Ontario Review Board
Re: Rashid Cali Mahamoud
ORB File No: 7527
Hearing held on: Wednesday, October 22, 2025
Place of Hearing: Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre
Pursuant to: Sections 672.81(1) and 672.48(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. P. Capelle
Members: Ms. J. Fuller
Dr. S. Lessard
Dr. G. Boulais
Mr. R. Rainboth
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Rashid Cali Mahamoud
Counsel: Ms. K. Macrae
Person in charge of hospital: Representative: Dr. F. Wood
Attorney-General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. M. Dufort
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated December 18, 2025)
On April 15, 2019, the accused, Rashid Cali Mahamoud, was found unfit to stand trial on account of mental disorder on a charge of sexual assault contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada. Mr. Mahamoud is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated September 4th, 2025, which detains him at the secure forensic unit of the hospital with privileges up to and including to live in the community in 24/7 supervised accommodation, as approved by the person in charge.
On October 22, 2025, the Ontario Review Board convened a hearing at the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre, hereinafter referred to as the hospital, to conduct Mr. Mahamoud’s annual review hearing. Mr. Mahamoud was present and was represented by his counsel, Ms. Kirstin Macrae. A Hospital Report dated October 7, 2025, was entered as Exhibit No. 1.
Preliminary Matters
- At the outset of the hearing Ms. Macrae asked for an appointment as counsel which the Board so ordered.
Without Prejudice Position of the Parties
- Dr. Wood, on behalf of the hospital, recommended a renewal of the current detention disposition absent any changes. That recommendation was joined by Ms. Dufort on behalf of the Attorney-General and Ms. Macrae, on behalf of Mr. Mahamoud. Ms. Macrae also conceded the ongoing presence of significant risk posed by her client.
Current Diagnoses
- Mr. Mahamoud’s current diagnoses are set out in the Hospital Report as follows:
Schizophrenia
Intellectual disability, moderate severity
Autism spectrum disorder
Cannabis use disorder, in a controlled environment
Alcohol use disorder, in a controlled environment
Index Offences
- The circumstances of the index offences have been extracted from the Hospital Report and are summarized as follows:
“The accused, Mr. Rashid Ali-Mahamoud and the victim, Ms. K.M. are not known to one another. They are both patients at the ROMHC. The accused is an inpatient residing on the schizophrenia unit. On September 12, 2018 at approximately 1:30pm the victim was standing outside of the main entrance to the ROMHC when the accused approached her. The victim did not know who the accused was personally but had recognized him from being on hospital grounds. The accused asked the victim if he could give her a hug which she agreed. While hugging the victim, the accused tightened his grip and began to suck on the victim’s neck while pressing his hips into the victim’s body. The accused would not let the victim go as she continued to tell the accused “No” and attempt to push him away. Ms. Sharon Brown, a Developmental Service Worker with the Royal Ottawa Hospital noticed the victim trying to push the accused away and came over to assist. The accused backed off and walked away.
Ottawa Police were called as a result of the incident. The accused was arrested and charged with one count of sexual assault by Constable Sinclair, who released the accused on a promise to appear with an Undertaking. Detective Lehman re-arrested the accused on October 29, 2018 and he was re-issued a new Promise to Appear and Undertaking. It was clear the accused did not understand his Rights to Counsel, caution, or consequences to the allegations he faced.”
Evidence at the Hearing
Exhibit No. 1, the Hospital Report provides a great deal of information concerning Mr. Mahamoud’s personal history, mental health history as well as his course in hospital and in the community both prior to and after the index offences. As the Hospital Report was made an Exhibit, it is unnecessary to reproduce the information contained therein in these Reasons.
Dr. Wood advised that Mr. Mahamoud remains on the Forensic Assessment Unit (“FAU”). The only update since the writing of the Hospital Report is that Mr. Mahamoud’s case was presented to the community prioritization care committee and Karis Disability Services have identified themselves as a potential placement. Social Worker, Ms. Mclean, is in touch with that Agency who advised in late September that they may be able to offer funding.
In response to questions from Ms. Dufort, Dr. Wood advised that Mr. Mahamoud has been approved for passport funding but is unaware how these monies are being utilized.
Mr. Mahamoud spends most of his days on the FAU unit alone in his room but will engage with the multi-disciplinary who ensure he is not continually isolated. Mr. Mahamoud struggles with focus and concentration. He now declines to participate in groups proposed to him and previously had limited group participation.
