COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

CITATION: Kipusi (Re), 2026 ONCA 267

DATE: 20260413

DOCKET: COA-25-CR-1063

Fairburn A.C.J.O., van Rensburg and Gomery JJ.A.

IN THE MATTER OF: Kishoyan Kipusi

AN APPEAL UNDER PART XX.1 OF THE Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C‑46

Anita Szigeti and Shira Brass, for the appellant

Deepa Negandhi, for the respondent, Attorney General of Ontario

Dominic Lamb, for the respondent, Person in Charge of the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre

Heard and rendered orally: April 10, 2026

On appeal against the disposition of the Ontario Review Board, dated June 26, 2025, with reasons dated July 21, 2025, and amended reasons, dated July 28, 2025.

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1] This is an appeal from a June 26, 2025, Ontario Review Board decision detaining the appellant at the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre with conditions up to and including living in the community in accommodation approved by the Person in Charge and increasing his reporting frequency. The appellant contends that the Board’s decision to detain rather than conditionally discharge was unreasonable. We do not agree.

[2] The Board understood and grappled with the appellant’s submissions. The Board arrived at the conclusion that a detention order was the least onerous and least restrictive disposition in light of the entire record and their findings of fact. Their reasons bear more than a somewhat probing examination and are entitled to deference. Among other things, the Board noted the need for the appellant’s accommodation to be approved by the hospital, his demonstrated lack of insight into his diagnosis, his less than perfect compliance with his medication regime his intimidation of his treatment team and more. The detention order is reasonable.

[3] The appellant also argues that the reasonableness of the Board’s disposition is undermined by the fact of this court’s recent decision in R. v. Kipusi, 2026 ONCA 86, in which a prior conviction arising from contact with the victim in the index offences was set aside on the basis of procedural unfairness. While it is correct that the Board, to some extent, relied upon that incident, the information was derived from the appellant’s own testimony before the Board. It was therefore open to the Board to rely on that evidence.

[4] Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

“Fairburn A.C.J.O.”

“K. van Rensburg J.A.”

“S. Gomery J.A.”