Re: Suliman Raheem
ORB File No: 8789
Hearing held on: September 11, 2025
Place of hearing: Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre
Pursuant to: Section 672.47(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. R. Steinberg
Members: Dr. G. Chaimowitz Dr. R. Cormier Mr. D. D’Intino Mr. R. Rainboth
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Suliman Raheem
Counsel: Mr. A. Sheivari
The person in charge of hospital: Representative: Dr. D. Bourget
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. J. Ramsey
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated October 15, 2025)
Introduction
[1]. On May 21, 2025, Suliman Raheem was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (“NCR”) on charges of make false fire alarm x2 and possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose, all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (“Criminal Code”). The Court declined to make a Disposition and so that responsibility now falls to the Panel of the Ontario Review Board.
[2]. On September 11, 2025, a panel of the Ontario Review Board (“ORB”) convened in person and a hearing was held at the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre (“ROMHC”). The purpose of the hearing was to determine if Mr. Raheem represents a significant threat to the safety of the public as defined in the Criminal Code of Canada, and if so, the necessary and appropriate disposition.
[3]. For the reasons set out below, the Board unanimously finds that Mr. Raheem meets the threshold for significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a Conditional Discharge.
Current Psychiatric Diagnoses:
[4]. Schizophrenia.
[5]. Cannabis use disorder.
[6]. Alcohol abuse disorder.
Index Offences:
[7]. The facts giving rise to the index offences were set out by the Crown at the NCR hearing and are summarized as follows:
“On on Sunday, November 10th, 2024, at approximately 7:32 p.m., the accused, Mr. Raheem, was present at 725 Bernard Street in the City of Ottawa. On the aforementioned date, fire services responded to a fire alarm call at a building – at the building. Ottawa Community Housing security, Joseph Ulbert, had identified Mr. Raheem as the subject who had pulled the fire alarm twice. Mr. Raheem was present inside the main building of the lobby and began to obstruct fire department members as they were responding.
During this time, Mr. Raheem verbally engaged with several fire department members, stated he has a knife and would use it. Fire department members
visibly saw a knife on Mr. Raheem’s person. At 7:25 p.m., police responded to a call for service and were provided the accused’s description. Police proceeded to Mr. Raheem unit and given the totality of the circumstances; less lethal use-of force options were ready to be deployed. Police conducted a door knock to which Mr. Raheem answered and was placed under arrest.”
Without Prejudice Position of the Parties:
At the commencement of the hearing, the parties were canvassed for their initial positions.
The Hospital took the position that Mr. Raheem meets the threshold for significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate Disposition was a Detention Order with privileges up to and including community living in accommodation approved by the Person in Charge.
Counsel for the Attorney General supported the Hospital’s position.
Counsel for the accused disagreed with the Hospital’s position and contended that Mr. Raheem did not represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and was therefore entitled to an Absolute Discharge.
Evidence at the Hearing:
The Board had available to it the evidence and documents forming the Record, the Exhibits, and oral evidence from Dr. Bourget, who is Mr. Raheem’s attending psychiatrist.
Dr. Bourget testified that she has been involved in Mr. Raheem’s care for many years in the community until he experienced mental status decompensation and required readmission to Hospital. She informed the Board that it was only recently that he has stabilized, and that Mr. Raheem represents a significant threat to the safety of the public at this time.
Dr. Bourget explained that Mr. Raheem is still in the early stages of remission from his cannabis use and alcohol use disorders, and that he has been exhibiting concerns recently about medication misuse by demonstrating a pattern of continually requesting benzodiazepine medication.
Dr. Bourget explained that Mr. Raheem is on a significant dose of antipsychotic medication and that should he cease taking them, he would be at a very high risk for psychotic relapse, which occurred recently. Dr. Bourget has concerns about Mr. Raheem’s long-term medication compliance as well.
In response to questions from Mr. Raheem’s counsel, Dr. Bourget confirmed that Mr. Raheem has been attending the forensic outpatient clinic and scheduled meetings with his nurse to obtain his injectable medication, once every three weeks.
Dr. Bourget further confirmed that Mr. Raheem’s medication seems to be working well, as he is not experiencing any active psychotic symptoms or side effects. While Mr. Raheem has been cooperative with the nurse and with Dr. Bourget, he was not cooperative with other psychiatrists, for example, the psychiatrist who was supposed to conduct his initial risk assessment in June of this year.
