Re: Kombala S. Liyanage, 2025 CanLII 135635

Ontario Review Board

Re: Kombala S. Liyanage

ORB File No: 7735

Hearing held on: Monday, November 24, 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: Mr. G. Beasley

Members: Dr. T. Wilkie Dr. M. Kalia Mr. R. Bigelow Ms. B. Little

Parties Appearing:

Accused: Kombala S. Liyanage Counsel: Ms. J. Boissonneault

The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Mr. K. Dow

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

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated December 29, 2025)

Introduction

1. On May 20, 2020, accused Kombala Liyanage, was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on charges of aggravated assault, assault, failure to comply with recognizance, failure to comply with probation order and uttering threats to cause death or bodily harm, all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada. By reason of a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (“ORB”) dated November 22, 2024, Mr. Liyanage was ordered to be detained at the General Forensic Service of the Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences (“Ontario Shores”) with privileges up to and including residing in the community in accommodation approved by the person in charge, except for and excluding residing with either his mother and/or his father.

2. On November 24, 2025, the ORB convened a hearing at Ontario Shores for the purpose of the annual review of Mr. Liyanage’s Disposition pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Liyanage was in attendance at the hearing and represented by counsel, Ms. Boissonneault. Mr. Dow appeared as counsel for the hospital and Ms. MacDonald, as counsel for the Attorney General of Ontario.

Index Offences

3. The circumstances of the index offences are taken from the Hospital Report and Agreed Statement of Facts, as follows:

“In June 2019, the accused, Kombala Liyanage (42), was living at 66 Apps Cr in Ajax with his father, Sanath Sirisena (69), and mother, Supriya Sirisena (71).

Kombala report[edly] suffers from bi-polar disorder and Schizophrenia for which he receives monthly injections. Kombala[‘s] behaviour has been deteriorating, as his parents report he has become more paranoid and socially distant. Kombala abuses alcohol and purportedly uses other, non-prescribed narcotics.

At the time of this incident, Sanath was Kombala’s surety in relation to criminal charges in Toronto. Among his conditions were to “reside with your surety and be amenable to the rule and discipline of the household” and “do not possess any weapons as defined by the Criminal Code.” Kombala was also subject to three different probation orders containing the condition “keep the peace and be of good behaviour.”

On June 26, 2019, Sanath returned at 9:00am from working a night shift as a security guard. Kombala told his parents that he was going to [go] out to receive his monthly injection. Kombala appeared to be acting normal at the time. Kombala returned in the midmorning. His Father noticed that Kombala was drinking a beer from a large aluminum can, however Kombala still seemed to be acting fine. Sanath decided to go to the second storey master bedroom to sleep, as he was tired from working a night shift. Supriya came in to join him a short time later.

At approximately 3:00pm, Sanath was awakened to the sound of banging. He initially believed to be coming from outside, but soon realized it was coming from Kombala’s bedroom, which was also on the second floor of the residence.

Sanath got up to check on the noise when he was suddenly met at the bedroom door by Kombala. Kombala appeared to be in a highly agitated state, and he began to yell and swear at his Father. Without warning or provocation, Kombala began to punch his father in the head and upper body. Sanath retreated into the room, while attempting to block the punches with his arms. Sanath was forced over the bed and onto the floor. When Sanath stood back up, he noticed that Kombala was standing over Supriya who was still lying in the bed.

Kombala began to punch his Mother repeatedly in the head and upper body. Supriya began screaming and begging Kombala to stop. Sanath was able to escape from the room, at which time he ran downstairs to retrieve his cell phone and call the police. Sanath called 911 and yelled to warn his son that the police were coming. By this time, Kombala had pulled his Mother from the bed onto the floor and dragged her just out of the bedroom to the top of the stairs. Once there, he began to punch her once again in the head and body.

Sanath attempted to ascend the stairs to assist Supriya. Kombala began to throw items down the stairs at Sanath, including a wooden stand, an ironing Board, several glass framed picture frames, and a glass vase. Kombala removed a wooden spindle from the banister and began using it to strike Sanath. Kombala was yelling at both his parents, saying “I’m going to kill you” and “I’ll end you now!” Once Kombala realized that his father was speaking with 911, he suddenly retreated to his room.

