Ontario Review Board
Re: Nicolas Hamel
ORB File No: 5227
Hearing held on: Tuesday, March 24, 2026
Place of hearing: St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton West 5th Campus, 100 West 5th Street
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Ms. J. Mills Members: Dr. J. Watts Dr. G. Stones Ms. M.L. Bridger Mr. A. Bouvier
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Nicolas Hamel Counsel: Mr. A. Rai
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Mr. S. O’Brien
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. J. McKenzie
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated April 29, 2026)
Introduction
On December 3, 2008, Nicolas Hamel was found not criminally responsible (“NCR”) on account of mental disorder on a charge of utter a threat to cause death or bodily harm, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (the “Criminal Code”).
Mr. Hamel is currently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the “Board”), dated April 2, 2025, detaining him at the Forensic Psychiatry Program of St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton, West 5th Campus (the “hospital”) with privileges up to and including the ability to live in the community in accommodation approved by the person in charge.
On March 24, 2026, a panel of the Board convened to review Mr. Hamel’s disposition pursuant to section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Hamel was present for his hearing and was represented by counsel throughout the proceedings.
The issues to be determined are whether Mr. Hamel poses a significant threat to the safety of the public and, if so, the necessary and appropriate disposition having regard to the criteria in section 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
At the commencement of the hearing counsel for the hospital submitted that Mr. Hamel continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and there should be no change to his current disposition except that the privilege of community living should be removed from his disposition and Mr. Hamel should be transferred to another medium secure forensic hospital. Counsel for the Attorney General agreed with the hospital’s submission. Counsel for Mr. Hamel submitted that there should be no change to Mr. Hamel’s disposition and that he opposes a transfer.
For the reason set out below, the majority of the Board finds that Mr. Hamel represents a significant threat to the safety of the public and there should be no change to his current disposition.
Evidence at the Hearing
- The Board received documentary evidence in the form of a Hospital Report, dated March 9, 2026, Rule 13 requests from the hospital to Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences (Ontario Shores), the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) and Waypoint Regional Forensic Program (Waypoint), Rule 13 responses from Ontario Shores and Waypoint marked as exhibits 1 to 3 respectively. The Board also heard viva voce testimony from Dr. Shariati, Mr. Hamel’s treating psychiatrist.
Index Offences
- The circumstances of the index offences are summarized as follows:
“On Saturday August 23rd, 2008, at approximately 7:45 AM, the accused attended the Avondale Store at 206 Richmond Street in the City of Thorold. Inside the store, he attempted to use an automated teller machine to withdraw a sum of money. After several failed attempts to use the machine, the accused approached the main counter where the victim, [T.L.] was standing. The accused asked [T.L.] if the bank machine was inoperative. Before [T.L.] could answer him, the accused left the store, and as [T.L.] described, was 'rambling on to himself'.
Shortly after the accused left the store, he returned and told [T.L.] to 'Get that other bank machine in here, I've got a laser pointed at you.' [T.L.] replied. 'Yes.'
During the entire conversation, the accused was concealing his hands inside the pockets of his hooded sweatshirt. [T.L.] did not know if the accused actually had a firearm on his person or not.
[T.L.] then told his wife to call 911, and [T.L.] informed the accused of this fact. The accused stated, 'Go ahead, I'll be here waiting for them.' The accused then left the store, stood outside the window, and began staring at [T.L.].
Background/History
The Hospital Report outlines Mr. Hamel’s history and background and need not be repeated here in detail. In brief, Mr. Hamel is 44 years old. Mr. Hamel was born in Quebec City and resided in Quebec until he was 17 years old. Mr. Hamel’s childhood was chaotic and characterized by maltreatment and the involvement of child welfare authorities. Mr. Hamel has a younger half-sibling. Mr. Hamel remains estranged from his biological family. Mr. Hamel is single with no dependants.
Mr. Hamel did not complete high school. Mr. Hamel’s employment history includes working at a ski resort in Alberta when he was approximately 17 years old. He remained in Alberta for one and a half years. In 2000, Mr. Hamel moved to Ontario to stay with a friend whom he met in Alberta. In Ontario, Mr. Hamel worked at a flooring company for five or six years and then at a large hardware store. He has not worked since 2008, when he began to experience symptoms of his mental illness. Mr. Hamel is supported by the Ontario Disability Program (ODSP).
Prior to the index offence, Mr. Hamel had a criminal record for assault and failing to comply with a recognizance in 2005. He has a history of substance use (crystal methamphetamine) beginning in 2005.
Mr. Hamel’s first known psychiatric contact was in 2005. His first psychiatric admission was in 2008. Mr. Hamel is diagnosed as suffering from schizophrenia, stimulant use disorder, attention deficit hyperactive disorder, predominantly inattentive presentation.
