from that progression was the lack of a disposition. Ms. Jones has been engaged with the treatment team at the Hospital, has not been engaged in any acts of violence and it is expected that as long as she continues to engage in therapy to address interpersonal boundary and substance/alcohol use issues, she will progress quickly along the pass ladder. Dr. Alabi expressed confidence that Ms. Jones will continue to increase in her insight into the index offences, her major mental illness and symptoms.
Dr. Alabi addressed the likelihood of Ms. Jones residing in approved accommodation in the community of Ottawa over the course of the next review period. He saw this as a possibility. Ms. Jones has completed a housing application and is open to the Hospital’s directions on housing. Options may include her return home, though this is something to be explored more fully given the context of the index offences and the distance the family home is from the supports and services offered at the Hospital.
Ms. Jones continues to be subject to a probation order that prohibits her contact with the victims of the index offences absent their written revocable consent, which has been given. Dr. Alabi testified positively of Ms. Jones’ family supports and of the progress she has made globally after coming under his care. Ms. Jones has now abstained from the use of all substances for over a year, as confirmed by her random drug screenings. She has responded well to her long-acting injectable antipsychotic medication. She is working with the Hospital cooperatively as Dr. Alabi adjusts her ADHD medications to a nonstimulant. While timelines for progress are guarded and these are early days, all indications are that Ms. Jones is moving from a restrictive setting to one that permits the full exploration of privileges. Her developing insight in this regard is a significant factor. Ms. Jones no longer minimizes the role her major mental illness and lack of appropriate treatment played in the commission of the index offences. While the Hospital Report had indicated that Ms. Jones’ insight in this regard was questionable, Dr. Alabi testified by way of update to their improvement.
Over the course of his evidence, Dr. Alabi addressed geographical considerations in facilitation of both Ms. Jones’ connection with her family and need to stay somewhat proximate to the Hospital over the course of this next review period. He noted that a 200 km radius, while perhaps being desirable for Ms. Jones in the context of her family supports, was somewhat generous. Meanwhile a 70-kilometer radius from the Hospital would, in his view, be overly restrictive and would limit opportunities for approved accommodations suitable to Ms. Jones in the context of her progress. Dr. Alabi was clear that conditions associated with where Ms. Jones would be permitted to live or travel to needed to balance her need to be sufficiently close to the Hospital and its services so as to assure the safety of the public, and close enough to her family to maintain her direction in satisfaction of the ultimate objective of reintegration into the community.
Submissions
At the close of the hearing the parties renewed their submissions as set out at its commencement. All agreed that Ms. Jones represented a significant threat to the safety of the public and all agreed that a detention disposition was necessary and appropriate to manage her risk having regard to the objectives set out in section 672.54.
Two conditions were specifically addressed by the parties – that of permissible contact with the victims of the index offence and that of the geographic radius Ms. Jones was to maintain when in the community, either by way of travel or by way of approved accommodation. As to contact with the victims of the index offence, the parties proposed a condition that Ms. Jones have no contact with certain named individuals “except with their revocable consent and the consent of the treatment team, except through counsel or as directed by the Children’s Aid Society or as in accordance with a family court order made after today’s date.” This proposal carefully balanced the objective of assuring the safety of the public while also assuring that persons, agencies and courts maintain the ability to exercise their jurisdiction. This is in furtherance of both assuring that Ms. Jones’ mental health and other needs (including her need to have access to substantive and procedural fairness in affairs pertaining to her family), as well as the ultimate objective of reintegration into the community are met.
Regarding the geographic radius Ms. Jones was to keep in relation to the Hospital, while the Attorney General and the Hospital suggested a radius of 70 km’s would be appropriate, Ms. Jones’ counsel suggested a 200 km radius, permitting her to be in a closer proximity to her family. He noted Dr. Alabi’s testimony that a 70 km radius could prove restrictive in terms of locating approved accommodations that would be appropriate for Ms. Jones in light of her progress.
Analysis and conclusion
As stated, the Board agrees with the joint submission that Ms. Jones represents a significant threat to the safety of the public. It does not arrive at this conclusion lightly. A finding of significant threat has been described as a “weighty” one. It cannot be founded solely on the fact that an individual has committed a serious index offence, however concerning its circumstances may be. Nor can it be founded solely on the fact that an individual struggles with a major mental health issue. For an individual to be found to be a significant threat to the safety of the public, the Board must take a principled approach to the evidence, ascertaining the logical lis between the factor and the risk being considered and weighing whether that risk is proximate in terms of likelihood of occurrence absent a disposition and whether the risk jeopardizes the physical or psychological safety of the public in a significant way. There is never a burden on an individual to prove that they do not represent a significant threat. The Board must always satisfy itself on the basis of the evidence, and even in spite of a joint submission, that the threshold set by the Supreme Court of Canada in Winko has been met.
