Re: D’Jemima Meria Domercant, 2026 CanLII 59669

Re: D’Jemima Meria Domercant

ORB File No: 3932

Hearing held on: Monday, April 20, 2026

Place of hearing: Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre

Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code

Before:

Alternate Chairperson: Mr. P. Hageraats

Members: Dr. R. Cormier

Dr. W. Johnston

Mr. D. D’Intino

Mr. M. Hajek

Parties Appearing:

Accused: D’Jemima Meria Domercant

Counsel: Mr. M. Davies

Person in Charge of the Hospital: Representative: Dr. M. Strike

Attorney-General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. M. Dufort

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated May 22, 2026)

Introduction

1. On February 13, 2004, D’Jemima Meria Domercant was found not criminally responsible (“NCR”) on account of mental disorder on a charge of assault with a weapon, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (“The Code”).

2. She is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board (“ORB/the Board”), dated April 14, 2025, detaining her within the Secure Forensic Unit of the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre and providing privileges up to and including residing in the community in accommodation approved by the Person in Charge.

3. On April 20, 2026, the Board convened an Annual Hearing to determine whether Ms. Domercant remained a significant threat to the safety of the public and if so, to determine the necessary and appropriate Disposition.

4. Ms. Domercant was present at her annual hearing, and was represented by amicus curae, Mr. Michael Davies.

Current Psychiatric Diagnoses:

• Schizophrenia;

• Antisocial Personality Disorder with Histrionic Personality Traits

• Crack Cocaine Use Disorder

• Cannabis Use Disorder

Index Offences:

5. The details of the index offences are extracted from the previous Reasons for Disposition, which are as follows:

The offences are alleged to have taken place on November 10 and 11, 2003. The Crown Brief Synopsis indicates that initially members of the Ottawa Police responded to a call for service at 791 Manitou Drive. This call was placed by the accused. Upon arrival, she was noted to have a black left eye with minor bleeding in the area. She was alleging that she had been assaulted by her mother’s boarder, Eric Sarah. Upon further investigation, the police determined that the accused suffered the injury to her eye after she had attempted to assault Mr. Sarah with a chair. When the chair was pushed back towards her, she sustained the injury to her eye. It is reported that the accused was upset at the lack of arrest of Mr. Sarah and left the residence.

Approximately 45 minutes later, the accused is alleged to have returned to the residence. She allegedly proceeded to her mother’s bedroom where Mr. Sarah was speaking with the accused’s mother. She is alleged to have proceeded behind him and pulled a ball-peen hammer from her purse. She is alleged to have struck him at the base of his skull with this hammer. She then stated, "I got you now, call the Po-po (police)". Family members became involved and the police were called. The family took the hammer from the accused. She again departed the residence and was arrested near the residence.

The police occurrence report indicates that in further discussions with the victim, it was learned that the accused had attempted to stab him with a knife and a bottle and that she had attempted to hit him with an ax. She had further expressed intent to kill him. Further statements obtained from Mrs. Foote, the accused’s mother, indicated that the accused had been previously diagnosed as having paranoid schizophrenia. The mother also advised that her daughter was in the habit of using street drugs including marijuana and crack cocaine.

Without Prejudice Position of the Parties:

6. At the commencement of the hearing, the parties were canvassed for their initial, without prejudice positions on the necessary and appropriate Disposition for Ms. Domercant.

7. Dr. Strike on behalf of the Hospital, took the position that the necessary and appropriate Disposition was a continuation of the existing Detention Order, with the removal of condition 4(d).

8. Ms. Dufort on behalf of the. Ministry of the Attorney General anticipated being in agreement with the Hospital's position.

9. Mr. Davies on behalf of Ms. Domercant agreed with the Hospital’s position but wanted to explore (through questioning) the possibility of independent living for Ms. Domercant.

Evidence at the Hearing:

10. The Board had available to it the evidence and documents forming the Record, the Exhibits, and oral evidence from Dr. Strike.

11. Dr. Strike testified by way of update to the Hospital Report that Ms. Domercant has continued to occasionally be late for appointments and for her medication injection, but that since the Hospital put Ms. Domercant on a waiting list for readmission to the Hospital, her attendance at these appointments have improved.

12. What has not improved in the opinion of Dr. Strike is Ms. Domercant’s engagement with her behavioural therapist or her attendance at case conferences. The team has thus phased out behavioural therapy with a view toward discontinuing it entirely, as Ms. Domercant is not interested in making any changes to her behaviours that were targeted by the behavioural therapy.