At 3:08am, PC Edwards and PC Browell arrived at the residence. They were met by Sanath outside the front door. Sanath was hysterical, advising that his wife had been hurt, and that they were on the second floor. PC Edward and PC Browell entered the residence, and immediately noted damaged property strewn at the base of the stairs. They proceeded upstairs where they found Supriya lying prone on the floor, with her head covered in fresh blood. She was noted to be barely responsive.

PC Edward and PC Browell cleared the second-floor room discovered Kombala lying in his bed. Kombala complied with the officer’s demands and was cuffed to the rear. He was read his rights to counsel and caution. It appeared to PC Edward that Kombala would have moments of clarity when he would respond to questioned [sic] asked, but most of the time he was confrontational and verbally abusive to the officers. Kombala was kept in another room, until paramedics could safely remove Supriya, and begin transporting her to the Ajax/Pickering Hospital. Kombala was transported to Oshawa General, to be assessed by a doctor. Once he was medically cleared, police transported him to 17 Division.

Kombala’s father, Sanath, suffered some soft tissue type injuries to his head, neck, and arms as a result of the incident.

Kombala’s mother, Supriya, suffered two fractures to her skull, multiple lacerations to her scalp, and a blood clot in her brain. Both of her hands were broken, for which she has been referred to an orthopaedic [sic] surgeon. She had lacerations to her arms, which contained wood splinters that had to be removed before they could be sutured. She had numerous abrasions to her chest and extremities.”

Current Diagnoses

4. Mr. Liyanage's current diagnoses are taken from the Hospital Report as follows:

Schizophrenia

Alcohol Use Disorder, severe

Unspecified Other (or unknown) Substance-related Disorder

Criminal Record

5. Mr. Liyanage's legal history prior to the index defence is as follows:

DATE AND LOCATION	CHARGE(S)	SENTENCE
2002/02/18 Toronto, ON	Driving with more than 80 mgs of alcohol in blood	$700
2003/08/28 Toronto, ON	1) Driving while ability impaired 2) Fail or refuse to provide sample 3) Fail to attend court	1-2) 21 days & probation 2 years on each charge concurrently & prohibition driving 3 years 3) 21 days concurrently & (4 days pre-sentence custody)
2017-10/05 Oshawa, ON	Mischief under $5000	Conditional discharge & probation 28 months
2018/11/01 Brampton, ON	Assault	Conditional discharge & probation 18 months
2019/01/03 St. Catharines, ON	1) Flight while pursued by peace officer 2) Dangerous operation of motor vehicle 3) Driving while ability impaired	1) Suspended sentence & probation 1 year 2) Suspended sentence & probation 1 year 3) (20 days pre-sentence custody) & prohibited from operating a motor vehicle Sec.259(1) CC for 2 years

Background and Personal History

6. Mr. Liyanage’s background, legal history and psychiatric history are reviewed in the Hospital Report which was filed as an exhibit at the hearing. For that reason, they will not be repeated in these Reasons in detail. By way of a brief summary, Mr. Liyanage was born in Sri Lanka and immigrated to Canada with his parents and siblings when he was 12 years old. Mr. Liyanage had one sibling, a younger brother, with whom he reported having a good relationship while they were growing up. Mr. Liyanage reported that he learned English as a second language while living in Sri Lanka. Although he found school challenging when he moved to Canada, he graduated and was valedictorian of his high school class. He then attended the University of Waterloo where he obtained a bachelor’s degree in computer science and economics. Following university, Mr. Liyanage continued to reside at home and worked primarily in construction as a labourer. In 2017, he was injured in a workplace accident and has been supported since then by ODSP. Mr. Liyanage has had a number of significant relationships including an arranged marriage which lasted for six years. In two of his relationships, he was charged with domestic violence which led to separation. Mr. Liyanage does not have any children.

7. In a self-report, Mr. Liyanage said that he first consumed alcohol at the age of 16 or 17, bingeing on weekends to the point of intoxication. He has been charged with driving under the influence of alcohol on three different occasions. He also reports starting using cannabis at the age of 16 and continuing until 2018. He also reported using crack cocaine between 2018 and 2019.

8. Mr. Liyanage has a history of treatment for mental health issues commencing in 1997. His first admission to hospital was in 2002. The Hospital Report provides details of his admissions to hospital for treatment between 2002 and March of 2019. Notably, some of the admissions were as a result of being brought to hospital by his parents because of their concern about his threats of violence. On several occasions he was admitted with paranoia and believing that his mother was trying to poison him. His last admission for mental health care was from January 9, 2019 to January 15, 2019. On discharge he was offered follow up with a community psychiatrist and an ACT team, however, he stated that the ACT team did not like him and he did not want their assistance. His discharge diagnosis was bipolar disorder, most recent episode manic, rule out schizophrenia. He was prescribed a long-acting injection of antipsychotic medication along with oral antipsychotic medications.

