{"id":630071,"date":"2026-04-26T15:43:15","date_gmt":"2026-04-26T15:43:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/630071\/"},"modified":"2026-04-26T15:43:15","modified_gmt":"2026-04-26T15:43:15","slug":"why-didnt-the-orb-probe-camelott-hambletts-20-year-isolation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/630071\/","title":{"rendered":"Why didn\u2019t the ORB probe Camelott Hamblett\u2019s 20-year isolation?"},"content":{"rendered":"

This is Part 3 of 20 Years in Isolation, a four-part investigation into the use of psychiatric seclusion at Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care. In Part 1, the Star told the story of Camelott Hamblett<\/a>, who may be the person who has spent the most time in psychiatric seclusion in any Ontario hospital. In Part 2, we offered a deeper dive into the \u201cabusive\u201d use of seclusion at Waypoint<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Every year, a panel of the Ontario Review Board meets to consider whether Camelott Hamblett should remain detained in hospital; his sister can\u2019t shake the feeling that they\u2019ve already made up their minds before the hearing has even started.<\/p>\n

The independent body responsible for deciding the fate of people found not criminally responsible (NCR) or unfit to stand trial has always concluded that Hamblett should remain in the custody of Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s in this high-secure forensic facility next to Georgian Bay in Penetanguishene, Ont., where the 43-year-old Toronto man with treatment-resistant schizophrenia has spent nearly every day of the past 20 years locked in isolation<\/a> \u2014 known in the medical world as seclusion \u2014 due to aggressive behaviour caused by persistent hallucinations.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Psychiatrists agree that seclusion should be the option of last resort \u2014 its use measured in minutes or hours, not years \u2014 due to its detrimental effect on a person\u2019s mental health. But the Star\u2019s investigation into nearly 20 years\u2019 worth of Ontario Review Board (ORB) decisions reveals the board rarely inquired about Hamblett\u2019s living conditions or expressed any major concerns, other than noting that Hamblett remained in seclusion.<\/p>\n

It all started in 2005, when Hamblett arrived at what is now Waypoint after being arrested for a sexual assault. He had followed a woman he didn\u2019t know, exposed himself, and, before fleeing, declared they were going to have sex. He was ultimately found not criminally responsible.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Every year since then, the board\u2019s decision has been the same.<\/p>\n

The board again ordered Hamblett\u2019s ongoing detention at his latest hearing in May 2025, and declined to order an independent assessment, finding there was no treatment impasse in his case.<\/p>\n

\"Cheyenne<\/p>\n

Camelott Hamblett\u2019s sister, Cheyenne Phillip,\u00a0photographed at her Ajax home<\/p>\n

Cole Burston for the Toronto Star<\/p>\n

\u201cAt the end of the\u00a0day, I always say they make their decision before we even get there,\u201d said Hamblett\u2019s sister, Cheyenne Phillip, who is also one of his substitute decision-makers and who has attended a few of his ORB hearings along with\u00a0their mother and other relatives.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cI\u2019ve never once heard them open their mouths and say, \u2018OK, what can be done to help Mr. Hamblett come out of seclusion?\u2019\u201d Phillip said in an interview.<\/p>\n

\u201cI want\u00a0the board to say to Waypoint: \u2018What are the pros and cons of him being in seclusion?\u2019 I want the ORB to see how seclusion has negatively impacted him over the years.\u201d<\/p>\n

The story of Camelott Hamblett has cast doubt on whether the Ontario Review Board is upholding its duty to ensure accused individuals are treated in a fair and humane manner \u2014 and in a way that can ultimately lead to their reintegration into society \u2014 while also protecting the public.<\/p>\n

Given that the Supreme Court of Canada has made clear that review boards have the power to supervise an accused person\u2019s treatment and to require hospitals to consider alternatives, Hamblett\u2019s case raises an obvious question: Why didn\u2019t the board do anything to try to get Hamblett out of long-term isolation?<\/p>\n