Mr. Hamel was found incapable regarding psychiatric treatment. On December 22, 2025, the CCB upheld the finding of incapacity. Mr. Hamel has appealed this decision. Mr. Hamel has not received any psychotropic medication since 2024.
Analysis
The Board finds that Mr. Hamel continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. Mr. Hamel continues to have limited insight into his need for treatment, and the negative impact of substance use on his mental health. If Mr. Hamel was not under the jurisdiction of the Board, he would almost certainly fall away from treatment (of any sort) and use substances which will increase his risk to the safety of the public exponentially. While Mr. Hamel has some protective factors these are almost exclusively related to being under the supervision of the Board. Mr. Hamel continues to require structure and monitoring to manage his risk to the safety of the public.
The Board further finds that when in the community the hospital will require the ability to approve Mr. Hamel’s accommodation to ensure that he continues to have the necessary support and monitoring to aid in a successful reintegration. For these reasons, the Board finds that a detention order remains necessary and appropriate.
The transfer - Reasons of the Majority
(Ms. J. Mills, Dr. J. Watts, Dr. G. Stones, Ms. M.L. Bridger)
Mr. Hamel has a lengthy and storied history under the Board. After being found NCR in December 2008, he was subject to a detention order until April 2010, when he was given a conditional discharge disposition. In December 2010, Mr. Hamel was admitted to the hospital due to poor living conditions and methamphetamine use. He was placed on a detention order and remained in the hospital until December 2011, when he was discharged back to the community. Subsequently, Mr. Hamel has been readmitted to the hospital on 15 separate occasions for a combination of substance use and deteriorating mental condition. While many of these admissions have been a matter of days (with some not incurring the need for a restriction of liberty hearing) the last two admissions have been lengthy (March to December 2023 and August 2025 to present).
Notably, in September 2024, the treatment decision was made to reduce Mr. Hamel psychotropic medication and to discontinue it completely based on the then clinical opinion he does not have schizophrenia. Since then, Mr. Hamel has not had any psychotropic medication. The Hospital Report is replete with instances requiring Mr. Hamel to be readmitted for substance use and a deteriorating mental state, his refusal to participate in programming and blaming hospital staff for his situation, and arguably there is a correlation between the stopping of psychotropic medication and the extended period of readmission that Mr. Hamel is undergoing. The decision has now been made to restart psychotropic medication. Dr. Shariati testified that psychotropic medication will assist Mr. Hamel; however, Mr. Hamel does not agree with this decision and currently remains untreated.
Mr. Hamel is described as suffering from fixed persecutory beliefs focused on his NCR status and perceived wrongdoing by staff and the forensic system. When these thoughts dominate, he can become rapidly irritable and escalate in tone and volume, with limited ability to be redirected. Mr. Hamel is also described as being cooperative and able to communicate his needs appropriately when these thoughts do not dominate. Mr. Hamel remains fixed on appealing his NCR finding and has recently retained new counsel to assist him.
While Mr. Hamel has not displayed any physical aggression since his tenure under the Board, the Hospital Report indicates escalating irritability and psychologically damaging behaviour, in the form of threats both indirect and direct. More recently, Mr. Hamel directs his behaviour towards the hospital staff and more specifically Dr. Chaimowitz, who he considers responsible for his NCR finding, and Dr. Shariati, his current psychiatrist, whom he has accused online of wanting to kill him. Between September 2025 and October 2025, Mr. Hamel was noted to have been calling Dr. Chaimowitz’s office repeatedly and then approached Dr. Chaimowitz in the outpatient clinic to confront him. More recently, the Hospital Report describes a longstanding relational breakdown with multiple team members and the emergence of preoccupation with staff-focused online postings. Dr. Shariati expanded on this theme and played a video posted by Mr. Hamel depicting skeleton figures in the context of heavy metal music and death related themes, which Dr. Shariati and other staff members view as threatening toward them.
Notably, this escalation in behaviour appears to have come to the fore since Mr. Hamel has not been treated with psychotropic medication. The majority acknowledges and does not underestimate the stress that this is causing the hospital staff. The majority also acknowledge Dr. Shariati’s testimony that there is a treatment impasse and that the staff do not wish to treat Mr. Hamel any longer. While at first blush this may seem adequate reason to transfer Mr. Hamel, (both for the good of himself and the staff), the Board must balance the impact that such a transfer will likely have on Mr. Hamel.
