Re Taimaz Shahinjou, 2025 CanLII 122716

Ontario Review Board

Re: Taimaz Shahinjou

ORB File No: 6154

Hearing held on: Wednesday, October 15, 2025

Place of hearing: Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences 700 Gordon Street, Whitby

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

Before:

Alternate Chairperson: Ms. C. Fromstein Members: Dr. K. Hand Dr. J. Cheston Mr. C. Flanagan Ms. B. Naegele

Parties Appearing:

Accused: Taimaz Shahinjou Counsel: Ms. J. Boissonneault

The Person in charge of Hospital: Counsel: Ms. J. Szabo

Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. N. MacDonald

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated November 27, 2025)

Introduction:

[1]. On January 28, 2012, Taimaz Shahinjou was found not criminally responsible on charges of assault causing bodily harm, assault, and breach of conditional sentence, all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada. He is currently subject to a Disposition dated October 30, 2024, conditionally discharging him with conditions that include that he submit urine for analysis and report to the hospital not less than once per month. In the year preceding that, Mr. Shahinjou had been subject to a detention order detaining him at Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences with privileges up to and including to live in the community in approved accommodation and with a clause to abstain from the use of substances and submit samples for urinalysis.

[2]. On October 15, 2025, a panel of the Board convened at Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences (the “hospital”) to review his Disposition. Mr. Shahinjou was present and represented by counsel, Ms. Boissonneault. Mr. Shahinjou’s mother also attended the hearing in support of her son,.

Initial Positions of the Parties

[3]. At the outset of the hearing, the parties were canvassed as to their initial positions. Ms. Szabo, counsel for the hospital, indicated the hospital asserts that Mr. Shahinjou remains a significant risk to the safety of the public and the necessary and appropriate disposition is a detention order with a number of clauses including to abstain absolutely from the non-medical use of alcohol or drugs or any other intoxicant including cannabinoids and to submit samples of his urine or breath for urinalysis, as well as to live in the community in accommodation approved by the person in charge.

[4]. Ms. MacDonald, on behalf of the Crown, supported the hospital position.

[5]. Ms. Boissonneault, counsel to Mr. Shahinjou, indicated that she is not contesting the issue of significant threat. Her client’s position is that there should be no change to his current conditional discharge disposition. However, if the Board found on the evidence that a detention order is that which is necessary then it is requested that it not include the requirement to abstain from the use of cannabis. Finally, if the Board finds that an abstention from cannabis clause was necessary, then it is requested to that the cannabis restriction be ‘except that which is purchased from a licensed dispensary’.

Index Offences

[6]. The details of the index offences are summarized in the Reasons of last year’s Disposition as follows:

“On February 19, 2011, Mr. Shahinjou stationed himself at the door of a grocery store. He identified himself as a security guard to three customers exiting the store and asked to see their receipt. He then asked to search their pockets for stolen items. Mr. Shahinjou became agitated when the customers objected to this request. He attacked the three men. He punched one in the mouth, punched another in the face, and punched or elbowed the third in the face, causing injury. Mr. Shahinjou was removed by bystanders twice but returned both times to continue his assault. He pushed one of the men to the ground and kicked him in the face. The victims suffered scratches, cuts, and bruises. One also lost a tooth.

At the time of the above events, Mr. Shahinjou was serving a conditional sentence that required he keep the peace and be of good behaviour.

On March 22, 2012, Mr. Shahinjou punched a stranger who was walking down the street in the face, knocking the victim to the ground.”

Background

[7]. The details of Mr. Shahinjou’s personal and psychiatric history are set out in the Hospital Report, Exhibit 1, so need not be repeated. Briefly summarized, he is currently 44 years of age. He has a grade 11 education. He began the use of cannabis and alcohol when in high school.

[8]. Mr. Shahinjou was diagnosed with schizophrenia in 2007. His diagnoses currently include schizophrenia, cannabis use disorder moderate, alcohol use disorder moderate, both uses being in sustained remission.

