Ontario Review Board
Re: K. (M.)
ORB File No: 7392
Hearing held on: Tuesday, July 8, 2025
Place of Hearing: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health
Pursuant to: Sections 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. R. Bigelow
Members: Dr. P. Cook Dr. J. C. Rose Mr. A. Mete Ms. C. Murray
Parties Appearing:
Accused: K. (M.) Counsel: Mr. C. Shortt
The Person in Charge Counsel: Ms. S. Zelaya
Attorney-General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. M. Feindel
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION (Dated August 7, 2025)
Introduction
1On August 1, 2018, K. (M.) was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCR) on charges of assault with a weapon, mischief – damage to property, assault (x8) and sexual assault (x2) all contrary to the Criminal Code. K. (M.) is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the Board) dated January 16, 2024, ordering his detention at the Forensic Service of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH or the Hospital) with privileges up to and including residence in the community in accommodation approved by the person in charge.
2On Tuesday, July 8, 2025, the Board convened a hearing pursuant to section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. K. (M.) did not have counsel until shortly before the hearing and accordingly Amicus, Ms. Whillier, had been appointed to assist the panel. However, a few days prior to the hearing K. (M.) retained counsel, Mr. Shortt, who advised the Board that he had instructions to proceed from his client, had been able to review the documentary evidence and was prepared to proceed. Ms. Whillier attended the hearing and advised the panel that she had been in contact with Mr. Shortt and provided him with all of the material she had with respect to hearing. The Board thanked Ms. Whillier for her attendance and assistance.
3The issues to be determined at the hearing were whether K. (M.) continued to constitute a significant threat to the safety of the public as defined in section 672.5401 of the Criminal Code and, if so, to determine what was the necessary and appropriate disposition that was also the least onerous and least restrictive taking into account the factors set out in 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
Evidentiary Issue
4At the commencement of the hearing the alternate chair reviewed the materials provided to the Panel prior to the hearing and asked the parties to indicate if they had any further documentation or other material they wish to provide the panel. Neither counsel for the Hospital nor counsel for the Attorney General had any further documentation to provide. However, counsel for K. (M.) indicated that he wished to file a brief video of an interaction between his client and a hospital staff member as well as a progress note from that staff member outlining a summary of events when she attended at K. (M.)’s apartment in September 2022.
5Neither of the other parties had been provided with this material prior to the hearing and the hearing was recessed to allow them to review the material. After having reviewed the material counsel for the Attorney General and counsel for the Hospital advised that they were not objecting to the introduction of the materials but noted that they would be making submissions that the video was of little assistance to the panel and as it showed only a small portion of the interaction that took place on that date and that little could be inferred as to what had actually occurred.
Initial Positions of the Parties
6The parties were requested to provide their initial without prejudice positions with respect to the issues before the Board. Counsel for the Hospital indicated that it was the Hospital’s position that K. (M.) continued represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate disposition was a continuation of the detention order without change.
7Counsel for the Attorney General supported the Hospital position.
8Counsel for K. (M.) advised that he would likely not oppose the recommendation of the Hospital but wished to reserve his position pending hearing the evidence. However, he did concede the issue of significant threat.
Evidence at the hearing
9The evidence at the hearing consisted of the Hospital Report, the oral evidence of Dr. Liu and the video and progress note referred to above.
Findings:
10For the Reasons that follow, the Board finds that K. (M.) continues represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate disposition is a continuation of the current detention order without change.
Index Offences:
11The allegations surrounding the index charges as summarized in the Hospital report are as follows :
Regarding the incident of July 16, 2017
K. (M.) entered the Canadian Tire Gas Bar and attempted to buy cigarettes. The employee refused him. K. (M.) threw his coffee mug at the employee. It did not strike the employee but hit a nearby cigarette display. K. (M.) then threw various soda containers at the employee. One can struck the employee, and another broke a cigarette display.
K. (M.) fled in a city bus but was intercepted by police and was arrested without incident.
Regarding the Incident of March 4, 2018:
At approximately 15:10, Ms. B. was running across the street. K. (M.) ran across the same intersection towards her. She realized that he was going to run into her, so she stopped running to get out of his path. He then changed course to intentionally run into her and caused her to get knocked over. He then walked away. She began yelling to attract attention but stopped because she did not want to provoke him.
Ms. B. then saw K. (M.) point the phone in her direction and it appeared like he was taking pictures or videos of her. He continued walking across the street, all the while pointing the phone at her. When K. (M.)'s phone was later seized and reviewed, there were 5 images of Ms. B., taken on March 4 (2018).