Firstly, Mr. Hamel does not wish to transfer. While not determinative, Mr. Hamel considers Hamilton to be his home and what little supports he has are in Hamilton. Secondly, while undoubtedly it is becoming difficult to treat Mr. Hamel, the Hospital Report indicates that Mr. Hamel is not always a management problem. In fact, the Hospital Report states that he has settled quite well on Mountain 2 (where he has been since December 1, 2025). He is said to have a very good relationship with Social Work and Mr. Hamel’s transfer to Mountain 2 is noted by Social Work as having been very positive. In addition, Mr. Hamel’s social worker, who attended the hearing appears to have a positive relationship with him. Mr. Hamel is also engaged in music programming which is a strong interest of his. Given Mr. Hamel’s recent history, disruption of these positive relationships should be undertaken cautiously.
Thirdly, Mr. Hamel has a subsidized independent apartment through Perkin’s Centre, Indwell that, except for his readmissions to hospital, he has been living in since 2011. Mr. Hamel has access to support through the building staff. If Mr. Hamel is transferred, he will lose his home and will likely remain in hospital for a long time. The best he could hope for is to be placed on housing waiting lists. In the Board’s experience suitable housing can take several years to come to fruition. To the hospital’s credit, through Social Work, efforts have been made throughout Mr. Hamel’s readmissions to ensure that he keeps his apartment. Currently, he attends at his apartment every three months with his social worker to ensure the residency requirements are met. Mr. Hamel is well known at his residence. He has a housing support worker who is available to him as needed and with whom Mr. Hamel is very familiar. There are also other supports through his residence that when clinically appropriate he will be able to avail himself of again.
Finally, and perhaps most significantly, Mr. Hamel’s appeal from the CCB decision is likely to be heard this year. Should the Superior Court uphold the decision of the CCB, the hospital will be free to reinstate treatment with psychotropic medication. In this event, based on his history, there is every likelihood that this will attenuate some of Mr. Hamel’s symptoms and irritability and reduce his escalation risk, which will pave the way for an improved therapeutic relationship. The opportunity for the hospital to appropriately treat Mr. Hamel should be allowed to happen before a treatment impasse can be said to be determinative. For this reason, the Board urges the hospital to make every effort to move Mr. Hamel’s appeal forward as soon as possible. The Board also suggests that the treatment team consider engaging Mr. Hamel in cognitive testing to determine what his deficits and strengths are. More clarity regarding Mr. Hamel’s strengths may provide an opportunity for him to build on those strengths.
The Board notes that a transfer would not likely occur quickly. However, should it do so, Mr. Hamel will likely transfer untreated. As such, there is no reason to expect that his presentation will change; and unless safeguards are in place, he will likely continue to post online with similar themes. Notably, the hospital is currently making efforts to curtail Mr. Hamel’s use of the internet to curb this propensity, and it is anticipated that these measures are likely to continue. The Board acknowledges that Mr. Hamel’s physical presence can be disruptive and a drain on hospital caregivers. However, when the above factors are considered together, the weight of the evidence suggests that Mr. Hamel should not be transferred at this time.
For the reasons outlined in paragraph 22, the Board does not consider it necessary and appropriate to remove community living from Mr. Hamel’s disposition at this time.
The transfer – Reasons of the Minority
(Mr. A. Bouvier)
I agree with my fellow panel members that Mr. Hamel continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. I also agree that Mr. Hamel should remain subject to a disposition order and that community living should remain in his disposition. I adopt their reasoning on these issues.
However, I find that Mr. Hamel should be transferred to an alternative medium secure facility such as Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences (Ontario Shores). I note that Ontario Shores have expressed their agreement with such a transfer. In my view, there is a significant treatment impasse. I have considered the evidence of a longstanding relational breakdown with multiple team members and Mr. Hamel’s preoccupation with certain staff members, together with Dr. Shariati’s evidence that multiple members of staff no longer wish to be involved in Mr. Hamel’s treatment. In these circumstances, it is my view that remaining at the hospital is not conducive to Mr. Hamel progressing through the forensic system in any meaningful way. I am mindful that Mr. Hamel will lose his home. However, given the current state of therapeutic impasse, Mr. Hamel has no reasonable likelihood of being discharged into the community any time in the near future. Nor do I think it appropriate to wait for Mr. Hamel’s appeal to be heard. Not only has no hearing date been set for the appeal, but there is no guarantee that the Court will give its ruling on the same day. During this time, the treatment impasse continues and this does not serve Mr. Hamel well.
Conclusion
In making a disposition, the Board must take into consideration s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code, including the safety of the public which is the paramount consideration and the mental condition of the accused, the reintegration of the accused into society and the other needs of the accused.
For the above reasons, the majority of the Board finds that Mr. Hamel continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and there should be no change to his current disposition.
DATED this 29th day of April 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.
Ms. J. Mills Alternate Chairperson
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board