Position of the Parties

9. At the outset of the hearing, Mr. Dow stated that in the opinion of the treatment team and the hospital, Mr. Liyanage continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate disposition was a continuation of the current detention order without amendment.

10. Ms. MacDonald supported the opinion and recommendation of the hospital.

11. Ms. Boissonneault submitted that Mr. Liyanage agreed with the continuation of the detention order but asked that there be two changes. Ms. Boissonneault requested the addition of a clause permitting international travel for up to four weeks on an itinerary approved by the person in charge and also asked that the clause with respect to substance use be amended to allow Mr. Liyanage to consume cannabis.

Evidence

12. The evidence on behalf of the hospital was presented by Dr. Bhullar. Dr. Bhullar stated that she has been Mr. Liyanage’s outpatient psychiatrist since his discharge from the hospital. She is also the co-author of the Hospital Report. By way of update, Dr. Bhullar stated that Mr. Liyanage has elected to disengage from individual therapy with the treatment team. He has stated that he is now open to having a cognitive assessment instead. Mr. Liyanage has reported that he has memory and concentration struggles. The purpose of the cognitive assessment would be to test his abilities to inform the treatment team as to structuring Mr. Liyanage’s recovery plan. Dr. Bhullar stated that Mr. Liyanage has had an eventful year. He has demonstrated stable mental health while residing in a basement apartment at the group home. Mr. Liyanage has continued to test positive throughout the past year for both alcohol and cannabis use. As a result of these breaches of his disposition, Mr. Liyanage’s privileges have been on hold for portions of the past reporting year. This has prevented Mr. Liyanage from having the opportunities for passes with his parents as a result of the risk to his mother, the victim of the index offence of aggravated assault. The team have not been able to trial Mr. Liyanage’s ability to be with his family and manage any stressors that might arise. Dr. Bhullar stated that Mr. Liyanage has superficially engaged in therapy solely to satisfy the treatment team. He has disengaged from some of the groups including the CMHA coffee group. He has been offered other groups, including concurrent disorders, but indicates that he is not interested. He has declined participation in an anger management program saying that he does not need it. Dr. Bhullar stated that Mr. Liyanage requires the structure provided by the treatment team. When asked about substance use, Dr. Bhullar stated that Mr. Liyanage is tested three times per week using urine drug screens and breathalysers.

13. Mr. Dow asked Dr. Bhullar if, in her clinical opinion, Mr. Liyanage represented a significant threat to the safety of the public. Dr. Bhullar stated that in her opinion he does represent a significant threat and outlined some of the risk factors which support that conclusion. These include his major mental illness of schizophrenia, his substance use disorder, his use of cannabis and cocaine, his violence history, and his past aggression towards family. Mr. Liyanage has also been noncompliant with treatment in the past. He has limited insight into his illness and into his substance use and its effect on his mental status. Dr. Bhullar stated that Mr. Liyanage does not appreciate that cannabis use can interfere with his treatment, particularly if he begins to use higher amounts. Becoming dependent on cannabis will result in a deterioration of his mental status and an increase in his violence risk to others. The use of substances could result in Mr. Liyanage becoming noncompliant with treatment and the resulting psychosis could lead to violence similar to that of the index offence.

14. In response to a question for Mr. Dow, Dr. Bhullar stated that she does not support the removal of the cannabis prohibition from Mr. Liyanage’s Disposition. Although Mr. Liyanage would ultimately admit cannabis use in the past, more recently he has become guarded and evasive when confronted with positive test results. He has denied using cannabis and has blamed the positive result on being around second-hand smoke with his friends. He is not interested in engaging in programming or therapy and does not seek out help when needed. Dr. Bhullar stated that he is superficial in sharing information with the treatment team. He will typically answer that everything is “all good” or “everything's great” when asked and this is concerning to the treatment team. Dr. Bhullar stated that it is unclear whether or not cannabis or other substances, other than alcohol, were involved at the time of the index offence. She stated that it is clear that Mr. Liyanage had been consuming alcohol before the index offences but has at various times admitted and other times denied that there was either cannabis or cocaine used on the day of the index offence.