Regarding the incident of March 5, 2018
At approximately 12:10, Ms. V. was walking, when K. (M.) walked toward her quickly and approached her in an "aggressive manner." He then forcefully jabbed his hand and grabbed her crotch. He continued walking and never said anything and did not look back. She put her hands in front of her body and cursed him. She looked back at him to make sure he would not assault her again or follow her.
Regarding the Incident of March 5, 2018:
At approximately 14:05, Ms. C. was walking on the street when K. (M.) came up behind her and grabbed her buttocks and crotch. He then walked away as if nothing happened. She yelled at him and called him a "Perv." K. (M.) then pointed his cellphone at her as if recording her. She then walked away as K. (M.) appeared to continue recording her.
Subsequent to his arrest, K. (M.)'s phone was later seized and reviewed, where images from the identified timeframe are in keeping with the location of the incident.
Regarding the Incidents of March 6, 2018:
K. (M.), around 17h00, was walking on Rideau Street and assaulted five random people. The assaults all occurred within a short timeframe.
Ms. O. was walking along Rideau Street and K. (M.) pushed her into her friend. She turned towards him and he yelled something, but she could not make out what he said.
Ms. A. was walking out of the Rideau Centre when K. (M.) pulled her coat from the back, causing her to be pulled back. She asked, "What are you doing?" and he replied, "What's up, we are in Canada, whatever." He took a picture of her with his cellphone.
Ms. Y. was walking in front of the Rideau Centre when K. (M.) kicked her in the right leg. She was shocked and walked away.
A witness, Mr. S., saw K. (M.) kick a woman for no reasons and verbally confronted K. (M.). They both proceeded inside the Rideau Centre. K. (M.) asked Mr. S. why he was getting in his face and wanted to film him. The women he saw get assaulted thanked him and were shaking. K. (M.) stated that it was the second time he had kicked Ms. Y. and then he walked away.
K. (M.) exited the Rideau Centre, behind Ms. K. After she held the door for him, he punched her in the back of the head. He then took a picture of her with his cellphone.
Another victim, Ms. L., made eye contact with K. (M.). He then struck her in the head, causing her to fall. She sustained injuries to her knees and hands and was very upset.
The verbal confrontation between K. (M.) and Mr. S. was captured on video, as well as the assault on Ms. K.. A still shot of K. (M.) was made available to police who arrested him. K. (M.) had two cellphones in his possession at the time.
Background Information Regarding the Accused:
12K. (M.) was born in Turkey and moved to Canada with his family when he was two years old. His parents separated and he was raised largely by his mother. When he was nine his mother moved to Dubai with K. (M.) where they remained until he was 13 when they returned to Canada. In 2015 he and his mother moved to Iraq where he lived with extended family in the north of the country and his mother lived in the south teaching at a private school. His mother indicates that K. (M.) struggled with living with his extended family given the cultural differences and after four months he returned to Canada to live with his father in Mississauga. His father reported that when K. (M.) returned from Iraq “he seems sick in his brain” and appeared disorganized and said strange things about his work in Iraq. However, before he could arrange for help for his son, he ran away to the Montréal area following which they were out of contact for quite some time
13K. (M.) then moved to the Ottawa area and his mother returned to Canada to be with him. In 2016 – 2017 and his mother reports that she had little contact with him but prior to his arrest with respect to the index offences, he was living with her in downtown Ottawa.
14K. (M.) reports that he did well in school until grade 11 when his grades dropped substantially after he was stabbed while protecting a friend who was being robbed. After that he had challenges with concentration leading him to drop out.
Substance Use History
15K. (M.)’s mother reports that he began smoking cannabis at the age of 15 and that he had smoked daily since that time.
Legal History:
16K. (M.) has no criminal record prior to the commission of the index offences.
Psychiatric History
17K. (M.)’s first contact with mental health services was on May 28, 2017, some 6 to 7 weeks prior to the first index offence. He was brought to the emergency room at Ottawa Civic Hospital by the police. He had been staring at officers during the weekend and circling around them. When they asked him some routine questions, he reacted strangely, screaming about his friends in the military. He was apprehended under the Mental Health Act and brought to the hospital where he reported using marijuana daily and his urine drug screen positive for cannabis. He talked about his role in connection with the intelligence community. He was found not to be certifiable and was unwilling to remain in hospital voluntarily. He was discharged with a diagnosis of “psychosis unspecified, first episode psychosis”. He did not pursue any form of treatment thereafter.
Current Diagnosis
18K. (M.)’s current diagnoses are schizophrenia, and cannabis use disorder.
