Ontario Court of Appeal offers patient ‘glimmer of hope’ after 25 years of seclusion

Law360 Canada (January 12, 2026, 10:33 AM EST) --

John L. Hill

In the same week that the case was argued, the Court of Appeal for Ontario delivered its written decision (Hamblett (Re), 2026 ONCA 9) on Friday, Jan. 9, 2025, regarding an appeal by Camelott Hamblett.

Hamblett, a 43-year-old man diagnosed with schizophrenia and substance use disorders, has been detained at the Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care since 2004, after being found not criminally responsible for sexual assault and assault charges in 2007. He has spent most of his detention in seclusion, with minimal progress in his treatment. Mental health workers use the term “seclusion.” Most people would understand it to mean segregation or solitary confinement. His appeal followed the Ontario Review Board’s May 30, 2025, decision concluding that he posed a significant threat to public safety and should remain detained at Waypoint. He did not contest his detention but argued that the board acted unreasonably by refusing to order an independent assessment of his situation and by failing to mandate a Medication Assessment Program for Schizophrenia (MAPS) referral and pharmacogenetic testing.

His appeal, ably argued by his counsel, Anita Szigeti, challenged the reasonableness of the board’s decision. Did the board’s reasoning and the outcome it reached reflect an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis that was justified in relation to the facts and law (Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65)?

Hamblett has been detained at Waypoint since 2004. For most of that time, he has been in seclusion. This has involved lengthy isolation in a locked room away from other Waypoint patients, with only brief periods of “seclusion relief.” Confinement in seclusion requires a review every 28 days, almost double the UN standard for solitary confinement, which is defined under the Nelson Mandela Rules. It is now accepted that solitary confinement should be used only in exceptional cases, as a last resort, for as short a time as possible, subject to independent review, and only pursuant to authorization by a competent authority. The Mandela Rules establish that the imposition of solitary confinement should be prohibited in the case of prisoners with mental or physical disabilities when such measures would exacerbate their conditions.

Hamblett’s treating psychiatrist, Dr. Stephanie Bouskill, testified before the review board that, during the last review period, Hamblett had been out of seclusion on only two occasions, each lasting approximately two hours. He is currently subject to physical restraints during seclusion relief. Dr. Bouskill acknowledged the concern about the length of time Hamblett had been at Waypoint and the lack of progress but testified that she did not believe a treatment impasse had been reached.

Justice Grant Huscroft, writing on behalf of the Ontario Appeal Court three-judge panel, held that it was incumbent on the board to address the apparent lack of progress in treating the appellant and to seek more effective treatment opportunities (Mazzei v. British Columbia (Director of Adult Forensic Psychiatric Services), 2006 SCC 7). The court held that there was no reasonable basis to continue the current course of treatment without seeking an independent assessment. It was determined that “such an assessment can do no harm and may do some good. But something must be done: the appellant cannot continue to languish in seclusion with no real prospect for improvement.”

Hamblett has been in some form of seclusion for nearly the entire 20-year period during which he has been detained at Waypoint. No meaningful progress has been made in his treatment, and there appears to be no real prospect of his situation improving. The hospital expressed little confidence that any progress would be made. The best that can be said for the hospital’s position is that there remain steps it can take and that the appellant could make some progress. But after 20 years, this will not do. The Court of Appeal found the board’s decision unreasonable, particularly its refusal to order an independent assessment despite the lack of meaningful progress in Hamblett’s treatment over 20 years. The court allowed the appeal and ordered an independent evaluation, with the board to review it no later than June 2026. The board was also directed to consider the MAPS referral and pharmacogenetic testing during the review.

The glimmer of hope extended to Hamblett on Friday stemmed from the tireless advocacy of Hamblett’s lawyer, Anita Szigeti. Hamblett was found not criminally responsible for his acts and sent to Wayside for treatment, not punishment. This case will provide the public with greater insight into the abuses that can occur in such institutions and will urge them to adopt restrictions similar to the Mandela Rules. According to a report published in the Toronto Star, Waypoint stated that, while it can’t comment on individual patient cases, the hospital welcomed the court’s ruling. “Independent assessments offer valuable perspectives on how to best support individuals with complex and treatment-resistant needs and are already an integral part of Waypoint’s proactive approach to care,” the statement said. “Waypoint remains committed to exploring all avenues to improve the quality of life for patients.”

Better late than never.

John L. Hill practised and taught prison law until his retirement. He holds a JD from Queen’s and an LLM in constitutional law from Osgoode Hall. His most recent book, Acts of Darkness (Durvile & UpRoute Books), was released July 1. Hill is also the author of Pine Box Parole: Terry Fitzsimmons and the Quest to End Solitary Confinement (Durvile & UpRoute Books) and The Rest of the (True Crime) Story (AOS Publishing). Contact him at johnlornehill@hotmail.com.

The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.

Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.