15. Dr. Bhullar was asked about the treatment team’s opinion on Mr. Liyanage’s request for international travel permission for up to 30 days. Dr. Bhullar stated that the team did not support the request. She said that typically privileges of this kind and length are given to persons who have maximized the privilege levels already and are typically much closer to receiving or on a conditional discharge. Dr. Bhullar said that Mr. Liyanage has requested a 30-day trip but is on a two-weekly, long-acting injection of anti-psychotic medication. She stated that the team have told Mr. Liyanage that he would have to have in place arrangements for compliance with his medication regimen and reporting to the treatment team before any consideration could be given to such an extended absence. Dr. Bhullar said that Mr. Liyanage has not yet even been able to fully utilize the overnight privileges in his current Disposition. Another concern is that when he is away from the hospital, he might engage in use of both cannabis and alcohol which could not be monitored. Dr. Bhullar said that the treatment team would need to see significant improvements in his abstinence from the use of substances before any consideration would be given to travel as requested. The treatment team would also like to see better engagement from Mr. Liyanage. Dr. Bhullar stated that for the upcoming reporting year the team's plan was to help Mr. Liyanage improve his insight, engage more with the team, and abstain from the use of substances. She stated that in the opinion of the team a continuation of the detention order without amendment is the least onerous and least restrictive disposition for Mr. Liyanage.

16. Ms. MacDonald did not have any questions.

17. In response to questions from Ms. Boissonneault, Dr. Bhullar confirmed that Mr. Liyanage had made use of overnight pass privileges to stay with his parents during the past reporting year. In total he had spent 17 nights at home with his parents over the course of 5 two night passes and 7 one night passes. Dr. Bhullar noted that a condition of the use of this privilege was that Mr. Liyanage would not be at home alone with his mother at any time. During the summer when Mr. Liyanage was testing positive for substances these passes were put on hold. Dr. Bhullar confirmed that the passes which were exercised went well and that his parents reported enjoying having him in the home. She also confirmed that a member of the treatment team would confirm with Mr. Liyanage’s father both before and after the passes were given.

18. Dr. Bhullar confirmed that in September of 2025, Mr. Liyanage moved into an apartment in the basement of the group home. She agreed that this was a “milestone of progress.” The transition to the apartment had gone well notwithstanding Mr. Liyanage’s positive substance screens. Mr. Liyanage is responsible for his own cooking and cleaning of his apartment but receives his oral medications from group home staff and his antipsychotic long-acting injection from a community doctor. Dr. Bhullar agreed with Ms. Boissonneault that while this could have been a very stressful situation for him, the transition to the apartment has gone well.

19. Dr. Bhullar agreed that there had been a stressful incident at the group home when Mr. Liyanage was threatened by a co-patient. She further agreed that this was a serious threat and that Mr. Liyanage handled the potential stress in an appropriate manner. There was no apparent decompensation in his mental status which Dr. Bhullar agreed could be attributed to the protective factor of the antipsychotic medications Mr. Liyanage is prescribed.

20. When asked by Ms. Boissonneault about the request for travel, Dr. Bhullar stated that Mr. Liyanage had lived in Sri Lanka until he was 12 years old. The purpose of his request is to return there to visit with family. Dr. Bhullar agreed that one of the primary obstacles to this travel is the timing of the long-acting injection which is presently given every two weeks. She did agree with Ms. Boissonneault that it was possible arrangements could be made for the injection to be given in Sri Lanka. Dr. Bhullar stated that the arrangements with respect to the long-acting injection are only one of the hurdles which need to be met before the hospital would consider permitting the travel requested. The hospital would want Mr. Liyanage to be stable and demonstrate abstinence from substance use before allowing such an extended absence. The concern of the treatment team is Mr. Liyanage’s substance use. Dr. Bhullar stated, as she has previously testified, that Mr. Liyanage is guarded and has limited insight into the negative implications of substance use. It would be difficult to assess his mental status on any form of virtual check-in that might be arranged if he were out of the country. Dr. Bhullar also noted that when Mr. Liyanage becomes aggressive, he tends to do so with family members as seen in the index offence. Dr. Bhullar reiterated that the treatment team would need to see Mr. Liyanage maximizing the privileges available to him at the present time before considering permission for the proposed trip to Sri Lanka.

