COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

CITATION: R. v. Hashi, 2026 ONCA 322

DATE: 20260505

DOCKET: COA-25-CR-0287

Miller, Paciocco and Wilson JJ.A.

BETWEEN

His Majesty the King

Respondent

and

Abdiassis Hashi

Appellant

Iris Liu, for the appellant

Andrew Cappell, for the respondent

Heard: March 24, 2026

On appeal from the sentence imposed by Justice Gillian E. Roberts of the Superior Court of Justice on August 14, 2023, with reasons reported at 2023 ONSC 3809.

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1] The appellant has a lengthy history of violent offending. He attacked the complainant with a knife and threatened to kill her. He was subsequently convicted of the index offences of aggravated assault and uttering a death threat. The Crown sought a dangerous offender designation, which the defence did not contest. At the sentencing hearing, defence counsel argued for a fixed sentence followed by a ten-year long-term supervision order (“LTSO”). The sentencing judge imposed an indeterminate sentence. The appellant appealed the indeterminate sentence and sought to substitute a fixed term with an LTSO.

[2] At the hearing of the appeal, we dismissed the appeal with reasons to follow. These are our reasons.

[3] The appellant argued that the sentencing judge erred in concluding that there was no reasonable expectation that the appellant’s risk could be controlled in the community, and that a fixed-term sentence with an LTSO would not be adequate. The appellant has been diagnosed with a personality disorder with antisocial traits, schizoaffective disorder, substance use disorders, and post-traumatic stress disorder. Among the evidence before the trial judge was a psychiatric report that concluded that the appellant posed a high risk of re-offending violently. The appellant’s central argument on appeal was that an LTSO with appropriate conditions, such as a requirement that the appellant receive long lasting anti-psychotic medication by injection, could effectively manage the appellant’s risk.

[4] The sentencing judge rejected this argument and did not err in so doing. The sentencing judge found that the appellant’s offending was driven by multiple factors, and not primarily by his mental illness. Even if the appellant consented to taking injectable medication – a treatment which he had historically refused – it would not meaningfully address his risk of violent reoffending. In the opinion of the psychiatrist who testified for the Crown, the appellant’s pattern of offending was driven more by his personality disorders, which are not amenable to medical treatment. Furthermore, the appellant has proven unmanageable in the community, has never cooperated with community supervision, and has a long history of offending while subject to probation or judicial release. The sentencing judge noted the psychiatrist’s evidence of the appellant’s limited insight into his disorders and history of violence, his lack of empathy, and the absence of any desire to change. He was characterized as generally uncooperative unless he perceived some short-term gain, had a history of non-compliance with medication, had never taken advantage of attempts from hospital staff to help him, had never complied with community supervision, and could not be relied on to self-report.

[5] In addition to medication, the psychiatrist testified, the appellant required a more stable lifestyle, abstinence from substance abuse, and intense and on-going supervision. The sentencing judge made no error in concluding that for the appellant, these conditions could only be achieved in a custodial setting.

DISPOSITION

[6] For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed.

“B.W. Miller J.A.”

“David M. Paciocco J.A.”

“D.A. Wilson J.A.”