Ontario Review Board
Re: Moftakar Hajjo
ORB File No: 6973
Hearing held on: Friday, November 14, 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. J. Goldenberg
Members: Dr. J. Kis Dr. C. Rose Ms. S. Kert Mr. A. Mete
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Moftakar Hajjo Counsel: Ms. S. Dubb
The person in charge of hospital: Representative: Dr. P. Darby
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. C. Coughlan
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated November 28, 2025)
On June 16, 2016, Mr. Moftakar Hajjo was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on charges of attempt to commit murder and possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose.
Mr. Hajjo is currently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated November 13, 2024, by which he was ordered to be discharged with a number of conditions. One of the conditions required Mr. Hajjo to continue to reside at LOFT housing in Toronto. Another condition prohibited Mr. Hajjo from having possession of any firearm, ammunition or other offensive weapon.
On Friday, November 14, 2025, the Ontario Review Board convened a hearing at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (“CAMH”) and conducted the annual review of Mr. Hajjo’s Disposition.
Position of the Parties
At the outset of the hearing, the parties were canvassed as to their recommendations to the Board.
Dr. Darby appeared as the hospital’s representative as well as being Mr. Hajjo’s most responsible physician. Dr. Darby advised of the hospital position that Mr. Hajjo remains a significant threat to public safety, and if the Board so finds, the hospital is recommending a continuation of the Conditional Discharge with the exact terms set out in last year’s Disposition.
Mr. Coughlan appeared for the Attorney General. Mr. Coughlan supported the hospital’s position.
Ms. Dubb appeared for Mr. Hajjo. Ms. Dubb’s position is that her client no longer represents a significant threat to public safety and that accordingly, he must receive an Absolute Discharge.
In response to a question from the Alternate Chair, Ms. Dubb advised that in the event the panel found her client to continue to represent a significant threat, she agrees that in that situation, the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a continuation of the Conditional Discharge with the exact terms set out in last year’s Disposition.
Index Offence
- “The victim in the matter (Mr. Hajjo’s brother) indicated that Mr. Hajjo had been living with him up until September/October of 214, at which time, Mr. Hajjo had left to live in a hotel. Mr. Hajjo was subsequently picked up by the victim on October 17, 2014. He had been living with the victim in his apartment for the preceding two months. Mr. Hajjo was taken to Brampton hospital during this time for assessment of his mental health issues.
Mr. Hajjo was alleged to have attacked his brother in an unprovoked assault with a knife. His brother had been in the washroom getting ready for his day. When he opened the washroom door to exit, Mr. Hajjo confronted him with a large butcher knife. His brother was able to fend off the subsequent attack, and call for help from the next-door residence.
The victim sustained cuts to various parts of his body [which] included a cut to the back of his head and a serious laceration to his right hand.”
Evidence at Hearing
The Board admitted into evidence the Hospital Report dated October 28, 2025. The Hospital Report provides a great deal of information concerning Mr. Hajjo, his personal history, his mental health history, details of a prior criminal conviction and details of Mr. Hajjo’s course in hospital and in the community subsequent to the date of the NCR finding. We do note from the Hospital Report that Mr. Hajjo was discharged to LOFT housing in Toronto early in January 2021.
In addition to the documentary evidence, the Board heard from Dr. Darby. Dr. Darby has been Mr. Hajjo’s most responsible physician since 2021. Mr. Hajjo does well at his residence. He continues to have part-time work cleaning certain houses or buildings and quite enjoys that. Mr. Hajjo has a great deal of contact with his brothers, one of whom is the Substitute Decision Maker. Mr. Hajjo also visits with his sons who live in Cambridge. The Board understands that one of Mr. Hajjo’s brothers will pick up Mr. Hajjo and drive him to Cambridge for family visits.
The hospital continues to be of the opinion that Mr. Hajjo remains a significant threat to public safety. This is also the unanimous opinion of the entire clinical team. The doctor notes that Mr. Hajjo continues to deny that he suffers from a mental illness. Mr. Hajjo has little or no insight into the fact of his mental illness and little or no insight into his need for medication. The doctor confirmed, as noted at page 40 of the Hospital Report, that “Mr. Hajjo was clear that he only took medication because it was prescribed for him. He was clear that he would not continue to take medication unless he was ordered to do so. He did not believe he would need to see a psychiatrist”. Dr. Darby in his evidence repeated his opinion that were Mr. Hajjo to receive an Absolute Discharge it is likely that he would discontinue medication and it was likely thereafter that he would decompensate and act out in an aggressive manner. Dr. Darby stated that not only would Mr. Hajjo’s family members be at risk of assaultive conduct, but potential victims could include any individual physically close to Mr. Hajjo.