\"Szigeti.JPG\"<\/p>\n

Lawyer Anita Szigeti is fighting to get Camelott Hamblett out of seclusion.<\/p>\n

Sophie Bouquillon\/Toronto Star<\/p>\n

\u201cIt was incumbent on the board to notice that this is the most severe deprivation of liberty imaginable, that it\u2019s ongoing, that it\u2019s long-term and that there didn\u2019t seem to be any reasonable prospect of resolution on the horizon,\u201d said Anita Szigeti, an expert on mental health law who became Hamblett\u2019s lawyer in the last two years.<\/p>\n

Outside health-care professionals have described the use of prolonged seclusion at Waypoint<\/a> as \u201cegregious,\u201d \u201cabusive,\u201d and unlike other North American facilities. A forensic psychiatrist who once worked at the facility described patients being confined for lengthy periods of time \u201cin horrific conditions, the likes of which I have never seen in any other psychiatric hospital in Ontario.\u201d<\/p>\n

Yet if ORB panels dealing with Hamblett\u2019s case inquired at all during annual hearings over the past 20 years about his seclusion status, they never made any substantial findings about it in their decisions maintaining his detention.<\/p>\n

Gavin MacKenzie, the ORB\u2019s general counsel, said the board does not comment about specific cases beyond what is set out in its decisions.\u00a0<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n


\n \"The
\n <\/a><\/p>\n

\n 20 years in isolation:\u00a0Part 1<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n


\n \"Why
\n <\/a><\/p>\n

\n 20 years in isolation:\u00a0Part 2\n <\/p>\n

ORB panels were silent on Hamblett remaining in seclusion<\/p>\n

The ORB<\/a> is made up of former judges, lawyers, doctors and laypersons, who generally sit in panels of five when reviewing an individual\u2019s case. Just like with every other matter falling under the ORB\u2019s jurisdiction, the panels hearing Hamblett\u2019s case were comprised of different board members each year.<\/p>\n

At a typical hearing, the hospital will file a report on the patient\u2019s treatment in the past year, and their psychiatrist will testify. The hospital, Crown attorney and lawyer for the patient then make arguments about what should happen next: Should the accused remain detained in the hospital? Should they be transferred? Or perhaps released, with or without conditions?<\/p>\n

As required by law, the board has to come up with the least onerous and least restrictive decision for the accused individual, under the circumstances.<\/p>\n

While the board can\u2019t order specific medication or forms of therapy, it can do what is necessary to break a treatment impasse \u2014 a designation that means no progress has been made or is likely to be made in the patient\u2019s treatment.<\/p>\n

For instance, the board can order an independent assessment by an external expert \u2014 although an impasse isn\u2019t required for this \u2014 and it can recommend that hospitals re-evaluate treatment plans and explore other avenues.<\/p>\n

When Hamblett came before the board each year, his previous longtime lawyer almost always made the same request, acting on the family\u2019s instructions: that Hamblett be transferred to a facility closer to home in the Greater Toronto Area. The board always denied the request and maintained Hamblett\u2019s detention at Waypoint, and those decisions were never appealed. When Szigeti\u2019s firm came on board, it began raising concerns about Hamblett remaining in seclusion and requested the independent assessment.<\/p>\n

\"Hamblett<\/p>\n

Camelott Hamblett as a young boy<\/p>\n

But even if a lawyer doesn\u2019t raise a concern about their client spending all of their time in isolation, that isn\u2019t supposed to be the end of the matter. The board has the power \u2014 and, in fact, the duty \u2014 to inquire into all aspects of a patient\u2019s care.<\/p>\n

The ORB said in a statement to the Star that its \u201cinquisitorial duty\u201d requires it to gather and consider all evidence relating to four factors, regardless of whether an issue is raised by the accused\u2019s lawyer. Those factors are: public protection, the mental condition of the accused, the reintegration of the accused into society, and the other needs of the accused.<\/p>\n

This duty includes looking into \u201can accused\u2019s living conditions or treatment decisions,\u201d the board said.<\/p>\n