21. Dr. Bhullar agreed that Mr. Liyanage had completed a number of programs including CHIME offered through the group home. Dr. Bhullar agreed that Mr. Liyanage had told them that he was on the waitlist for a Peer Support training program offered by the CMHA. However, Dr. Bhullar stated that his exact status on this list is unknown as there have been several different reports by Mr. Liyanage as to exactly when he might be admitted to the program. The CMHA program itself is not associated with the group home and Dr. Bhullar had not had any discussions with CMHA about Mr. Liyanage and his involvement.

22. Ms. Boissonneault took Dr. Bhullar through the Hospital Report in reference to a number of different programs that Mr. Liyanage had completed over the past several years. Dr. Bhullar agreed that Mr. Liyanage had attended the programs but stated that it was not “just a matter of showing up.” Dr. Bhullar said that with respect to anger management and CBT programming, Mr. Liyanage had demonstrated limited engagement with the therapist. Dr. Bhullar agreed that Mr. Liyanage has attended groups and therapy sessions and has participated in groups and therapy sessions, but his participation and motivation have been low. Mr. Liyanage has not gained insight into his negative symptoms, his triggers and into the index offence itself. Dr. Bhullar did not agree with Ms. Boissonneault’s suggestion that Mr. Liyanage had not refused programming. Dr. Bhullar stated that Mr. Liyanage had refused to engage in some programs. He has consistently refused to participate since he began consuming cannabis. Mr. Liyanage has stated “I know what she's going to say, but I'm going to use anyway.”

23. Dr. Bhullar agreed that she had been Mr. Liyanage’s attending psychiatrist since he was discharged into the community several years ago. With respect to the circumstances surrounding the index offence, Dr. Bhullar agreed that it was unclear whether or not Mr. Liyanage was using cannabis at the time of the index offence. It is also unclear if he had been receiving his antipsychotic medication on a consistent basis prior to the index offence. Dr. Bhullar did agree that Mr. Liyanage has been adherent to his medications since the index offence. Dr. Bhullar said it was clear that Mr. Liyanage was using alcohol at the time of the index offence but unclear with respect to cannabis because Mr. Liyanage has at different times told Dr. Bhullar that he was or was not.

24. Dr. Bhullar agreed that Mr. Liyanage had used cannabis on a few occasions in the year prior to this reporting year. His use in the past year has been more frequent, and Dr. Bhullar agreed that there had been no indication of decompensation in his mental status but stated that the use was on isolated days. In response to suggestions from Ms. Boissonneault, Dr. Bhullar agreed that there was no evidence psychosis “as of yet” and no violence or aggression by Mr. Liyanage. She agreed that there was no evidence that cannabis use would lead to violence but qualified her answer by saying “so far with the limited use.” Mr. Liyanage has been compliant with his medications and reporting to the treatment team but remains guarded in his engagement. Again, Dr. Bhullar agreed that Mr. Liyanage’s housing is not at risk from cannabis use, “so far.”

25. In response to questions from the Board, Dr. Bhullar stated that since Mr. Liyanage did not meet the requirements for a conduct disorder, she do not believe that a diagnosis of Antisocial Personality Disorder was appropriate. Dr. Bhullar further stated that the cognitive assessment which Mr. Liyanage has now agreed to will assist the treatment team in their diagnosis. Dr. Bhullar was referred to page 32 of the Hospital Report which was part of the previous year’s summary. At that time, Mr. Liyanage said that he did not plan to use cannabis as his Disposition did not permit it. He also stated that he did not plan to use illicit substances because he “would become psychotic.” Dr. Bhullar attributed the change in Mr. Liyanage’s intentions to a lack of engagement with the therapist during the past reporting year. She also stated that as Mr. Liyanage has spent more time in the community meeting with old friends who use cannabis on a regular basis, his use has increased. His re-connection with those friends from his youth has been a significant change. Dr. Bhullar agreed that Mr. Liyanage first raised the possibility of travelling to Sri Lanka in April. Mr. Liyanage has not followed up on any of the recommendations made to him by the treatment team to help facilitate the possibility of such a trip. Dr. Bhullar stated that it was hoped that the cognitive assessment could be started as soon as the psychologist is available. She stated that although Mr. Liyanage appreciates that he has cognitive limitations, such as with his memory, he agreed to the testing just to appease the treatment team.