13. Dr. Strike continued her testimony by explaining that engaging with the family and in particular, the Substitute Decision Maker (“SDM”), has been very challenging again in the last reporting period, and in March Ms. Domercant’s family stated that they were “done” with the Hospital.

14. This lack of engagement by the family has contributed, in part, to the challenge that the Hospital faces in managing Ms. Domercant’s risk outside of the Hospital. The Hospital is trying to determine if the family home is a suitable living arrangement for Ms. Domercant, considering that it is a multigenerational home which includes two infants.

15. The Hospital has arranged for Ms. Domercant to be tentatively approved to be followed by an ACT Team, but as Dr. Strike explained, they are not a “miracle team” – if the client does not respond to phone calls, doesn’t attend appointments and won’t come out of the home, then the ACT team won’t accept her – and these all have been issues with Ms. Domercant.

16. Dr. Strike also stated that a readmission to Hospital is being considered, as well as a Rule 13 transfer to the Brockville Mental Health Centre.

17. In response to question from the Crown Attorney, Dr. Strike explained that Ms. Domercant is in arrears to Ottawa Community Housing and to ODSP due to an overpayment of that support: she was collecting the full amount despite being advised by the social worker that she was not entitled to that full amount and that she should advise ODSP about the overpayment. As a result of these arrears, they create further barriers to obtaining community housing for Ms. Domercant because they would need to be repaid before she can access subsidized housing waitlists, and Ms. Domercant does not wish to address this issue.

18. When Crown Counsel asked about the source or sources of frustration that the family seem to have with the Hospital, Dr. Strike explained that it stems in part from the Hospital reminding the family about persistent paranoid delusions that Ms. Domercant has about her stepfather, who resides in the family home.

19. According to Dr. Strike, these delusions appear to be similar in nature to those she experienced in the past which led to the index offence and other incidents of violence. For example, Ms. Domercant expressed her belief that her stepfather is watching her urinate which has caused her to avoid the washroom in the family home and is instead urinating into a bottle in her bedroom.

20. Mr. Howard Domercant, the SDM, does not appear to understand that these beliefs are delusional in nature and not rooted in reality and this has led to the frustration on the family’s part.

21. Dr. Strike also testified that the dynamics of the family home, combined with these delusions, are causing distress for Ms. Domercant as well. Ms. Domercant has disclosed to the team that she does not feel safe in the home sleeping overnight and as a result, Ms. Domercant stays up all night. The team is thus looking at all options for Ms. Domercant, including a placement at Hummingbird Lodge in North Bay, which is for female ORB patients with a trauma history, and which provides services in French.

22. In response to questions from Mr. Davies, Dr. Strike agreed that compared to her presentation in years past, this year Ms. Domercant appears more relaxed and less intense. While her engagement with the therapy has not really improved, Ms. Domercant is at least coming to meetings more frequently and has reduced the degree to which she has been late for injections. She has been less anxious and calmer when attending the Hospital and is no longer refusing to provide urine drug screens.

23. Dr. Strike agreed with Mr. Davies that Ms. Domercant’ situation is unusual: she is doing well in the community and is stable and yet there are discussions about bringing her back to the Hospital. The reason for this according to Dr. Strike, is that Ms. Domercant does not feel safe in the family home, is experiencing delusional beliefs about her stepfather that might place him at risk and there is no other community based alternative housing arrangement that can meet her needs and control her risk to the safety of the public.

24. Dr. Strike also confirmed that the Hospital has offered to assist Ms. Domercant in filing police reports and accessing supports for trauma and abuse survivors if she wished for them, notwithstanding the fact that the Hospital is certain that Ms. Domercant’s beliefs about her stepfather are delusional and not based in reality.

25. Dr. Strike explained that Ms. Domercant is not eligible for Ottawa Housing due to her arrears, is not currently on a waitlist for Cornerstone housing and is not a suitable candidate for SALUS housing because it requires intensive group therapy and Ms. Domercant has never attended group programming. She won’t even in engage in one-to-one therapy.

26. Dr. Strike further testified that the ideal placement for Ms. Domercant would be an independent apartment with some degree of supports. Ms. Domercant struggles to live around other people, males in particular, and it doesn’t seem as though that ideal placement is available right now.