In this situation, the significant threat threshold is met having regard to the seriousness of the index offences, the recency of their occurrence and the ongoing similarity of facts today compared to those that preceded the index offences. Ms. Jones suffers from a major mental illness that, when not adequately treated, drove her to commit serious violent offences against members of her own family. At that time, Ms. Jones lacked insight as to her mental illness, its symptoms, and her need for medication. She was experiencing family stresses associated with her children and decompensated into a state of psychosis with significant rapidity.
While Ms. Jones is now at baseline, has abstained from substances for over a year, and is developing her insight into both the index offences and the role her major mental issues played in their commission, these are still early days in her stabilization and progress. Ms. Jones is progressing in her insight into need for medication, but her medications are still in the process of monitoring and adjustment. She is progressing in terms of her alliance with the treatment team, but she still needs to show that she is able to transparently disclose and discuss with them stressors and symptoms that may be indicative of approaching difficulties. Though Ms. Jones’ family is supportive and understanding, they are still necessarily implicated in legal matters involving the welfare of Ms. Jones’ children, which amplifies the stresses that she was experiencing at the time of the commission of the index offences. Ms. Jones is still on the Forensic Assessment Unit and will require support and direction as she deals with these stresses in a context of increasing privileges.
Ms. Jones’ decompensation at the time of the commission of the index offences was rapid and unpredictable. In view of the above-mentioned factors, it is likely that, absent a disposition, Ms. Jones would find herself overwhelmed by the stresses mentioned, become noncompliance with medication, return to the use of substances to help cope with stresses and experience a rapid decompensation leading to further serious criminal behavior that would jeopardize the physical and psychological safety of members of the public, most notably members of her own family. Based on these factors, it is our view that Ms. Jones continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public.
The Board also agrees that a detention disposition is necessary and appropriate to manage the risk established, having regard to the objectives set out in section 672.54 of the Criminal Code. No other disposition would be appropriate at this time, given the Hospital’s needs to respond quickly to initial signs of decompensation that may be shown by Ms. Jones as her privileges increase and she experiences increasing liberties, stresses and frustrations over the course of the next review period. The Hospital needs to arrange and monitor appropriate housing for Ms. Jones. At this stage, it needs to have the full flexibility and responsiveness a detention disposition affords if it is to assure the safety of the public through all stages of progress Ms. Jones may well make over this next period of review. Furthermore, while Ms. Jones is currently compliant with treatment and with conditions of abstinence from substance use, her ability to remain compliant while transitioning to increasing privileges and approved accommodations in the community has yet to be tested. In our view the primary objective requires a detention disposition at this time.
Some of the stresses Ms. Jones is likely to experience may be found in other forums as she deals with the child welfare issues that have arisen with the index offences. Ms. Jones’ progress to this point has been noteworthy, such that this Board has no concerns that the primary objective of assuring the safety of the public will be compromised by a condition in a detention order that poses no restrictions on her ability to access procedural and substantive fairness in her dealings with regard to her children’s welfare. As a principle of comity, the Board should, in our view, be hesitant to impose conditions that limit the jurisdiction of other courts or bodies, particularly where children’s best interests are implicated. The wording of the no-contact conditions of the disposition as proposed by the Attorney General are effective in this regard.
The Board considered the issue of Ms. Jones’ need to both have contact with her family and the desirability of her remaining in proximity to the Hospital. Again, these are early days, with Ms. Jones only accessing the extended privileges of the Hospital’s Forensic Rehabilitation Unit following the granting of this disposition. At this stage, it is important having regard to the primary objective that the Hospital be able to monitor Ms. Jones closely and frequently, particularly as she has increasing access to the community. It will be important for now for Ms. Jones to prioritize her treatment and work with the Hospital. Her recent progress needs to be supportively maintained. Accordingly, it is our view that a 100 km radius is appropriate to both afford a broad investigation of appropriate accommodations and to allow her some ease of contact when it comes to her family.
In our view this radius balances the primary objective with the other objectives set out in section 672.54. In the event that Ms. Jones makes peculiar progress and this condition is imposing an undue restriction on the practical implementation of her contact with family, including her children, or is otherwise impractical for the purposes of approved accommodation outside of the 100 km radius, the parties would be free to seek an early review to address that situation.
As a result, it is the Board’s conclusion that Ms. Jones’ continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and that a detention disposition, with conditions as noted and otherwise as recommended in the Hospital Report, is necessary and appropriate to manage that risk.
The Board thanks all who participated in this hearing and wishes the best for Ms. Jones over the course of the next reporting period.
DATED this 1st day of April 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Mr. D. Sandor
Alternate Chairperson
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board