26. Dr. Bhullar was asked about the testing for alcohol consumption. She acknowledged that there is some uncertainty about the test results due to the fact that Mr. Liyanage is diabetic and there is a possibility that high levels of glucose in his urine samples could ferment and affect the results. However, Dr. Bhullar stated that there were extended periods of time when Mr. Liyanage was not testing positive for alcohol that are inconsistent with the theory about the impact of his diabetes. The team have taken steps to minimize the possibility of fermentation of the urine by delivering the samples directly to the hospital. Dr. Bhullar said that the staff at the group home do not have the authority to ask for either urine samples or breathalyzer samples, this is the jurisdiction of the outpatient team.

27. Dr. Bhullar confirmed that the overnight passes described in the Hospital Report were given at a time when Mr. Liyanage was in a sustained period of abstinence from the use of substances including cannabis and alcohol. However, once he began returning positive tests those privileges were put on hold. In September of 2025, Mr. Liyanage began a period of about six weeks where he was able to be abstinent from substance use. The treatment team were in the process of seeking permission from the Office of the Person in Charge to reinstate the overnight passes when he again tested positive in October. The most recent positive test in November of 2025 will mean that the overnight passes will remain on hold. Dr. Bhullar testified that the Peer Support Program under the auspices of the CMHA is intended to provide certification to give an individual the opportunity to assist other patients. Dr. Bhullar said that the CMHA do not check with the treatment team to determine whether or not an individual is suited to be a Peer Support Worker.

28. In response to a question in re-examination from Mr. Dow, Dr. Bhullar stated that the impact of cannabis on a person's mental state would increase in proportion to the frequency and amount of use. Changing from periodic use to daily use would elevate the risk profile of an individual. With respect specifically to Mr. Liyanage, Dr. Bhullar stated that it could result in an increase in his risk profile, but this remains untested. Ms. MacDonald followed-up Mr. Dow’s question by asking if Mr. Liyanage’s current use has resulted in a change in his baseline mental state. Dr. Bhullar stated that it had not. When asked what might be the potential result of removing the prohibition against cannabis use from the Disposition, Dr. Bhullar stated that this could result in an increased use leading to cannabis use disorder. That creates the potential for Mr. Liyanage to experience psychosis. Cannabis is a disinhibitor and can result in elevated risk to the safety of the public.

29. In response to questions from Ms. Boissonneault, Dr. Bhullar agreed that in order for Mr. Liyanage to be able to travel to Sri Lanka as requested it must be part of his Disposition. Dr. Bhullar agreed with Ms. Boissonneault that it was not necessary that an individual produce an itinerary in advance, but testified that Mr. Liyanage was told it would be helpful to the hospital and to the Board if he were able to provide some idea of the kinds of support that would be available in Sri Lanka when requesting this amendment to the Disposition.

30. Neither Ms. MacDonald nor Ms. Boissonneault called evidence at the hearing.

Submissions

31. Mr. Dow reiterated the position taken at the outset of the hearing that the necessary and appropriate disposition is a continuation of the current Detention Order without amendment. With respect to the request to delete the prohibition against the use of cannabis, Mr. Dow referred to Dr. Bhullar’s evidence that an increase in the use of cannabis would likely result in an elevation in Mr. Liyanage’s risk to the safety of the community.

32. Ms. MacDonald opposed the deletion of the cannabis clause and the inclusion of the requested travel clause in the Disposition. She adopted the submissions of Mr. Dow. Miss MacDonald submitted that it was not just the treatment team that was opposed to Mr. Liyanage consuming cannabis but as set out in the Hospital Report, Mr. Liyanage’s family doctor also advised him against consumption. She submitted that Mr. Liyanage has very limited insight into the potential consequences of cannabis use in that he stated, “he was not concerned about cannabis use and its impact upon his physical or mental health.” With respect to the travel provision, Ms. MacDonald submitted that Mr. Liyanage has not taken any steps to facilitate the possibility of a trip of the kind requested. Ms. MacDonald said the hospital would have no way to effectively monitor Mr. Liyanage if he was on an extended trip. Ms. MacDonald said that in her submission it was premature to consider including this in the Disposition in the absence of further and better information about the proposed travel.

