Re Osman Osman, 2025 CanLII 102485

Ontario Review Board

Re: Osman Osman

ORB File No: 8553

Hearing held on: Thursday, September 11, 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. P.E. Cook Dr. S. Wiseman Hon. C. Nelson Ms. R. Chopra

Parties Appearing:

Accused: Osman Osman Counsel: Mr. C. Gill

The Person in Charge of Hospital: Counsel: Ms. M. Warner

Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. V. Culp

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated October 9, 2025)

Introduction

1On May 6, 2024, Osman Osman was found not criminally responsible on a charge of first-degree murder.

2Mr. Osman was transferred to the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (“CAMH”) on May 27, 2024.

3On Thursday, September 11, 2025, the Ontario Review Board convened in order to conduct Mr. Osman's annual review.

Position of the Parties

4At the outset of the hearing, the parties were canvassed as to their recommendations to the Board.

5Ms. M. Warner appeared for CAMH. She advised that the hospital was seeking the disposition of a Detention Order on the Forensic Service, up to community living in supervised accommodations. Ms. V. Culp appeared for the Attorney General and indicated that she wished to hear the evidence before making submissions, but it was unlikely that she would agree with the privilege of community living in supervised accommodation. Mr. C. Gill appeared for Mr. Osman and stated that he supported the hospital’s position.

6All parties agreed that Mr. Osman remains a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate Disposition is still a Detention Order, but on the Forensic Service. The issue was whether the privileges afforded Mr. Osman should be expanded to include community living in a supervised setting with reporting to the hospital of no less than once per week. Under the current Disposition, Mr. Osman is detained in a Secure Unit which has the effect of limiting his passes to accompanied and escorted passes into the community. Reframing the Disposition would allow Mr. Osman passes onto the hospital grounds and into the community, indirectly supervised.

7There were a number of people present for the hearing including Mr. Osman’s sister, Kafia, some of the victim’s friends and family members, and various representatives from the hospital.

Index Offence

8“On August 24, 2021, Mr. Osman called the Hicks Adams law firm, seeking legal help. A lawyer, Ms. Naresh, informed him the firm couldn't assist him unless he was charged with a criminal offense. On August 30, Mr. Osman sent threatening messages to Ms. Julia Ferguson, the 29-yearold receptionist, calling her a "bitch" and telling her not to contact him again. He continued his harassment with emails and phone calls, including threats like “bitch stop calling me.”

On September 1, 2021, Mr. Osman left a voicemail for Ms. Miscia Sullivan, aggressively stating, “Bitch don’t call me again I will never hire your law firm!” The next day, he continued making aggressive calls, including one to the lawyer Mitchell Huberman, where he warned, “threats are coming later.” At 10:16 am, he told Ms. Sullivan, “Bitch don’t call me again or I’ll knock your fucking teeth out.” By 11:05 am, Ms. Ferguson reported that Mr. Osman was continuing to make threatening calls. He had stated, “don’t make me come down there or look out if I come down there and then he said I am going to come down there and stab you” and “I am going to stab you I am going to cut you open.” In total, Mr. Osman had made at least 12 threatening phone calls to the Hicks Adam law firm from August 24 to September 2, 2021.

At 1:47 pm on September 2, 2021, Mr. Osman arrived at the firm, appearing agitated. He waited in the reception area with his backpack. Ms. Ferguson informed him he had to leave. Mr. Osman then stood up, walked to the reception desk, took a knife from his backpack, and repeatedly stabbed Ms. Ferguson in the chest. He fled but was pursued by Mr. Vincent Contreras-Leon, who briefly confronted him before police arrested Mr. Osman 20 minutes later. The post-mortem report confirmed Ms. Ferguson died from a stab wound to her left chest that penetrated her heart.”

Evidence at the Hearing

9The Board had before it a number of Victim Impact Statements from family members, friends and colleagues of the victim. In addition, it admitted into evidence as an exhibit the Hospital Report dated August 1, 2025, signed by Dr. M. Choptiany, Mr. Osman's treating psychiatrist. Dr. Choptiany has been Mr. Osman's attending psychiatrist since Mr. Osman's transfer to a Secure Unit in October 2024.