19Subsequent to the NCR finding K. (M.) was hospitalized at the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Center until March 2019 when he was transitioned to a group home. In August 2020 he was approved to reside with his mother and returned to the regular use of cannabis indicating that he believed his medication would prevent any decompensation due to cannabis use. However, his symptoms remained stable, he attended scheduled appointments, programs on mindfulness and wellness as well as monthly meetings with an addictions counsellor to keep his cannabis consumption under control. In October 2021 he was granted a conditional discharge.
20Shortly after being granted the conditional discharge K. (M.) began to present as guarded and brief during appointments with the treatment team. He requested a reduction in his antipsychotic medication and in December 2021 he insisted on switching from injectable to oral medication and was taking a lower dose of oral medication than that recommended by his psychiatrist.
21In meetings with his psychiatrist in early 2022 K. (M.) reported occasionally hearing voices although he denied being distressed by this. He reported communicating with the CIA but did not associate this with his illness. By May 2022 he indicated he was regularly using 10 g of marijuana daily. His psychiatrist began to detect symptoms of psychosis reminiscent of his delusional thinking prior to the index offences and recommended both increasing the dosage and returning to long-acting injectable medication. K. (M.) refused this and requested that the dosage be lowered. Over the next several months he progressively distanced himself from the treatment team and an increase in paranoia and suspicion was noted.
22A risk assessment dated August 3, 2022, found that K. (M.)’s posed a moderate to high risk of future violence and his doctor noted “unfortunately, the significant reduction in external control that resulted from his transition to a conditional discharge seemed to trigger his precipitous decline.”
23An incident occurred on September 30, 2022, when his case manager alleged that K. (M.) sexually assaulted her by coming up behind her and pressing himself against her during an appointment at his apartment.1 K. (M.) was apprehended by police and brought to hospital where he was involuntarily admitted under the Mental Health Act. The involuntary admission was extended on November 1, 2022, and he was declared incapable to consent to treatment. Both the declaration of incapacity and his involuntary status were overturned by the Consent and Capacity Board (CCB), but he initially agreed to remain in hospital as an involuntary patient. He settled over time and no longer showed acute features of his psychosis and was discharged on November 22, 2022
24His attending psychiatrist and case manager attended at his home on September 28, 2023, when K. (M.) accused them of committing crimes and stated that they were going to be arrested. He demanded that they leave and indicated he would not be visiting the hospital.
25On October 27, 2023, K. (M.) was charged with assaulting a woman where it was alleged that he stuck out his leg as the complainant approached him and tripped her causing her to fall face first onto the sidewalk and he walked away moving backwards with his phone out while facing her. He was released on bail on November 8, 2023, with a term requiring that he reside with his father in Mississauga. Shortly thereafter, K. (M.)’s father contacted the hospital advising that he was unable to manage his son and wanted to have him admitted to hospital. After an in person meeting with K. (M.) and his father where he presented as thought disordered and unable to hold a conversation K. (M.) was admitted to hospital involuntarily under the Mental Health Act. After admission K. (M.) threatened his doctor and assaulted two staff members. He was found incapable of consenting to treatment, his father was named as substitute decision-maker and a course of injectable antipsychotic medication was commenced.
26After commencing medication, K. (M.) settled quickly and was discharged to his father’s home. During his admission he admitted to not taking medication and using cannabis in the period leading up to the assault charge.
27After a Board hearing held January 15, 2024, K. (M.) was ordered detained at the CAMH as he was now residing in the greater Toronto area and the previous conditional discharge had been insufficient to manage his risk.
Evidence of Dr. Liu
28Dr. Liu indicated that he had been K. (M.)’s attending psychiatrist since September 2024 and noted by way of update to the Hospital Report which had been prepared several months prior to the hearing originally scheduled for March 31, 2025, that K. (M.) continues to be housed on a secure unit. He remained clinically stable and compliant with medication but regularly questions the efficacy of medications. He had appealed his finding of incapacity to the CCB in May and his incapacity was upheld by the Board. He had been receiving indirectly supervised hospital and grounds privileges for the last three weeks without incident and had been approved for transfer to a general unit.
29Dr. Liu indicated that in his professional opinion K. (M.) continue to require a detention order in order to manage his risk. He denies having a mental illness, lacks insight into his need for treatment, refuses to discuss the index offences, continues to have delusions with respect to possessing special powers, and is quite secretive with respect to any symptoms of his illness that he may be experiencing. Before being considered for discharge into the community, K. (M.) requires a realistic plan to address concerns with respect to medication adherence, cannabis use and housing.
30Dr. Liu noted that, although K. (M.) regularly denies having a mental illness and has a history of nonadherence to medication as well as regular request to reduce medication, at his CCB hearing he stated that he accepted his diagnosis of mental illness and asserted that he understood the importance of medication in treating it. Dr. Liu indicated that it was obvious at the hearing that K. (M.)’s statements were a strategy to improve his chances of overturning the finding of incapacity.