27. In response to questions from the Panel, Dr. Strike testified that Ms. Domercant has a treatment resistant form of Schizophrenia and that while clozapine was tried in the past, Ms. Domercant would not comply with the required blood work.

28. Dr. Strike next discussed the difficulties in working with Ms. Domercant’s current SDM and explained that the team has looked to see if there is another family member willing to take over that role, and if not, that the Hospital could go to the Consent and Capacity Board and have the Public Guardian and Trustee appointed as the SDM.

29. Dr. Strike agreed that the persistent nature of Ms. Domercant’s delusional beliefs remain her primary risk factor in respect of the significant threat to the safety of the public posed by Ms. Domercant. Delusional beliefs were a factor in the index offence, which was violent in nature, and those delusional beliefs typically involve men that she is not related to, but who are in her familial environment.

30. At the conclusion of the evidence, Mr. Davies informed the Panel that he would join the hospital and the Crown in their positions.

Analysis and Conclusions

31. Having heard and considered the entirety of the evidence as well as the submissions from the parties, the Board accepts the joint submission: Ms. Domercant remains a significant threat to the safety of the public. The Board makes this finding based on Dr. Strike’s testimony and the documentary evidence available at the hearing.

32. Ms. Domercant suffers from a psychotic disorder, which has been described in the Hospital Report as “treatment resistant” and her medication regime has not been able to address her delusional beliefs.

33. Ms. Domercant’s delusional beliefs were a significant contributing factor not only to the index offence, which was one of violence, but to other past incidents of violence toward persons in her orbit. Their persistence, particularly those involving her stepfather, is the primary reason why she continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public.

34. While Ms. Domercant is largely stable from a clinical perspective, the team remains concerned that she is not engaging in therapeutic programming, that they are having difficulty working with her SDM and that Ms. Domercant does not feel safe in the current living arrangement.

35. It is for that latter reason that the team is exploring all options, including a readmission to Hospital. Having an appropriate residence is an important aspect of controlling Ms. Domercant’s risk to the public and this is proving challenging due to the factors identified earlier in this decision, such as her unwillingness to engage in therapeutic programming and her unwillingness to address her arrears to Ottawa Community Housing and her ongoing ODSP overpayments.

36. These factors have led to the unusual situation where Ms. Domercant may be readmitted to the Royal or even transferred to Brockville despite experiencing a stable mental status.

37. The Panel is mindful that according to the Hospital Report, under the current Detention Order disposition, Ms. Domercant has been assessed as presenting a moderate to high risk of future violence. Absent a suitable living arrangement in the community that provides the support and oversight she requires, Ms. Domercant’s risk to the public would undoubtedly be much higher.

38. Our assessment in this regard accounts for Ms. Domercant’s history of delusional thinking which had led to physical violence, her past struggles with substance abuse and antisocial behaviour, as well as her more current challenges in developing insight into his mental illness and the need for treatment and her past statements that she would discontinue medication and disengage from psychiatric treatment if absolutely discharged by the ORB.

39. The Panel shares the concerns of the Hospital in that the lack of cooperation from Ms. Domercant’s family – and particularly the SDM – are not in her best interest. Ms. Domercant clearly feels unsafe in the family home on account of her delusional beliefs, the family does not appreciate the potential risk she poses to her stepfather and the treatment team cannot get adequate access to the home for visitation purposes, which is concerning in part because of the presence of two infants in that home.

40. The Panel encourages the Hospital to explore the possibility of another SDM within the family, or in the alternative, to pursue the PGT as a SDM through the Consent and Capacity Board.

41. Lastly, the Panel implores the Hospital to continue to investigate creative solutions to Ms. Domercant’s living situation to ensure that she does not return to Hospital (or languish there) unnecessarily. Such solutions may well require Ms. Domercant to finally address the arrears and ODSP overpayments, however.

42. The Panel agrees with the proposed deletion of term 4(d) of the existing Disposition, since it has not had the intended effect on Ms. Domercant’s behaviour in respect of the Brockville Mental Health Centre and therefore serves little purpose.

43. In consideration of all the evidence, the submissions of the parties, and the criteria set forth in s. 672.54, the paramount consideration being the safety of the public, in addition to the mental condition of Ms. Domercant, her reintegration into society and her other needs, the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a continuation of the existing Detention Order Disposition with the deletion of condition 4(d).

DATED this 22nd day of May 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.

Mr. D. D’Intinio

Legal Member

___________________

Office of the Registrar

Ontario Review Board