The board is \u201crecognized as an expert panel, and so one would expect the board to see issues whether or not they\u2019re raised and argued by the parties,\u201d said Richard Schneider, a clinical psychologist and semi-retired judge of the Ontario Court of Justice who chaired the review board from 2012 to 2023. (Schneider, who never sat on a panel dealing with Hamblett\u2019s case, was speaking generally to the Star, and not about Hamblett in particular.)<\/p>\n

\u201cIt may be that because they\u2019re not raised and argued by the parties that they can be disposed of rather quickly, but the board has an obligation to look at anything that\u2019s relevant to the accused\u2019s situation,\u201d he said.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court of Canada has found that review boards can subpoena records and witnesses, \u201cincluding experts to study the case and provide the information they require.\u201d In the 2018 case Mazzei v. British Columbia<\/a>, the top court said it is \u201cnecessary and essential\u201d that a review board form its own independent opinion of an accused\u2019s treatment plan and their progress, along with their risk to public safety and prospects for reintegration into society.<\/p>\n

\u201cThis justifies a board\u2019s power to supervise the medical treatment provided thus far, and to suggest or explore alternative approaches where necessary,\u201d the Supreme Court said. \u201cReview boards may therefore validly require hospital staff to re-examine a diagnosis or a treatment plan, and to consider alternatives.\u201d<\/p>\n

No explanation has been offered as to why the ORB\u2019s panels never flagged Hamblett\u2019s long-term seclusion as a serious problem, and only occasionally encouraged the hospital to explore other ways of helping him.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\"Historic-building\"<\/p>\n

Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care in\u00a0Penetanguishene, Ont.<\/p>\n

Sophie Bouquillon for the Toronto Star.<\/p>\n

\u2018There shouldn\u2019t be simple rubber-stamping\u2019<\/p>\n

Stephen Hebscher, a criminal defence lawyer who was a member of the board from 2016 to 2020 but never sat on a panel dealing with Hamblett, said it\u2019s possible panel members may have discussed issues that aren\u2019t reflected in the ultimate decision. Those decisions are often written by one of the legal members on the panel, who will circulate it to the others to ask if there\u2019s anything they want to add or remove before it\u2019s released. A panel member can also write a dissenting opinion. (None were written in Hamblett\u2019s case.)<\/p>\n

But Schneider, the former ORB chair, said if a panel probed an accused\u2019s living conditions, he would expect to see that in the decision.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cOne would expect that seclusion that exceeds normally accepted boundaries would trigger some kind of inquiry,\u201d he said. \u201cIf indeed it had been covered by the hearing, one wouldn\u2019t want to leave the reader thinking on the basis of the incomplete reasons that no one had turned their minds to it.\u201d<\/p>\n

Camelott Hamblett has spent the last 20 years of his life living in isolation at Waypoint hospital in Penetanguishene, Ontario.<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

If it\u2019s not mentioned in the decision, Schneider said, \u201cyou could safely infer\u201d it wasn\u2019t probed at the hearing.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Szigeti, Hamblett\u2019s lawyer, believes the reason the status quo has been maintained for so long is twofold: one, that people working in the system have become desensitized to the plight of people like Hamblett.<\/p>\n

\u201cThey can no longer step back and see what is obvious to the rest of the world, which is that there is something terribly wrong,\u201d she told the Star.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cAnd two, it\u2019s the dehumanization of the individual, who is ultimately seen as this dangerous, mentally ill offender who just has to be locked away from everybody.\u201d<\/p>\n

A transcript of Hamblett\u2019s latest hearing shows the panel members didn\u2019t ask any questions about Hamblett still being in seclusion and the impact on him, though they did hear about its general effect from his psychiatrist when she was asked about it by Asad Rai, a lawyer from Szigeti\u2019s firm.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cThere is evidence to suggest that there are negative effects of long-term seclusion more generally,\u201d Dr. Stephanie Bouskill acknowledged, saying she couldn\u2019t accurately speak to its specific effect on Hamblett.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Dehumanization<\/p>\n