Mr. Raheem is not very motivated to engage in group therapy according to Dr. Bourget. She believes that he is content with his current life situation and thus Dr. Bourget does not intend to force him because she doesn’t see much gain if he is not fully willing to participate in counselling.
Therefore, according to the Dr. Bourget the plan for now is to monitor Mr. Raheem’s mental status, monitor his medication, provide some psychoeducation around the use of substances and ensure he continues to receive his injection in the clinic.
When asked if one on one counselling would be available to Mr. Raheem should he receive an Absolute Discharge, Dr. Bourget responded that it would be available to him so long as he was willing to attend, because the Hospital could not compel him to attend, should he discontinue therapy as he has done in the past. The same addictions group counselling would not be available to him if he were to receive an Absolute Discharge.
Dr. Bourget testified that the most likely reoffence scenario for Mr. Raheem is one where he experiences mental status decompensation and a resultant reoccurrence of paranoia, grandiosity and auditory hallucinations which would lead to perceiving threats that do not exist and acting out in a violent fashion.
Mr. Raheem does not appreciate the consequences of his illness or its nature – while he will acknowledge receiving a diagnosis, he does not internalize it.
In response to questions from the Panel, Dr. Bourget stated that if subject to a Detention Order, Mr. Raheem should report not less than once every three weeks to the Hospital. There should also be a radius allowing him to enter and reside in the community of Ottawa and a weapons prohibition term.
Dr. Bourget described Mr. Raheem’s degree of insight into his illness and need for medication as being “low”. Several years of psychoeducation with him has yielded no improvements in this domain to date. He is not currently engaged in any sort of group therapy - largely because he lacks a Disposition – nor is he engaged in any volunteer or paid employment pursuits.
Dr. Bourget assessed that Mr. Raheem’s degree of risk would be significantly higher than the low-moderate rating he would present with the support of a Detention Order. She would continue to prescribe his medication so long as he was agreeable to it. She does not know if the Community Treatment Order (CTO) that Mr. Raheem is on will be renewed. If it is not, then he has no community-based supports in place.
At the conclusion of the evidence, the Hospital maintained its Detention Order position, while the counsel for the Attorney General took the position that a Conditional Discharge was the necessary and appropriate Disposition. Counsel for the accused continued to advocate for an Absolute Discharge, and in the alternative, would request a Conditional Discharge Disposition.
Analysis and Conclusions
Having heard and considered the entirety of the evidence as well as the submissions from the parties, the Board finds that Mr. Raheem does meet the threshold for significant threat to the safety of the public and finds that a Conditional Discharge is the least onerous and least restrictive, necessary and appropriate Disposition in the circumstances.
A significant threat to the safety of the public cannot be speculative. It must entail a real risk of serious physical or psychological harm arising from conduct that is both serious and criminal in nature.
In determining whether Suliman Raheem represents a significant threat to the safety of the public the Board has carefully analyzed the evidence as it relates to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Winko, 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625.
Mr. Raheem suffers from a psychotic disorder which is well treated by his current medication regime and the structure and supports of the forensic mental health system but is notoriously treatment resistant. However, as set out in the Hospital Report, Mr. Raheem has a well-documented history of substance abuse and struggles with the insight between substance use and his psychotic symptoms.
Mr. Raheem has a lengthy history in the forensic mental health system, having initially entered it in 2014 when he was hospitalized under the Mental Health Act for symptoms of paranoia that were precipitated by the consumption of marijuana and MDMA. These symptoms led him to become suspicious of others and to begin carrying a knife.
17 months later, Mr. Raheem was seen by the Forensic Outpatient Team at the ROMHC. for an assessment arising from a number of incidents, which included spousal abuse and breaches of the resultant probation order. During the assessment, he reported a history of auditory hallucinations, delusional beliefs and negative symptoms. His stepmother reported gradual behavioural changes of this nature beginning after a car accident in 2013. It was then that Dr. Bourget opined that Mr. Raheem met the diagnostic criteria for Schizophrenia and Cannabis Use Disorder.
In 2015, Mr. Raheem was once again referred to the ROMHC. for an NCR assessment arising out of charges of physically assaulting his mother and father, which resulted from delusional beliefs that she was “pimping out” his 14-year-old sister and that his mother owed him money. He was also observed to be playing with a knife on the couch.