[9]. Mr. Shahinjou has a lengthy criminal record including offences of violence, assault, assault with a weapon, assault causing bodily harm, robberies and sexual assault. Prior to his NCR finding, he was detained at CAMH but readmitted several months later, in 2013 as a result of volatility in the context of drug use. He was charged and convicted of sexual assault on a co-patient. Thereafter, in 2014, Mr. Shahinjou was transferred to Waypoint. He remained aggressive until the introduction of clozapine medication in 2016. He improved sufficiently to be transferred to Ontario Shores and continued to improve thereafter. In 2022 he was discharged from hospital to reside with his parents. He remained medication compliant and free from substance use.

[10]. In the year leading up to his receiving a conditional discharge, he had continued with a positive trajectory in the community. The parties at last year’s hearing all jointly supported a change of disposition to a conditional discharge because he had remained medication compliant and stable. He had good relationships with his treatment team and it was felt that he would return to hospital voluntarily if requested. At that time, it was felt that there was no need to include the condition that he abstain from substance use.

[11]. As soon as Mr. Shahinjou received the conditional discharge disposition he resumed his use of drugs. His use resulted in changes to his personality. He became paranoid while residing in his family’s home and voluntarily readmitted himself to hospital in April 2025. He indicated that “he was permitted to use substances because it was not prohibited on his disposition”. He also began drinking alcohol. His family felt strongly that he required a substance abstention condition to be included in his disposition.

[12]. Mr. Shahinjou has continued to consume cannabis while in hospital. It is indicated that he is willing to stay an inpatient. He has had some discussions about wanting to move to a group home or his own apartment but no steps have been taken in that regard and the hospital has deemed that, based on his behavior, he is not ready for such discharge.

[13]. The Hospital Report sets out that there have been numerous incidents of Mr. Shahinjou engaging in sexually inappropriate touching or making sexually inappropriate comments to staff and patients of both genders. Despite significant redirection and reminders, he refuses to recognize personal space or boundaries and it has caused at least one member of the community, a delivery person, to become fearful due to his intrusive behaviours. He continues to be highly reluctant to speak to his parents, especially his mother, which is concerning for his holding residual paranoid delusions toward members of his immediate family. He has not engaged in any type of programming related to insight for his maladaptive use of substances to address his ongoing risk factors for potential violence.

[14]. The hospital does note in Mr. Shahinjou’s favour that he has remained adherent to his clozapine and blood work and that when using staff-accompanied privileges he has generally not been a significant management problem. There have been no significant incidents of physical or environmental aggression since his readmission to hospital. His parents continue to support him and would welcome him home should he commit to abstinence from substances.

[15]. The unanimous recommendation of his treatment team is that his current disposition of a conditional discharge is untenable and places members of the public at a higher risk of undue harm. They note as following:

“In summary, the team remains of the unanimous opinion that Mr. Shahinjou continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. Since obtaining a Conditional Discharge at his last ORB hearing, and with the simultaneous removal of the clause directing that he abstain from substance use, Mr. Shahinjou almost immediately began using large amounts of cannabis and alcohol whilst living at the family home. Despite remaining compliant with his clozapine, Mr. Shahinjou’s mental status decompensated in that he began experiencing paranoid delusions towards his parents, causing them to fear for their safety and contributing to their ongoing unwillingness to have him reside with them if he continues to use substances.

Mr. Shahinjou’s current Disposition of a Conditional Discharge is untenable at this time, and places members of the public at higher risk of undue harm, especially should he continue to use substances and if he were to choose to reside in a less supervised and structured environment. Mr. Shahinjou lacks any insight into the fact that his substance use negatively impacts his mental status and contributes to his disinhibition and impulsivity. His ongoing engagement in unwanted and inappropriate sexual behaviour and touching, both with staff and patients despite excessive psychoeducation and in the moment re-direction, is likely to continue to place him at high risk of being assaulted by others, or accruing further charges, if he were to live on his own (which is Mr. Shahinjou’s preference), if his medication compliance is not closely monitored, and/or if he is permitted to continue to use substances.

At minimum, the treatment team is requesting that the clause directing abstinence from substance use be included in his new Disposition. While Mr. Shahinjou was able to successfully live with his parents in the community for a number of years in the context of the presence of an abstinence clause, there is no way of knowing whether the re-inclusion of that clause alone will be sufficient to ensure ongoing abstinence from cannabis and alcohol. His insight into his substance use, and its destabilizing effects on his behaviour and mental status, is very poor. Mr. Shahinjou continues to promote very positive views of substance use, has not engaged in any rehabilitative programming in relation to same, and has no internal motivation to stop using substances. Additionally, Mr. Shahinjou has firmly stated that he does not wish to live with his parents, that he would like to live independently (which is unrealistic and would not manage his risk), and that he intends to continue to use substances.