10Dr. Choptiany reported that there were no significant updates to the Hospital Report. Mr. Osman, throughout the past year, has remained calm, cooperative and has not shown any evidence of psychotic symptoms. His quetiapine dosages were decreased in July.

11Mr. Osman engaged in programming on the unit and, once passes were approved in September 2024 (Level 1), he used them without any issues, including attending groups in the therapeutic neighborhood. By October 2024, he was approved for Level 2 passes.

12Both Mr. Osman's mother and his sister were approved as visitors in June 2024, and visited him regularly. However, this became a little more limited because of his mother’s illness and work-related issues that kept his sister from attending.

13Mr. Osman was consistently engaged with his clinical team. He was polite and forthcoming and sought support from staff in instances of distress.

14Mr. Osman remained somewhat isolative outside of his participation in structured programming and meetings with his team. He spent the majority of time in his room. He has told the team of his discomfort about interacting with others and reflected that this was because of his sexuality issue - that of being gay. He was concerned that he would be targeted because of this. The Hospital Report indicates that his isolation did not appear related to symptoms of psychosis but due to temperament and personality.

15Mr. Osman appears to be internally motivated to take his medication, expressing that the medication was helpful and acknowledging that if he stopped, he would “decompensate and get into trouble”. He expressed remorse and empathy towards the victim.

16Mr. Osman progressed as far as he could through the pass ladder, obtaining Level 4 passes on January 6, 2025. This was the highest allowable level given last year’s Disposition. Level 4 allowed accompanied and escorted passes on hospital grounds and into the community. There were no instances of concerning behaviour.

17Mr. Osman engaged in a number of psychoeducational programs this past year including Culturally Adapted Cognitive Behavioural training. He is an active participant in his groups. He has also been referred for individual therapy and is on a waitlist for this. Individual therapy will help further Mr. Osman's insight into his illness. In addition to group activity, Mr. Osman has received confirmation (June 2025) that he is eligible to graduate from York University with a BA degree as a result of credits he had previously earned. He has expressed hopes to work at a volunteer job he held in the past with the Canadian Stage Company.

18As far as Mr. Osman's mental health is concerned, Dr. Choptiany states that he has been “treated to remission”. He has some perceptual abnormalities but no psychotic symptoms. He had, in the past, exhibited behavioural abnormalities that were persecutory in nature. He is stabilized on a three-month dosage of long-acting antipsychotic medication given by injection.

19Dr. Choptiany testified that if the hospital’s recommendation is accepted by the Board, nothing will change in the short term. Mr. Osman will eventually be eligible for transfer to a General Forensic Unit and his privileges would be incrementally increased. Dr. Choptiany stressed that, given Mr. Osman's history, the hospital would proceed with caution even with supervised accommodation in the community as part of the Disposition. The individual therapy that Mr. Osman is on a wait list to receive will help with the transfer to a General Unit and eventually to Mr. Osman's reintegration into society.

20It is not anticipated that Mr. Osman will be afforded community living privileges within the next review year but, given the length of waitlists for supervised accommodation, Dr. Choptiany testified that this is the least onerous and restrictive disposition that can be fashioned while continuing to address public safety.

21In answer to questions from Ms. Culp, Dr. Choptiany testified that Mr. Osman would receive a few months of “supervision” training. It is anticipated that the hospital would move very carefully with increased privileges. Prior to any move to community living the team would seek a case conference hearing with the Office of the Person in Charge to thoroughly assess the issue. The disposition sought by the hospital would, according to Dr. Choptiany, be helpful in getting Mr. Osman placed on the housing waitlist. It is Dr. Choptiany’s further opinion that while community living is unlikely in the next year, the provision sought by the hospital gives it the opportunity to carefully plan for Mr. Osman's eventual reintegration into society. Not being eligible for a housing waitlist would pose a barrier. A cautious approach is warranted given Mr. Osman's history and the very serious index offence he committed.