Mr. Raheem was subsequently found to be NCR and was ordered detained at the ROMHC, until he was discharged to reside in the community on or about August 15, 2016. He was readmitted to the Hospital on July 4, 2017, as he began to experience a reemergence of paranoid symptoms while at work. He was subsequently discharged once again to the community on May 30, 2018. He received an Absolute Discharge from the ORB on November 23, 2018. He was followed by Dr. Bourget in the community afterwards.
In May of 2022, Mr. Raheem ceased his visits with his CMHA worker as he no longer felt them to be helpful. He had also lost his employment due to a developed intolerance to food odor. He was living independently and was supported by ODSP.
On November 16, 2023, Mr. Raheem had begun to leave voicemails with ROMHC staff and was noted to be exhibiting pressured speech. He alleged that the pharmacy was withholding his prescriptions. Nursing staff contacted the pharmacy, and the staff pharmacist informed that Mr. Raheem was returning one to two days after they dispensed his Clonazepam, saying he had lost the bottle. Mr. Raheem transferred his pharmacy services elsewhere and thereafter appeared to be psychiatrically stable.
At the time of his latest admission to the ROMHC – which prompted by the charges and a Form 2 sought by his family – Mr. Raheem had been staying at a shelter, as he lost his housing as a result of the charges. His family described him as making bizarre statements and threatening to kill them. He also admitted to the emergency psychiatrist that he had ceased taking his Olanzapine, which was his prescribed antipsychotic. He also exhibited disorganized thinking.
In summary, Mr. Raheem has a lengthy history with the forensic mental health system and has a history of substance abuse and medication non-compliance. Even when he is medication compliant the use of illicit substances, particularly cannabis, directly causes breakthrough psychosis. When psychotic, Mr. Raheem becomes paranoid and delusional and has acted out violently towards those around him, particularly his family members. He also has a penchant for arming himself with knife when he is unwell, which is illustrated both by the index offences leading to his initial ORB Disposition and those that have led him to be under the auspices of Board once again.
The Panel finds that there is no air of reality to an Absolute Discharge at this juncture. Mr. Raheem has only just returned to the jurisdiction of the ORB, after being Absolutely Discharged not even five years ago. In that span of time, he had ceased meeting with his CMHA worker, lost his job and ceased taking his antipsychotic medication.
While he is doing well currently and has been assessed as a low-moderate risk of reoffence with the support of the ROMHC forensic team, his risk would be significantly higher absent those supports. He does not have any civil, non-forensic supports in place in the community should he be Absolutely Discharged, though there is the prospect of his CTO being renewed. That being said, the last time he was absolutely discharged Mr. Raheem disengaged from his mental health supports and ceased taking his medication, leading to the index offences.
The Panel finds that due to the long-standing therapeutic relationship between Mr. Raheem and Dr. Bourget, Mr. Raheem’s current medication regime of injectable antipsychotic medications and his current psychiatric stability, his risk to the public can be managed without the need for a Detention Order.
In consideration of all the evidence, the submissions of the parties, and the criteria set forth in s. 672.54, the paramount consideration being the safety of the public, in addition to the mental condition of Mr. Raheem, his reintegration into society and his other needs, the Panel finds that a Conditional Discharge with appropriate terms and conditions is the necessary and appropriate Disposition.
Those terms and conditions are that:
a) The accused is to reside at 725 Bernard Street, Ottawa, Ontario;
b) Report to the person in charge of the ROMHC not less than once every three weeks;
c) Abstain absolutely from the non-medical use of alcohol or drugs or any other intoxicant;
d) Submit samples of his/her urine and/or breath to the person in charge of the facility for the purpose of analyzing whether the accused has ingested alcohol, drugs or any other intoxicant (person in charge will be ordered to require the accused to submit samples of urine and/or breath);
e) Refrain from having in his possession any firearm, ammunition or other offensive weapons, or being in the company of any person possessing a firearm other than a peace officer;
f) Advise the person in charge or his/her designate, in advance, of any absence from his residence of 24 hours or more; and
g) Consent to treatment per s. 672.55 of the Criminal Code of Canada
DATED this 15th day of October 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Mr. D. D’Intino Legal Member
__________________
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board