Ijahim Peter (Re), 2025 CanLII 102478

Ontario Review Board

Re: Ijahim Peter

ORB File No: 6004

Hearing held on: Tuesday, August 26, 2025

Place of hearing: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health 1001 Queen Street West, Toronto

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

Before:

Alternate Chairperson: Mr. M.D. Segal Members: Dr. K. Hand Dr. M. Mamak Mr. R. Bigelow Mr. S. Duffy

Parties Appearing:

Accused: Ijahim Peter Counsel: Mr. A. Rai

The person in charge of hospital: Representative: Dr. P. Darby

Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. D. Silver

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated October 8, 2025)

Introduction

1. Ijahim Peter, age 39, was, on November 18, 2011, found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on charges of assaulting a peace officer, sexual assault (x2), failure to comply with a probation order, all contrary to the Criminal Code.

2. Mr. Peter appeared before the Ontario Review Board (the “Board”) on August 26, 2025, at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (the “hospital”) for his annual hearing. He was subject to a Detention Order dated September 12, 2024, detaining him on GFU with privileges up to living in the community of the GTA in accommodation approved by the person in charge. Mr. Peter's parents were in attendance.

3. The Board had before it as Exhibit 1 a Hospital Report dated August 21, 2025, and a Restriction of Liberty Report dated June 7, 2025. The restriction of liberty arose out of an aggravated assault on a co-patient in May that was upheld.

4. Mr. Peter had been residing on a secure unit. A day before the hearing Mr. Peter was moved to a general unit.

5. In preliminary positions, all parties jointly submitted that there should be no change to the Disposition. After receiving and hearing the evidence, the Board agreed that the current Disposition was appropriate and justified and the least onerous and restrictive in all the circumstances.

Index Offences

6. The circumstances giving rise to the index offences are taken from last year’s Reasons for Disposition, as follows:

“The victim in this matter, VA, on August 18th, 2011, boarded the Bloor Street subway line travelling westbound. The victim sat in one of the cars and was alone.

When the train reached the Dundas West Station, the accused entered the same car as the victim. The accused immediately sat next to the victim. The accused put his arm around the victim’s shoulders and stated to her “hey baby”. The accused then reached, with his arm, further down to the front and attempted to touch the victim’s breasts. The victim moved away from the accused who in turn moved with her. The victim then decided to move over to the seat in front of her. While doing so, the accused reached with his hand and grabbed the victim’s buttocks. The victim got up and moved towards the opposite end of the car. The accused began following the victim. The victim yelled at the accused to get away from her. At that point the train arrived at the Jane Street station, and the accused left the train and fled on foot.

Once the victim arrived at her destination, Old Mill station, she notified a TTC security officer. Police were called and attended.

On Tuesday August 23rd, 2011, at approximately 5:00pm, the complainant was waiting for the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) bus at the corner of Jane Street and Wilson Avenue in the City of Toronto.

There was a large group of people waiting for the bus along with the complainant. The complainant was alone at the time.

The complainant entered the northbound #165 bus, which travels north and south along Jane Street. The bus was crowded which resulted in the complainant having to stand towards the front of the bus as the seats were occupied and the rear of the bus was busy.

The complainant had her earphones on and was listening to music. The complainant noticed the accused standing in the rear of the bus. The bus approached a stop where numerous patrons exited the bus. The accused approached the exit door, making it appear that he was exiting with the crowd. The accused did not exit the bus; instead, he stood directly behind the complainant. The complainant advised the accused came into her “personal space” and his chest was touching her back. The accused did not say of make any gestures with the complainant noticed.

After a short time, the accused returned to the rear of the bus. The complainant stayed where she was originally. A short time later, as the complainant was standing towards the front of the bus, the accused walked behind the complainant and stopped directly behind her. This time the accused stood directly behind the complainant and began to thrust his mid-section towards the complainant. The complainant could feel the accused stomach/waist area touching her buttocks. The accused chest was touching the complainant’s back. The complainant could also feel that the accused had an erection and was trying to rub his penis onto the complainant buttocks.

After feeling this, the complainant immediately turned around to notice the accused walk away from her. The accused then proceeded towards the rear of the bus and stood beside other female passengers and began staring at them.

The complainant approached the driver of the bus and reported the incident. Subsequently, police were called. Police arrived on scene at Jane Street and Finch Avenue West and confronted the accused as he exited the bus. Constables Donison and Beaulac were the first officers on scene and confronted the accused.

Constable Donison then advised the accused he was under arrest, at which time the accused physically resisted by elbowing both Constable Donison and Constable Beaulac in the chest and began to flee from the officers.

After a short foot pursuit, the accused was arrested and transported to 31 Division. The accused was charged accordingly and held pending a show cause hearing.

At the time of the index offence of August 18, 2011, which took place on the TTC subway line, Mr. Peter was on three separate probation orders. One which began June 6th, 2011, for a Theft Under $5000.00 conviction, one which began November 2, 2010, for a Theft Under $5000.00 conviction, and one which began October 8, 2010, for an Assault conviction. All three probation orders required that Mr. Peter “keep the peace and be of good behaviour.”