The treatment team is of the unanimous opinion that the necessary and appropriate Disposition for Mr. Shahinjou at this time is a Detention Order with the inclusion of an abstinence clause. This will allow the treatment team to ensure that any discharge accommodation, and the intensive support and supervision that he will require when living in the community, is at the discretion of the hospital such that his risk of violence to the public can be appropriately managed. Given his extensive history of violence towards a wide variety of victims, his stated paranoid ideation towards his parents in the context of substance use, and the destabilizing effects of substance use on his mental status and his behaviour towards others despite ongoing compliance with clozapine, the treatment team also needs to ability to bring Mr. Shahinjou back into hospital in an expeditious manner should he continue to use substances in spite of the re-inclusion of an abstinence clause in his Disposition.”

Testimony of Dr. Harrigan

[16]. Dr. Harrigan provided evidence indicating that Mr. Shahinjou has been observed to exhibit bizarre behaviour. He is more guarded. He has admitted to using large amounts of alcohol and substances. He had become paranoid towards his parents while residing at the home. Since the time of his readmission, he has continued to consume large amounts of cannabis almost daily. His behaviour on and off has been of disinhibited behaviour and has been impulsive. He has engaged in sexually inappropriate behaviours towards staff of both genders and co-patients, causing persons to feel uncomfortable.

[17]. Mr. Shahinjou has indicated that he has no intention to abstain from the use of substances. That was a precondition of his moving back into the family home. At this time with his ongoing use there are not many options for community housing. She testified that it is critical that the hospital be able to approve his housing. A detention order is also necessary so that the hospital can being him to hospital if there is continued substance use as the Mental Health Act may not be sufficient to do so. Were he to reside in the community, she testified that his sexually inappropriate behaviours are likely to become more disinhibited.

[18]. When an abstinence clause was contained in his detention order disposition, Mr. Shahinjou adhered to that. It appears that he takes the terms of a disposition seriously and literally. Mr. Shahinjou, to his credit, has remained compliant with clozapine both when he was in the community and since his return to hospital.

[19]. What is of concern is that he did exhibit symptoms of paranoia even while fully medicated on clozapine in the last year. She testified that in the context of cannabis use, Mr. Shahinjou despite the clozapine medication, therefore can deteriorate to symptoms of paranoia. Because he is able to go off hospital grounds, the hospital is not able to always determine when he returns if he has been both drinking or just using cannabis. She testified that in the treatment team’s view it is necessary to have a prohibition clause both with respect to cannabis and alcohol. If he returns to abstinence, it is possible in the future that he can move back to the family home. Otherwise, he cannot afford residential housing and supportive housing is not apt to accept him if he is using substances.

[20]. While there have been no incidents of overt physical violence, Mr. Shahinjou has postured aggressively to a co-patient. Security was required to contain that incident in June of 2025. He has shown a great deal of disinhibition, touching people without asking them permission and making inappropriate comments. In response to questions, Dr. Harrigan confirmed there was one instance where he started throwing baby powder at a co-patient. There was no other physical impact on her. It was noted that during the course of the hearing Mr. Shahinjou winked at the female psychiatric Board member and Dr. Harrigan indicated that is akin to the inappropriate behaviours that have been observed in hospital. He does not have any sense of interpersonal boundaries. She testified that this could result in criminal charges against him or his behaviours could result in him being the victim of a retaliative assault due to his inappropriate touching, such as when he put his head to that of the delivery man.

[21]. Mr. Shahinjou did return voluntarily to hospital because he wanted to remove himself from his parents’ home. Mr. Shahinjou’s decision to leave the home was both because his family said they did not want him using substances and because of his paranoia that his family were spying on him and interfering with his belongings. He did not have any insight with respect to these paranoid symptoms. At this point he does not want to live with his parents and says he wants to live independently but the treatment team has not felt that that is an option and have not explored it. He has not expressed an intention to leave the hospital. He would not be able to be placed into a boarding home, demonstrating the behaviours that he has in the hospital and using substances. Were Mr. Shahinjou to leave the hospital it is unclear where he would go. She asserted that a detention order is needed.