33. Ms. Boissonneault made extensive submissions at the conclusion of the evidence. At the outset she highlighted the progress which Mr. Liyanage has made over the past reporting year including his move into independent housing, his overnight visits to his parents and his ability to handle stressful situations at the group home. She also pointed to Mr. Liyanage arranging to have his long-acting injections from a family doctor. With respect to the proposed travel, Ms. Boissonneault stated that the intention is to visit family and that there is an “important cultural purpose” to the trip. She reminded the Board that Mr. Liyanage had been compliant with his antipsychotic medications for the past five years. She suggested that the current two-week schedule for the long-acting injection was not an insurmountable obstacle. Ms. Boissonneault urged the Board to put trust in the hospital in approving the itinerary when the hospital is satisfied that all of the necessary precautions and conditions have been met.

34. Ms. Boissonneault made reference to the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Davies (Re) 2022 ONCA 716 in support of the deletion of the cannabis clause. She submitted that the Board must carefully consider all of the evidence and find that there is positive evidence of risk flowing from cannabis use. Ms. Boissonneault stated that the Board could not speculate that cannabis use “could” cause a risk to the public. Ms. Boissonneault drew parallels between Mr. Liyanage’s situation and that in Davies. She submitted there was no evidence that cannabis use was risk enhancing and that there had been no violence over the past reporting year. Ms. Boissonneault submitted there were a number of protective factors including the Detention Order, supervision at the group home and the long-acting antipsychotic medication which Mr. Liyanage is currently receiving.

Analysis and Disposition

35. Both at the outset of the hearing and in closing submissions, the Board was presented with a joint submission with respect to the threshold issue of significant threat. The Board is unanimous in accepting the joint submission of the parties that Mr. Liyanage continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. As set out in the Hospital Report, Mr. Liyanage’s primary risk factors for re-offense include his major mental illness of schizophrenia, his substance use disorder, history of violence, and noncompliance with treatment. In the past, substance use has contributed to psychiatric decompensation with psychosis which has resulted in Mr. Liyanage engaging in serious aggressive behaviour, often targeting family members. As set out in the evidence of Dr. Bhullar, Mr. Liyanage’s participation in treatment and programming has been superficial and externally motivated. Only recently has he agreed to cognitive testing which will inform the treatment team as to a future treatment plan for Mr. Liyanage. According to Dr. Bhullar, even the agreement to participate in this testing was made solely to appease the treatment team. Mr. Liyanage has shown limited insight into the importance of programming. Mr. Liyanage has a history of substance use involving alcohol. His criminal record includes multiple convictions for impaired driving. Although Mr. Liyanage denies alcohol consumption, he has tested positive for ethyl alcohol on 13 occasions between March 14 and November 10, 2025.

36. The Board is unanimous in accepting the submissions of Ms. MacDonald with respect to the proposed inclusion of an international travel pass for up to 30 days in the Disposition. Mr. Liyanage first raised the possibility of seeking permission for international travel in April of 2025. At that time, the treatment team recommended that it would be helpful if Mr. Liyanage were to provide details with respect to the person or persons with whom he would travel, arrangements for medication compliance and contact with the hospital. Mr. Liyanage indicated that he understood and said he would look into arranging medical care in Sri Lanka. However, no active steps were taken to put any arrangements in order and Mr. Liyanage has not discussed it again since first raising the question with the treatment team. The Board acknowledges that the logistical obstacles are not insurmountable and that an international trip of this kind is possible. However, the Board does not accept Ms. Boissonneault’s submission that the requested term should be included in the Disposition and that the Board can “trust the hospital” to only approve an itinerary which includes the necessary safeguards. The paramount concern of the Board as set out in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code is the safety of the public. It is neither necessary nor appropriate for the Board to include the proposed term in the Disposition in the absence of any details to satisfy the Board that public safety is not compromised in an extended absence.

37. Ms. Boissonneault submitted that the substance abstinence term of the Disposition be amended to permit Mr. Liyanage to consume cannabis. In doing so, Ms. Boissonneault made extensive reference to the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Davies. In her submissions, Ms. Boissonneault stated that there were a number of parallels between Mr. Liyanage and Ms. Davies, the Appellant in Davies. The Board finds that there are also a number of significant differences between the two accused’s particular circumstances. Ms. Davies was not residing in the community; she had been originally on a Conditional Discharge but returned to reside in the hospital in 2018. She had remained in the hospital for the past four years. As set out in paragraph 20 of the Court’s decision in Davies, the evidence was that Ms. Davies’ placement in the community was not imminent. There was also evidence before the Court that the attending psychiatrist agreed that because she resided in the hospital the treatment team would have the ability to test, screen, and monitor Ms. Davies’ cannabis use and its effects. The doctor also agreed that in a hospital setting he could intervene if the Appellant’s cannabis use increased her risk of harm. The Court also noted that other patients in the facility had previously been granted the ability to consume cannabis. The Board finds that a similar level of monitoring is not possible with Mr. Liyanage, notwithstanding his ongoing contact with the FOS and his UDS and breathalyzer screening.