In response to questions from Crown counsel, Dr. Darby accepted the following from the Hospital Report, Mr. Hajjo “did not believe that his well-being was related to taking medication and did not believe that anything untoward could happen were he to stop medication”.
In response to questions from Ms. Dubb, Dr. Darby acknowledged that Mr. Hajjo has been very pleasant in all of his dealings with Dr. Darby and the clinical team.
In response to questions from panel members, Dr. Darby confirmed that Mr. Hajjo is being treated with both injectable medication and oral medication. Dr. Darby acknowledged that one of Mr. Hajjo’s brothers is the Substitute Decision Maker and he is a very responsible person.
Again, in response to questions from a panel member, Dr. Darby confirmed that the LOFT residence is a supervised residence including staff observing Mr. Hajjo taking his medication. Dr. Darby repeated, in response to a further question from the panel member, that it is “likely” that Mr. Hajjo would not take medication were he no longer under the Review Board.
In response to further questions from a panel member, Dr. Darby acknowledged that there is a history of violent conduct quite apart from the index offence. Dr. Darby acknowledged that Mr. Hajjo was convicted on a charge of manslaughter and was sentenced to approximately 68 months in custody with respect to that conviction.
Finally, Dr. Darby acknowledged that Mr. Hajjo remains incapable of making treatment decisions.
No other evidence was heard at this hearing.
Final Submissions
Each party maintained their original position. The hospital and the Crown accept the evidence that absent a Review Board Disposition Mr. Hajjo would likely discontinue medication, decompensate and thereafter likely act out in a very violent fashion.
Ms. Dubb noted that her client has lived appropriately in the community for a number of years and submitted the evidence falls short of reaching the level of significant threat.
Findings of the Board
The Board accepts the evidence of Dr. Darby and the evidence contained in the Hospital Report.
We accept that absent a Board Disposition, Mr. Hajjo would likely discontinue medication and experience a significant decompensation in his mental state. We accept further that in that state it is likely Mr. Hajjo would act out in a very aggressive and dangerous manner. We are aware of not only the index offence but a very serious conviction for manslaughter which ended up with Mr. Hajjo spending a lengthy period in custody.
The Board notes the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Winko v British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute), 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625, and in particular paragraph 61. We note as follows:
“It follows that the inquiries conducted by the court or Review Board are necessarily broad. They will closely examine a range of evidence, including but not limited to the circumstances of the original offence, the past and expected course of the NCR accused’s treatment if any, the present state of the NCR accused’s medical condition, the NCR accused’s own plans for the future, the support services existing for the NCR accused in the community and, perhaps most importantly, the recommendations provided by experts who have examined the NCR accused.”
In this case we have had the benefit of hearing from Dr. Darby. We accept his evidence that as Mr. Hajjo does not believe he needs medication, without adequate monitoring and support Mr. Hajjo would discontinue his psychotropic medication and would decompensate. His history provides clear evidence of a pattern of non-adherence with psychiatric medications, leading to a relapse of his psychotic symptoms, including paranoia, mood symptoms, irritability and impulsivity. As occurred in the past, in that state Mr. Hajjo would become more sensitive to perceived slights and would be at risk of acting out on perceived interpersonal conflicts in an assaultive manner, as occurred both at the time of the manslaughter charge and the index offences.
In the result, we find Mr. Hajjo to remain a significant threat to public safety. The parties were in agreement that should the Board find significant threat, the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a continuation of a Conditional Discharge with exact terms set out in last year’s Disposition. Accordingly, we will continue with a Conditional Discharge with all of those terms.
In reaching our Disposition, the Board has taken into consideration public safety, Mr. Hajjo’s mental condition and his other needs, and Mr. Hajjo’s reintegration into society.
DATED this 28th day of November, 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Mr. J. Goldenberg Alternate Chairperson
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board