Diagnoses and Differential Diagnoses

7. Current Diagnoses: Schizophrenia Substance Use Disorder, in partial remission in controlled setting

Differential Diagnoses: Unspecified Paraphilic Disorder Unspecified Personality Disorder Obsessive Compulsive Disorder

Background

8. Mr. Peter had a stable childhood, although his parents separated when he was eight years old. He started hearing voices as a teenager. He refused psychiatric assessment and eventually left the family home. He moved in with his sister who obtained a Form 2 under the Mental Health Act (MHA) for a psychiatric assessment. He then went on to live in various shelters. He had some supports through Covenant House and his family remained supportive, but he aged out of the supports at 25 and then had no psychiatric or housing supports.

9. Mr. Peter has a grade 9 education. He has been on ODSP since 2007. His family brought him to hospital on occasion, and he was found in past to not be certifiable under the MHA. He started using cannabis at 15 years old and has a history of using cannabis, crack cocaine, and alcohol. He went to hospital in 2010, having been stabbed superficially.

10. Mr. Peter has a criminal record spanning 2004 to 2011, including three convictions for assault, one for robbery and several for other, non-violent, offences.

11. During psychological testing for a fitness to stand trial assessment in 2011, it was found that Mr. Peter was in the low-average range of intelligence, and that his cognitive processes enabling memory and attention were compromised.

12. Mr. Peter has engaged in altercations with co-patients and sexual misconduct with staff during his tenure under the Board. An improvement was seen when he started taking clozapine in 2013 and again in 2016 when a second antipsychotic medication was added, both under substitute consent. He is considered an “ultra-rapid” metabolizer of clozapine and was put on a liquid formulation in 2017. He has had issues with returning late from passes and using synthetic cannabinoids while in hospital. Mr. Peter also has a history of absconding and using intoxicants.

13. Sexual misconduct often appeared to be linked to directions from the voices that Mr. Peter heard. In June 2016, he was assessed at the Sexual Behaviours Clinic, although he refused phallometric testing. He was referred to programs to reduce the risk of sexual offending. It was noted that his “sexual behaviours were understood as largely flowing from psychosis”. His later participation in these group programs was noted to be variable, in that he would miss sessions or leave part way through.

14. While AWOL in 2017, he engaged in drug use and hired prostitutes. In 2021, he used drugs while AWOL. Mr. Peter has continued to test positive for cannabis and/or cocaine on many occasions throughout his hospitalization, including shortly before his transfer to LGUD where it was thought he would benefit from a higher level of support. At the time of his transfer, he was on the lowest privilege level following a positive test for cannabis.

15. Mr. Peter continued to experience active psychotic symptoms despite being on clozapine and aripiprazole. He experiences delusions, disorganized thinking (at times), and hallucinations.

Evidence at Hearing

16. Dr. P. Darby, staff psychiatrist, represented the hospital. Dr. Swayze had overseen Mr. Peter until May when Dr. Leblanc took over. Now that Mr. Peter was in a general unit, Dr. Benassi will be the patient’s most responsible psychiatrist.

17. Dr. Darby noted that there were challenges this year related to medication and behaviours. Mr. Peter had been doing reasonably well until May when an incident described in Exhibit 2 occurred. Mr. Peter was moved to SOTU and there were no more incidents. When moved to that unit, Mr. Peter was frustrated at first but grew to prefer that unit over his previous ones. On SOTU, Mr. Peter engaged to a degree with a behavioural therapist regarding substances and illness management. A behavioural plan was implemented. As noted, Mr. Peter progressed sufficiently to be moved to a general unit. This was a different unit than prior to his transfer to SOTU to separate him from the peer with whom he had had difficulties leading to the restriction of liberty. Simultaneous to his move to a general unit, he was granted level 2 passes which would permit accompanied grounds privileges.

18. Mr. Peter wishes to progress and live in the community.

19. Recommendations to increase his clozapine level and administer medication for his OCD have not been agreed to by his Substitute Decision Maker, his mother. When the Dr. Benassi is ready, he may wish to revisit discussions with the SDM.

20. Psychotic symptoms are absent at present.

21. While the 1:1 therapy will no longer be available, there are a variety of therapy groups that will be available off-unit. SOTU is not a rehabilitation unit. His current unit, 1-4, is a rehabilitative unit.

Analysis

22. No one questioned the issue of significant threat to the public which was amply made out in the evidence and underscored by the recent restriction of liberty. For the last few months Mr. Peter has been stable. The day before the hearing he was moved back to a general unit. The current envelope provides latitude for Mr. Peter to advance under the Board, with the assistance of Dr. Benassi and a new team. We wish Mr. Peter well in the upcoming year.

DATED this 8^th^ day of October 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.

Mr. M.D. Segal Alternate Chairperson

__________________

Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board