22In answer to a further question from Ms. Culp, Dr. Choptiany stated that, although Mr. Osman's insight has developed, it could be subject to erosion, unless bolstered. It is not unusual to see regression from time-to-time. When asked further if the disposition sought by the hospital might possibly prove counter-productive for Mr. Osman's treatment, Dr. Choptiany answered that he sees the request as a “positive move”.

23In answer to a question from Mr. Gill, about privilege passes, Dr. Choptiany testified that Mr. Osman has been eligible for the next level in privileges for quite some time now but that his current Disposition will not allow it. This, therefore, limits his care and treatment.

24In answer to a question from a panel member about whether Mr. Osman would require 24-hour supervision in the future, Dr. Choptiany demurred, as he is involved with patients in a secure placement. The answer would have to come from a general unit team. Dr. Choptiany did state that he is aware that a 24-hour supervision placement, could have a limiting effect on the availability of appropriate housing. Dr. Choptiany also said that a community placement provision in the Disposition could assist with motivation. He further testified that once moved to a General Unit. Mr. Osman would be subject to a number of assessments conducted to deal with the issue of supervision.

25In answer to a further question from a panel member, Dr. Choptiany stated that he believes that Mr. Osman's insight is well developed. Mr. Osman often reads material about his illness. In answer to a further question from a panel member about a possible issue on Mr. Osman's thoughts about women, Dr. Choptiany said that this would be fully explored.

Victim Impact Statements

26The Board had before it seven Victim Impact Statements, including one that was delivered shortly before the hearing and read, in person, by Lisa Slonetsky. The panel recognizes the pain, suffering and the anguish that has occurred in this case. The Board wishes to thank all of the authors of the Statements for their courage in presenting their Statements. It is clear that Ms. Ferguson played a very important role in their lives and that the disposition made by this panel is very important to them.

27No further evidence was called.

Final Submissions

28The hospital and counsel for Mr. Osman maintained their initial positions. Ms. Warner pointed out that Mr. Osman has had a positive year in his treatment. He maximized his privilege level months ago and utilized passes without incident. He attended numerous psychoeducational groups and is now eligible for individual therapy. He shows no signs of psychosis. He is also drug free and although somewhat withdrawn, does not have an antisocial personality. Recognizing that public safety is paramount, the hospital's goal is not to rush Mr. Osman through the system but to proceed very cautiously. Ms. Warner submitted that, in fashioning its disposition, the Board should not only take into account where Mr. Osman is now but should also consider where he is likely to be over the next 12 months. Ms. Warner urged the Board to make a disposition that would allow the hospital to move Mr. Osman to a General Unit and to consider, that on his current trajectory, he will be progressing towards community living. For planning purposes, the Disposition’s outer limit is important. Ms. Warner also stated that, if supervised community living was not put in the order, the hospital could call an early hearing, if appropriate.

29Ms. Culp submitted that the Attorney General agreed that the Disposition should be framed to include detention on Forensic Services to enable the hospital to move Mr. Osman to a General Unit where he could begin to utilize indirect community passes. However, Ms. Culp was not in favour of a Disposition allowing the hospital to move Mr. Osman into supervised community living at this stage. She stated that the Board should take into account his past and the extremely serious index offence he committed only four years ago (2021). Ms. Culp also pointed out that the evidence indicated that it was highly unlikely that Mr. Osman would be transferred to community living during the next year. Ms. Culp further submitted that Mr. Osman should be tested through the use of indirect community pass privileges before expanding the Disposition to include community living. Ms. Culp pointed out that the Attorney General's position was that Mr. Osman was still in the early days of treatment.

30Mr. Gill adopted the hospital’s position and, in doing so, conceded that significant threat was still present. Mr. Gill also relied on the case law from the Ontario Court of Appeal (Simonic (Re), 2024 ONCA 573 and Sookram (Re), 2024 ONCA 823) where community living dispositions were considered an acceptable part of a treatment plan even if not realistic in the coming year. This is especially so where the waiting list for supervised accommodations was lengthy. The case law indicates that such orders can and should be made especially where there is “no downside risk”. Mr. Gill urged the Board to fashion a disposition that would not impede Mr. Osman's treatment progress.