It\u2019s the dehumanization of the individual, who is ultimately seen as this dangerous, mentally ill offender who just has to be locked away from everybody<\/p>\n

Nevertheless, the panel declined to order an independent assessment and found that Hamblett should remain detained, knowing he would still be kept in seclusion: \u201cThere is a difference between a treatment impasse and a case that is difficult to treat,\u201d the board said in its decision.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Phillip expressed frustration that the Crown always seems to side with the hospital\u2019s recommendation at the ORB hearings, and that the board then goes with that recommendation, no matter what the patient or their family has argued.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cIt should be the board asking the questions,\u201d she said. \u201cIt should be the board saying, \u2018Is there a reason why Camelott needs to be in seclusion? And how can we take him out of it?\u201d<\/p>\n

Schneider explained that the board isn\u2019t in the business of rubber-stamping the hospital\u2019s recommendation, but pointed out that at the vast majority of hearings, the hospital\u2019s report and testimony from the treating psychiatrist are the only evidence put before the panel.<\/p>\n

\u201cThere should be checks and balances put on the evidence put up by the hospital; there shouldn\u2019t be simple rubber-stamping,\u201d he said. \u201cThat\u2019s not to say that some panels might be overly deferential, but in my experience that\u2019s not the case \u2026 The board can be quite active in challenging the evidence and cross-examining the doctor even if counsel are sitting there doing nothing.\u201d<\/p>\n

Part of the ORB\u2019s job is also to \u201csupervise and ensure that the conditions of detention are such that the person is able to progress in future,\u201d said Mercedes Perez, a lawyer who frequently appears before the board.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cWhat is very shocking to me is that there doesn\u2019t seem to be very much inquiry, if any at all, into the negative impacts of the seclusion itself,\u201d she continued, speaking about both the board and psychiatrists with patients in long-term seclusion.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cIt would be the first question I would want to ask: This person has been in seclusion for five years, and you have your reasons for doing that, but what is the impact of the seclusion? How is that healthy?\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

Little to no followup<\/p>\n

While many of the ORB decisions on Hamblett make but a passing reference to his seclusion, some stand out for going a bit further.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The panel presiding at Hamblett\u2019s hearing in 2010 recalled his then-treating psychiatrist to testify about his living conditions. The doctor explained that Hamblett has reading materials, throws a ball against the wall, sleeps on a mattress on the floor and eats in the room.<\/p>\n

The board decided to maintain Hamblett\u2019s detention \u2014 which meant he would remain in seclusion \u2014 but encouraged the hospital to consult with external health care professionals regarding \u201cbehaviour modification.\u201d<\/p>\n

According to the following year\u2019s decision, Hamblett\u2019s new treating psychiatrist said that an external consultation \u201cwas on the agenda.\u201d In the decision the year after that, when Hamblett had yet another new psychiatrist, there\u2019s no mention of an external consultation.<\/p>\n

Hebscher, the former board member, said this is part of the problem: there\u2019s little to no followup.<\/p>\n

\u201cI was always concerned about nothing happening in that one-year period if the board recommended something and nothing was done,\u201d he said, noting that the panels are comprised of different members each year, some of whom may not have read up on the previous decisions.<\/p>\n

Hospitals should have the responsibility to carry out the board\u2019s recommendations, Hebscher said, and there \u201cshould be some mechanism so that these things can be followed up on and be addressed at the review board hearing every year.\u201d<\/p>\n

In decisions from other years, the board said they believed Hamblett had more freedom at Waypoint than he would have at other facilities, as Waypoint has enough trained staff to take him out of his room for regular seclusion relief \u2014 typically no more than two hours a day, and usually in restraints.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Something must be done<\/p>\n

Something must be done: the appellant cannot continue to languish in seclusion with no real prospect for improvement<\/p>\n

