Re: Mouhamad Al Jalmoud
ORB File No: 8686
Hearing held on: Friday, October 10, 2025
Place of hearing: St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton, West 5th Campus Hamilton, Ontario
Pursuant to: Section 672.47(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. P. Capelle Members: Dr. H. Bloom Dr. A. Kerry Ms. S. Clapp Mr. S. Doherty
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Mouhamad Al Jalmoud Counsel: Mr. S. Foda
Person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Mr. S. O’Brien
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. C. Gzik
REASONS FOR DECISION (Preliminary Matter)
(Dated October 20, 2025)
Introduction and Background:
On December 9, 2024, Mouhamad Al Jalmoud was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (“NCR”) on charges of failure to stop after accident causing death (x2) and failure to stop after accident causing bodily harm, contrary to the Criminal Code. The court did not make a Disposition on these charges and referred the matter to the Ontario Review Board (the “Board” or “ORB”) for an initial hearing.
At the same time as the NCR finding, the jury found Mr. Al Jalmoud guilty of dangerous driving causing death (x2) and dangerous driving causing bodily harm. He was sentenced to three years and three months in custody on or around March 7, 2025 and was taken to the Joyceville Institution (“Joyceville”) at that time. The Ontario Court of Appeal issued a Release Order pending appeal on or around September 24, 2025 such that Mr. Al Jalmoud was released from Collins Bay Institution (“Collins Bay”) and was subject to seventeen conditions, one of which permitted him to leave his residence in the presence of his surety (his father). Mr. Al Jalmoud attended this hearing along with his father and his counsel, Mr. Foda. An Arabic interpreter was also present and she assisted Mr. Al Jalmoud throughout the hearing.
Pre-hearing conferences were held by the Board on January 21, 2025, February 20, 2025, June 10, 2025, June 24, 2025 and September 26, 2025. A hearing date of October 10, 2025 was set for Mr. Al Jalmoud’s initial hearing before the Board.
A risk assessment was conducted at St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton, West 5th Campus (“SJHCH” or the “hospital’) and a Risk Assessment Report was prepared by Dr. A. Altuhayni and Dr. C. Chaimowitz dated September 17, 2025. This Report opined that Mr. Al Jalmoud did not represent a significant threat to the safety of the public.
On or around September 22, 2025, counsel for the Attorney General, Ms. Gzik, wrote to the parties and the Board advising that she would be requesting summons for two people for the initial hearing as follows:
"1. Dr. Tony Hopley, Chief of Mental Health at Collins Bay, address is PO Box 190, 1455 Bath Road, Kingston, ON K7L 4V9
Relevance: the hospital report indicates at p. 12 that “Mr. AI Jalmoud refused to provide consent for us to access hospital/medical records”. Dr. Tony Hopley is the Chief of Mental Health at the institution Mr. Al Jalmoud is incarcerated. Access to mental health records is imperative considering this is the initial hearing before the ORB…
- Maysa AI Jalmoud -mother of the accused
Relevance: the mother of the accused gave sworn testimony during the trial which contradicts the information given to Dr. Chaimowitz from the father, specifically at p. 10, first paragraph under circumstances prior to index offence."
Mr. Foda objected to this request and Mr. O’Brien (counsel for the hospital) was inclined to agree with Mr. Foda’s position. After some further communication between the parties and the Board, the Chairperson of the Board referred these issues to the Alternative Chairperson of the panel set to hear the matter on October 10, 2025.
This panel reviewed the issues prior to the hearing, and determined that for practical purposes the issues should be determined on a preliminary basis before the initial hearing. The panel was concerned that if it was decided that the summons should be issued, the hearing would not be able to proceed and numerous parties and witnesses would be inconvenienced. As such, the parties were advised on or around October 7, 2025 that only the preliminary evidentiary issues would be heard on October 10, 2025.
These Reasons relate to the panel’s decisions on the preliminary evidentiary issues.
Medical Records from Mr. Al Jalmoud’s Incarceration:
Ms. Gzik explained that when she received the September 17, 2025 Risk Assessment Report it was apparent that Mr. Al Jalmoud had not provided consent for access to his mental health records for the time period that he had been incarcerated (March 7, 2025 to September 24, 2025). It was her understanding that Mr. Al Jalmoud had been at both Joyceville and Collins Bay, and that his records would have been transferred from Joyceville to Collins Bay.
Ms. Gzik cited the Supreme Court of Canada case of Winko v. British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute) 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625 (“Winko”) which stated the Board’s inquisitorial role and its obligation to gather and review all available evidence relevant to the four factors set out in section 672.54 of the Criminal Code. Ms. Gzik also cited the Reasons for Sentence in Mr. Al Jalmoud’s case (R. v. Al Jalmoud, 2025 ONSC 1607) which noted that Mr. Al Jalmoud was not motivated to get treatment for his Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). She submitted that it was important for the Board to review Mr. Al Jalmoud’s mental health records from Joyceville and Collins Bay because they may be relevant to the issue of significant threat.