31In response to questions from counsel for the Attorney General, Dr. Liu indicated that in his opinion the Hospital required the authority to approve accommodation to ensure that K. (M.) had the appropriate monitoring and supervision to manage his risk and that in his opinion residing with either his mother or father was not appropriate although both were quite supportive. He agreed that he had not specifically discussed with either parent residence with them. Although K. (M.) wants to live an independent apartment, the treatment team is not ready at this point to support that. Dr. Liu also indicated that K. (M.) continues to not be forthcoming with respect to symptoms of his illness and that his progress through the pass system has been slow due to this. There had been no positive drug tests since his arrival at CAMH and he claims to no longer like cannabis but will not discuss it further.
32In response to questions from counsel for K. (M.), Dr. Liu agreed that K. (M.)’s father was both supportive of his son and cooperative with the treatment team. However, he needed further information with respect to the family dynamics before any thought could be given to residence with either parent. He also indicated that prior to any discharge into the community K. (M.) would need to develop a significant increase in his insight.
Final Submissions of the Parties.
33Counsel for K. (M.) indicated that having, heard the evidence, he was now able to support the recommendation of the Hospital and that accordingly there was a joint submission with respect to a detention order on the terms as recommended by the Hospital. However, he indicated that his client had requested that he seek a privilege to allow passes for international travel.
34Counsel for the Hospital also maintained her initial position with respect to the detention order and recommended terms as well as to the extremely limited relevance of the video filed by counsel for K. (M.). She also indicated that, not having any prior notice of the request for international travel passes, she had no instructions to support such passes and was accordingly unable to support them.
35Counsel for the Attorney General also maintained his initial position with respect to the recommended disposition as well as the limited relevance of the video filed by counsel and noted that he was strongly opposed to the granting of passes for international travel.
Analysis and Conclusion, Significant Threat:
36Although the issue of significant threat was not contested at the hearing, the Board nevertheless makes an independent finding that the evidence clearly supports a finding that K. (M.) continues represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. He suffers from a major mental illness, schizophrenia, and continues to experience some symptoms of that illness. He also has been diagnosed with a long-standing cannabis use disorder. He denies having a mental illness, has a history of nonadherence to prescribed medications as well as regularly seeking to have medication reduced and although he indicates that he will no longer use cannabis because he no longer likes using it, there is no evidence of his having actual insight into the impact of cannabis on his mental health.
37The Hospital report summarizes K. (M.)’s risk which the Board accepts as follows:
Notably, K. (M.)’s offences occurred at a time he was symptomatic and not properly treated and the magnitude of his manifested erratic behaviours corresponded to the degree of his untreated psychosis triggered by his delusions, behavioural/conceptual disorganization and disinhibition. If K. (M.) was to reoffend, it would likely be in the same context of psychotic decompensation due to non-compliance with medication or use of cannabis. It was notable that when K. (M.) was under a conditional discharge, it was challenging to ensure compliance to medication and clinical appointments, as well as prevent cannabis use. In addition, the family was not able to assist or manage his behaviour in the community to the extent that his father asked for re-hospitalization. As a result, he suffered a clear deterioration in his mental condition and stability that resulted in him being taken into custody. His mental condition at that time had significantly deteriorated, despite being under a conditional discharge.
38K. (M.) clearly underestimates the gravity of consequences should he stopped taking medication and/or continue using cannabis. Absent the supervision of the Board, it is likely that he will disengage with mental health related services due to his poor insight and become noncompliant with medication increasing his risk of relapsing into a psychotic episode similar to that at the time of the index offences.
39The panel has reviewed the video filed by counsel for K. (M.) and agree with the positions of counsel for the Hospital and counsel for the Attorney General that it provided little assistance in terms of determining what may have occurred on the date in question given its brief and incomplete nature.
Analysis and Conclusion Necessary and Appropriate Disposition
40The Board also finds that the evidence clearly supports the joint recommendation for a detention order with privileges as recommended by the Hospital. K. (M.) currently has no viable plan with respect to discharge into the community and the evidence clearly supports a conclusion that it is important that the Hospital have authority to approve any accommodation to ensure that the supervision and monitoring necessary to manage his risk is available. As well his history clearly substantiates a conclusion that the Mental Health Act would clearly be insufficient to manage his risk.
41The Board also agrees with counsel for the Attorney General that allowing passes for international travel would not be appropriate. We have no information as to where K. (M.) may wish to go or what services may be available to him to ensure that his risk is managed safely. In those circumstances the granting of passes for international travel would unnecessarily increase risk.
DATED this 7th day of August 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Mr. R. Bigelow Alternate Chairperson
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board