38. In Davies, the Court was dealing with a request by the Appellant to consume cannabis. Although Ms. Davies was diagnosed with both a cannabis use disorder and alcohol use disorder, there is no indication in the decision that alcohol was a factor or being consumed while she was in the hospital. Mr. Liyanage’s situation is markedly different. His diagnosis is one of alcohol use disorder, severe and unspecified other (or unknown) substance related disorder. Mr. Liyanage has a long history of the consumption of alcohol resulting in criminal convictions for impaired driving. He acknowledges that alcohol was a factor in the index offence. As set out in the Hospital Report, although Mr. Liyanage denies the consumption of alcohol, he has had 13 positive test results in the past reporting year. As set out on page 31 of the Hospital Report, Mr. Liyanage had 12 cases of positive urine ethyl alcohol tests in the reporting year 2024. The Board does note that there is some dispute as to the possibility of Mr. Liyanage’s diagnosis of diabetes being a factor in the positive alcohol test period. On page 32 of the Hospital Report, again from the reporting year 2024, it is noted that Mr. Liyanage tested positive for a cocaine metabolites on 13 occasions between February 23 and August 6, 2024. Mr. Liyanage denied using cocaine throughout the reporting period. Mr. Liyanage has acknowledged the use of cocaine in the past, including at a time proximal to the index offence. The Board finds that these facts differ from the situation in Davies.

39. Dr. Bhullar testified at length about the consumption of cannabis by Mr. Liyanage. Although not set out in the Hospital Report, Dr. Bhullar testified that Mr. Liyanage has identified cannabis as being consumed at the time of the index offence. At other times he has denied consumption before the index offence. As set out on page 32 of the Hospital Report, in the past Mr. Liyanage has stated he does not plan to use cannabis as his Disposition did not permit it. On the same page, Mr. Liyanage is quoted as saying more recently that he does not plan to use illicit substances because “he would become psychotic.” On page 37 of the report from the past reporting year, Mr. Liyanage acknowledges that both the treatment team and his family doctor have advised him against its use but that he plans to use cannabis “because it is up to me”. The report states that he acknowledges that he is not concerned that cannabis could potentially negatively impact his physical and/or mental health. He reports experiencing cravings, particularly when around friends who use cannabis. The report goes on to state that Mr. Liyanage stated that “cannabis helps with mental health, I don't feel depressed, I feel joyful and everything.” He stated he enjoys the “high” from cannabis and does not feel depressed. Although acknowledging daily use could lead to addiction, he expressed minimal concern.

40. The Board unanimously accepts the evidence of Dr. Bhullar that Mr. Liyanage has limited insight into cannabis use and its potential to compromise his mental health. On page 37 of the Hospital Report is the following paragraph:

“When informed that consistent and high-quantity use could negatively impact his mental health even with medication compliance, Mr. Liyanage stated that he understands this has been discussed on numerous occasions, but maintained that he would like to “use cannabis daily and see what happens,” explaining that since he has not experienced adverse effects, he would “like the opportunity to try it.”

The Board notes that allowing Mr. Liyanage to consume cannabis and to “see what happens” does not meet the duty of the Board to protect the safety of the public.

41. The Board has carefully reviewed the decision in Davies. The Board acknowledges that to date there have been no incidents of concern which could be attributed to the consumption of cannabis alone. However, the Board also notes that as Mr. Liyanage himself has said on a number of different occasions, his use of cannabis has been constrained by the prohibition in the Disposition. The Board accepts the evidence of Dr. Bhullar that this in no way is predictive of the results of more frequent use of greater quantities of cannabis in the future. The Board takes note of the caution expressed by the OCA in Davies at paragraph15 not to conflate the use of “substance” and the use of “cannabis”. The Board finds that given all the available evidence, the risk of “substance use” inextricably includes alcohol, cocaine, and cannabis. In considering all of the evidence of Dr. Bhullar and the full contents of the Hospital Report, the Board is unanimous in concluding that the cannabis prohibition continue.

DATED this 29th day of December 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.

Mr. G. Beasley Alternate Chairperson

Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board