While Ms. Gzik had initially requested that Dr. Hopley be summonsed as a witness in order to speak to the content of the records, she advised at the hearing that she was content to have just the records. It was clarified that the whole record from Mr. Al Jalmoud’s time in the federal institutions was not being sought, just the mental health (psychiatric and psychological) records. It was Ms. Gzik’s understanding that Dr. Hopley was in charge of the relevant records.
Mr. Foda submitted that there was not a sufficient basis to believe that there would be anything relevant in the records being sought. The Risk Assessment Report stated that Mr. Al Jalmoud only saw a psychiatrist once while he was incarcerated and did not require follow-up; however, Mr. Foda acknowledged that this information likely came only from Mr. Al Jalmoud. Mr. Foda submitted that it was clear from the tenor of the Risk Assessment Report that the opinion was strong and was made to a “medical certainty” even when the limitations were taken into account. Mr. Foda also had concerns that more records would be requested by the Board, and submitted that there needed to be some finality to this.
In response to questions from the panel, Mr. Foda acknowledged that the records may include risk assessments for the purposes of classification at the institutions, but stated that they may not have been done by a qualified medical professional and it was only speculation that they would affect Dr. Chaimowitz’s opinion. Mr. Foda agreed that it was possible that the records may provide information that supported an absolute discharge. Mr. Foda advised that he was only objecting to the release of the records on procedural grounds.
In response to a question from the panel, Mr. Foda addressed the prejudice that his client had already suffered as a result of the initial hearing not occurring today and the ensuing delay. He stated that he was set to start a three month trial in the coming week, therefore Mr. Al Jalmoud’s initial hearing would have to be delayed.
After hearing the submissions of Ms. Gzik and Mr. Foda, Mr. O’Brien stated that the hospital was not opposed to the request for the mental health records, noting that it was possible that there could be some relevant information, and the hospital was interested in the Board having as complete a record as possible.
Evidence of Mr. Al Jalmoud’s Mother:
Ms. Gzik stated that she ordered the transcript of Maysa Al Jalmoud’s trial testimony and provided it to the parties and the Board. She advised that she was now content to rely on the transcript rather than compel Maysa Al Jalmoud to testify at the hearing. Ms. Gzik confirmed that she wished to use the inconsistencies between Maysa Al Jalmoud’s evidence at trial and the information that was relied upon by Dr. Chaimowitz in the Risk Assessment Report. She also noted that the Risk Assessment Report was written when Mr. Al Jalmoud was in custody, but he was now out on bail.
Mr. Foda did not take issue with the transcript being used at the hearing, but was clear that he was opposed to Maysa Al Jalmoud being compelled as a witness at the hearing, primarily due to the emotional strain it would cause her. Mr. O’Brien also did not oppose the use of the transcript at the hearing.
In order to assist the parties, Ms. Gzik noted the pages in the transcript that she would likely refer to (although the whole transcript will be entered as an Exhibit at the hearing).
Decision:
The panel decided that it was important for the Board to have the mental health (psychiatric and psychological) records pertaining to Mr. Al Jalmoud while he was in custody. As noted by the Supreme Court of Canada in Winko, the Review Board system is inquisitorial and places a burden on the Board to gather and review all evidence relevant to the four factors in section 672.54 of the Criminal Code on both sides of the case. Given that Mr. Al Jalmoud spent approximately six months in custody since the NCR finding, there could be relevant information pertaining to Mr. Al Jalmoud’s mental condition and whether or not he represents a significant threat to the safety of the public. There may be risk assessments and/or other notes from when Mr. Al Jalmoud saw a psychiatrist or other mental health professionals that could be relevant. The record may also be “thin” as suggested by Mr. O’Brien and Mr. Foda, and that may also be pertinent to the issue of significant threat.
The following records will be summonsed by the Board: “All psychiatric and psychological records from any federal institution where Mr. Al Jalmoud may have been held, including Joyceville Institution and Collins Bay Institution, for the period of March 7, 2025 up to and including September 24, 2025.” The Board will stipulate that these records are to be delivered within 30 days of receipt of the request.
The panel relied on the combined authority set out in section 672.43 of the Criminal Code and section 4(b) of the Inquiries Act, RSC 1985, c.I-11 to compel production of these records.
The parties agreed that the transcript of Maysa Al Jalmoud’s evidence could be used at the hearing, and the panel agreed that this was appropriate.
Finally, the panel perceived that these issues should have been resolved by the parties in advance of this initial hearing, thereby negating the necessity of the Board having to rule upon them. This is why Mr. Al Jalmoud’s initial hearing has been delayed.
Next Steps:
- Once the relevant records have been received by the Board, a pre-hearing conference will be arranged with the parties in order to set a new date for the initial hearing. It will be important for the parties to be prepared to speak to how long the hearing should be scheduled for to ensure that it proceeds and can be completed on the next date.
DATED this 20th day of October 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Philippe Capelle Alternate Chairperson
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board