[22]. His insight with respect to medication is fair. Mr. Shahinjou has remained compliant with clozapine since its introduction nine years ago. He took it independently in the community. He has not engaged in any violence or serious criminal conduct since clozapine was introduced. However, as indicated he has shown verbal aggression and posturing as well as inappropriate and sexual behaviours in the hospital. She testified that his inappropriate behaviour has been more exaggerated when he is using cannabis and of a more severe nature. Even were substance use programming to be introduced, Dr. Harrigan felt that Mr. Shahinjou was unlikely to abstain from its use. His motivation to abstain is solely external. An abstinence clause, in her opinion, is the only effective protective measure.

[23]. Dr. Harrigan testified that she did not feel that it would be sufficient to address his ongoing risk maintaining him on a conditional discharge that included an abstinence clause. Given his poor insight into his substance use and his desire for same, she testified that it would be necessary for the hospital to have the ability to approve his housing. At this point he would not be able to get community housing and is not ready for discharge. Dr. Harrigan was asked her opinion as to whether Mr. Shahinjou might choose to leave the hospital if an abstinence clause was simply added to his current disposition order and she indicated that might take place. She agreed that if he was on a conditional discharge with a substance use prohibition, it was possible that he might decide to return to the family home and that he might be permitted to do so, but maintained her view that the hospital must be in the position to approve his housing

Submissions

[24]. Ms. Szabo, on behalf of the hospital, submitted that Mr. Shahinjou is a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate disposition is a detention order with the terms as set out in the Hospital Report including that he abstain from the use of cannabis and alcohol and provide urinalysis and reside in approved accommodation. She submitted that it is necessary that the hospital be in a position to approve his housing on a detention order. By that means he could be returned to the hospital if he were to deteriorate in the community. She submitted that both a detention order and a prohibition on substance use are necessary based on the increased risk to public safety that has been exhibited by him. She submitted that a conditional discharge with an abstention clause is not at present sufficient to manage his current risk. He has not engaged in any physical violence but his unwanted touching makes others uncomfortable. He has shown irritability and has been verbally aggressive. His sexually inappropriate comments and touching increase his risk to public safety. She submitted that the Davies 2022 ONCA 716 decision does not stand for the principle that the cannabis use must be directly related to serious criminal conduct. It does not stand for the proposition that cannabis can only be prohibited if the person will end up being violent. In the present case there is evidence that there is increased risk to public safety resulting from his behaviours which have changed since his resumption of cannabis and alcohol use. The deterioration in his mental status is such that he cannot at this time be placed into the community. Thereby, his use of substances has been shown to impact the ability for his reintegration into the community. There is clear evidence of the impact of substance use which supports the imposition of an abstinence clause. It is not necessary in her opinion that the prohibition must be linked to a risk simply of violence or physical contact. His other conduct of sexually inappropriate comments and touching has impacted people in the hospital and would do so in the community.

[25]. Ms. MacDonald adopted the submissions of the hospital.

[26]. Ms. Boissonneault, on behalf of Mr. Shahinjou, submitted that the necessary and appropriate disposition remains a conditional discharge. The two bases to impose a detention order would be to allow for his quick readmission to hospital and be able to approve his housing. There are other ways to readmit him. Mr. Shahinjou, of note, came to hospital voluntarily in April and has remained voluntarily. She submitted that on that basis a detention order is not necessary to bring or to keep him in the hospital. She submitted that there is no need to approve his housing in that he could have moved anywhere, to gravitate to unsuitable housing, but chose instead to return to the hospital and has not asked to leave to move into unsuitable housing. He has no funds or ability to move into the community on his own and needs to rely on the hospital for their support in this regard.