In 2021, Hamblett\u2019s then-treating psychiatrist told the board that his \u201cneed for socialization is met by staff talking to him at his door and through the regular use of seclusion relief.\u201d The board that year \u201cexhorted\u201d the hospital to carry out a review of Hamblett\u2019s medication, saying he was \u201cin great need of whatever form of intervention will help inform effective modifications to his treatment regimen.\u201d<\/p>\n

Hospitals are also supposed to notify the board if they\u2019ve increased restrictions on a person\u2019s liberty for longer than seven days; the board then has to hold a restriction of liberty hearing to consider whether the hospital\u2019s decision was warranted.<\/p>\n

Hamblett has never had such a hearing because he has been in seclusion since his arrival at Waypoint in 2005.<\/p>\n

MacKenzie, the review board\u2019s general counsel, explained it this way, speaking generally: \u201cIf the accused were to be removed from seclusion such that their liberty norm became something other than seclusion, and the accused were later placed back into seclusion, that change would constitute a deviation from the liberty norm,\u201d and a hearing would then be required.<\/p>\n

Szigeti argues her client should have had a hearing when he was first placed in seclusion all those years ago.<\/p>\n

The Court of Appeal overturns the ORB<\/p>\n

In January, Ontario\u2019s top court overturned the board\u2019s latest decision in Hamblett\u2019s case. In doing so, three judges of the Ontario Court of Appeal ordered an independent assessment<\/a>, while expressing shock at Hamblett\u2019s living situation.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt was incumbent on the board to address the clear lack of progress in treating the appellant and to seek out more effective treatment opportunities,\u201d Justice Grant Huscroft wrote in a decision on behalf of the panel. \u201cSomething must be done: the appellant cannot continue to languish in seclusion with no real prospect for improvement.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

The board should have acknowledged \u201cthe emergency, the inhumanity of the situation,\u201d Szigeti argued during the appeal hearing.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cAnd they didn\u2019t say anything.\u201d<\/p>\n

Justice Sally Gomery said during the hearing that what bothered her about the board\u2019s decision was its focus on whether Hamblett\u2019s latest treatment plan from his psychiatrist was reasonable. \u201cThe question,\u201d Gomery said, \u201cis stepping back and seeing that this guy has been incarcerated in these conditions for 20 years, whether that\u2019s reasonable.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

\"Cheyenne<\/p>\n

\u201cI\u2019ve never once heard them open their mouths and say, \u2018OK, what can be done to help Mr. Hamblett come out of seclusion?\u2019\u201d\u00a0Cheyenne Phillip says.<\/p>\n

Cole Burston for the Toronto Star<\/p>\n

The independent assessment is expected to happen in the coming months. Hamblett\u2019s family is hoping that it will ultimately lead to him being released from seclusion and that, one day, he\u2019ll be well enough to be transferred to a facility closer to home.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Phillip, Hamblett\u2019s sister, said she\u2019s hoping the assessment will also lay bare to the board and hospital how \u201ctheir choices\u201d have worsened her brother\u2019s illness \u2014 \u201cHow the decisions you\u2019ve made year after year have negatively impacted him.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

She spoke up at her brother\u2019s recent board hearing, after their mother, Audrey Watson-Pinnock, interjected to say she fears her son will die inside Waypoint.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cI would just like to see more options available for him because at the end of the day, if he has more options and more opinions from different doctors, who knows what can become of the situation,\u201d Phillip told the board.<\/p>\n

\u201cThat\u2019s my only opinion as his sister, who is here to support him, and wants to see him get better.\u201d<\/p>\n

In Part 4 of 20 Years in Isolation, coming soon: The story of Andrew Azevedo, who has been held in seclusion at Waypoint for almost five years and still hasn\u2019t been found fit to stand trial for assault.\u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"This is Part 3 of 20 Years in Isolation, a four-part investigation into the use of psychiatric seclusion…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":630072,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[34],"tags":[49,48,84,392],"class_list":["post-630071","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-healthcare","tag-ca","tag-canada","tag-health","tag-healthcare"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/630071","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=630071"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/630071\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/630072"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=630071"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=630071"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=630071"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}