Findings of the Board

31The Board agrees with the joint position of the parties on the issue of significant threat and finds that Mr. Osman continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. One of the best predictors of risk is the patient's history of violence. Mr. Osman committed a very violent offence which resulted in the death of another person. Mr. Osman committed this offence in the context of psychotic symptoms and was found to be not criminally responsible. The evidence demonstrates that Mr. Osman continues to suffer from a primary psychotic illness: schizophrenia. He has had a history of noncompliance with medication; his current regimen of using a long-lasting injectionable medication is absolutely necessary. As in the past, Mr. Osman has demonstrated evidence of anxiety and a tendency to minimize past negative experience. He is susceptible to stress. Given his current Disposition of detention in a Secure Unit, he has not yet been tested indirectly in the community. For all of these reasons, the Board finds that Mr. Osman continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public.

32Having made this finding, it is now up to the Board to fashion a Disposition that, takes into account, as a primary factor, the issue of significant threat, and also Mr. Osman's mental health needs and his eventual reintegration into society. None of the parties take issue with changing the Disposition to “Forensic Service” as this will allow the hospital to move Mr. Osman to a General Forensic Unit. The evidence establishes that Mr. Osman is ready to be transferred to a General Forensic Unit given his successful treatment year. Both Ms. Warner and Mr. Gill urged the Board to fashion a disposition that would allow the hospital to plan for Mr. Osman's cautious reintegration into society even though community living is unlikely this coming year. Both see the value of allowing the hospital to plan for supervised living in the community in the face of lengthy waitlists for that kind of accommodation. Counsel also see value in the motivational factor involved in fashioning a disposition that would include eventual supervised community living. The panel agrees with the joint position taken, and orders that Mr. Osman's Disposition be a Detention Order to the Forensic Service. As stated previously, the real issue at this hearing is whether to order the added privilege of community living in supervised accommodation. On this issue there was no agreement. Counsel for the Attorney General opposes the privilege, while the hospital and counsel for Mr. Osman support it.

33In the case of Kelly (Re), 2014 ONCA 269, the Ontario Court of Appeal concluded that it is an error to deny a community living term in cases where the offender would not be likely to make a transition into the community during the year following his annual hearing. The reason for this ruling is that a denial of the community living privilege is inconsistent with the overriding need to achieve a disposition that is the least onerous and restrictive. The court in Kelly stated that “as a practical matter, there is a shortage of places having supervised accommodation and a significant waiting list”. This practical reality must be taken into account, especially where there is evidence that the requested provision is also recommended for therapeutic reasons.

34The panel heard expert evidence from Dr. Choptiany that a community living provision would assist the hospital in its planning for Mr. Osman. Refusal to take this evidence into account would, in the panel’s view, subject Mr. Osman to a more severe restraint than is justified at this time. Although public safety is a primary objective, the panel also has an obligation to consider an accused’s reintegration into society by ensuring that there is supportive housing on discharge. This speaks clearly to the factors of an accused’s mental condition and his eventual reintegration into society. The Court of Appeal has stated that the panel's primary objective is to ensure public safety, but it is also important that the liberty interests of an NCR accused be taken into account when considering that primary objective. Not to do so might well result in denial of his right to eventually reintegrate into society.

35In this case, Dr. Choptiany has stressed that the hospital will move slowly and cautiously towards the eventual goal of reintegration. In that way the primary objective of public safety will be taken into account as will the eventual goal of reintegration. The issue discussed above has been revisited by the Ontario Court of Appeal in the cases of Simonic (Re), 2024 ONCA 573 and Sookram (Re), 2024 ONCA 823 with similar results. In our view, the evidence in this case supports a finding that Mr. Osman be detained on the Forensic Services with privileges up to and including that of living in the community in supervised accommodation approved by the person in charge. Should Mr. Osman obtain supervised community accommodation, he is ordered to report to the person in charge no less than once a week.

36In coming to this conclusion, the Board has considered its responsibility pursuant to s. 672.54 of the Code to make a disposition that is necessary and appropriate in the circumstances, considering the safety of the public, which is the paramount consideration, the mental condition of Mr. Osman, his reintegration into society, and his other needs.