Analysis and Conclusion:

1. The Board accepts the evidence of the hospital and relies on same in finding that Mr. Shahinjou continues to represent a significant risk to the safety of the public, which is not contested by his counsel. We find unanimously that a conditional discharge is not sufficient to manage his current risk. It will be imperative that the hospital be in a position to approve Mr. Shahinjou’s housing to ensure his mental state is being monitored. He is at present not suitable for community placement in any supervised housing due to his behaviour and substance use. If he returns to abstinence it is possible that he may be permitted to return to the family home, but at this point he does not wish to do so. We do not agree with his counsel that his voluntary return to hospital shows that he will make reasoned choices for accommodation; at present he is permitted on his disposition to use cannabis while a patient at the hospital but if that condition is removed he may seek to leave the hospital so his use can continue and, without funds, may have no suitable living options wherein he can receive support including for his ongoing medication compliance.
2. The Board also finds that the condition that the inclusion of an abstinence from alcohol and all cannabis products is necessary and appropriate as well as least onerous and least restrictive to manage his risk. As soon as the prohibition from cannabis use was removed from his disposition Mr. Shahinjou resumed its use, in large amounts as well as consuming alcohol. Despite remaining compliant with his clozapine, Mr. Shahinjou’s mental status decompensated as a consequence of his use. While living with his parents he began experiencing paranoid delusions towards his parents, causing them to fear for their safety. Following his voluntary return to hospital, because of his delusions and the fact that he was not permitted to use cannabis while living in their home, he continued to use cannabis. He has not been overtly violent but has displayed verbal aggression and posturing as well as in inappropriate and sexual behaviours, which are reportedly more exacerbated and severe in the contest of his cannabis use. Dr. Harrigan testified that his inappropriate behaviour is more exaggerated and of a more sever nature in the context of his cannabis use. Mr. Shahinjou has a significant history of violence. Fortunately, he has not since the introduction of clozapine medication with which he has, to his credit, remained compliant engaged in any direct physical violence to others. We find nonetheless that the behaviour in which he has been engaging which are more pronounced in the context of cannabis use are such that they do increase his risk of serious harm to persons in the community. He caused his family to fear for their safety in the context of his paranoia. His verbal aggression, posturing, touching and inappropriate sexual behaviour are more exaggerated and of a more severe nature in the context of his cannabis use and pose a risk of serious psychological harm to others which is criminal in nature. His behaviours invite physical retaliation which could also lead to serious violence. We do not find that limiting Mr. Shahinjou to the use of cannabis purchased from a licenced dispensary would have any risk reducing benefits as it would neither limit the amount or strength of the cannabis consumed.
3. We commend Mr. Shahinjou for his continued adherence to his medication and his engagement with his treatment team. It is our hope that Mr. Shahinjou will with the hospital’s support have improvements in insight regarding the impact of substance use on his wellbeing and that his abstinence will allow for his progress to a return to community living.

For these reasons we agree with the position of the hospital and order that Mr. Shahinou’s disposition be that of a detention order to the Forensic Program at Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences with conditions including:

(a) to attend within or outside of hospital for necessary medical, dental, legal or compassionate purposes;

(b) hospital and grounds privileges, accompanied by staff or person approved by the person in charge;

(c) hospital and grounds privileges, indirectly supervised;

(d) passes for up to 72 hours to enter the community within a 150 kilometer radius of the Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences, accompanied by staff or person approved by the person in charge;

(e) passes for up to 72 hours to enter the community within a 150 kilometer radius of the Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences, indirectly supervised; and

(f) to live in the community in accommodation approved by the person in charge.

Mr. Shahinjou also be directed to:

(a) abstain absolutely from the non-medical use of alcohol or drugs or any other intoxicant, including cannabinoids; any medical use of the above must be approved by the person in charge or designate;

(b) submit samples of his urine and/or breath to the person in charge of Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences, or his or her designate, for the purpose of analyzing whether the accused has ingested alcohol, drugs or any other intoxicant;

(c) refrain from having in his possession any firearm, ammunition or other offensive weapon, or being in the company of any person possessing a firearm other than a peace officer;

(f) travel passes (including internationally) for up to 4 weeks, upon first obtaining approval of his itinerary by the person in charge of the Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences, or his or her designate; and

(g) when living in the community, report to the person in charge of Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences, or his or her designate, as required, and not less than once every two weeks.

1. We make this Order in consideration of the primary factor protection of public safety as well as Mr. Shahinjou’s mental condition, his reintegration into the community and his other needs.

DATED this 27th day of November 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.

Ms. C. Fromstein Alternate Chairperson

Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board