Mr. Mahmoud does not currently have any approved persons. No family members have come forward in this regard. He has limited contact with community supports.
Reference was made to page 93 of the Hospital Report wherein it is stated:
“Mr. Mahamoud is on the waitlist with ICSS for a community engagement worker to start visiting him. This will ideally start prior to discharge so that Mr. Mahamoud has time to build a rapport with the worker. Mr. Mahamoud is followed by FACTDD but his file is on hold until he is discharged.”
Responding to questions from Ms. Macrae, Dr. Wood agreed that since July 20th, 2024, when Mr. Mahamoud was admitted to the Queensway-Carleton Hospital, there have been no incidents of violence or sexually inappropriate actions. Previous incidents were tied to substance use.
Mr., Mahamoud accepts his intramuscular injection but has preferences regarding who administers the needle.
Before consideration can be given to a conditional discharge it would be essential to monitor how he does in the community, and he would need to develop a relationship with an ACT Team for dual diagnosis patients.
Mr. Mahamoud’s community placement remains in a holding pattern as appropriate housing continues to be elusive. The FAU remains the most appropriate in-hospital setting for him due to previous elopements from group homes and subsequent events.
No other evidence was presented.
Closing Observations
Dr. Wood advise that the hospital was hoping for more positive news vis-à-vis potential placement for Mr. Mahamoud. He added that there has been some movement since the August 27th, 2025, Ontario Review Board hearing and expressed hope that this momentum towards community placement will continue.
Ms. Dufort agreed that Mr. Mahamoud remains unfit and reiterated her support of the hospital recommendation adding that she is hopeful that further funding will assist Mr. Mahamoud’s community placement.
Ms. Macrae reiterated her agreement with the hospital presentation and recommendation.
Analysis and Decision
(a) Fitness
- Earlier this year, the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in R. Bharwani, 2025 SCC 26, which provides the definitive interpretation of the definition of “unfit to stand trial” within the Criminal Code as well as the application of the “fitness test”. The definition and application are reproduced below:
… an accused is fit to stand trial when they are able to make and communicate reality-based decisions in the conduct of their defence or instruct counsel to do so. Conducting a defence includes making decisions that an accused must always make personally and those which relate to the exercise of their right to full answer and defence, such as decisions about pleas, the mode of trial, selection of counsel, whether to testify, whether to call or cross-examine witnesses, and closing submissions, among others. The capacity required to make those decisions is a reality-based understanding of the nature or object of the proceedings and their possible consequences, an ability to understand the available options and their consequences, and an ability to select between those options when making decisions. Fitness to stand trial does not require an accused to make decisions in their best interests. Rather, it requires making decisions based on an understanding of reality that is not overwhelmed by delusions, hallucinations, or other symptoms of their mental disorder. Transient mental health symptoms do not necessarily compromise an accused’s ability to conduct a defence. The focus is always on assessing the extent to which an accused’s mental disorder impairs their understanding of reality when making and communicating decisions in their defence.
- As set out in testimony as well as in the hospital report Mr. Mahamoudremains unfit to stand trial due to his intellectual disability of moderate severity. The Opinion regarding Fitness to Stand Trial at page 95 of the Hospital Report states:
Mr. Mahamoud continues to be unable to understand the nature and object of the proceedings, unable to understand to possible consequences of the proceedings, and unable to communicate with counsel.
- The Hospital Report indicates that Mr. Mohamoud’s fitness to stand trial was assessed on two occasions from August 2025 until the date of this hearing. Two excerpts from page 95 of the Hospital Report merit reproduction:
Despite education, he continued to state that he was longer facing any charges and that he was in hospital to find a place to stay.
Mr. Mahamoud remained confused about the concepts related to the possible consequences of court proceedings for a person who was charged with sexual assault. He made irrelevant statements, most of which were focused on either food or cigarettes.
Given the foregoing, this panel unanimously determines that Mr. Mahamoud has no reality-based understanding of the nature of court proceedings and is therefore unfit to stand trial.
(b) Significant Threat
Ongoing significant threat to the safety of the public cannot be speculative. It must entail a real risk of serious physical or psychological harm arising from conduct that is both serious and criminal in nature.
In determining whether Mr. Mahamoud continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public the Board has carefully analyzed the evidence as it relates to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Winko, 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625.
The Board unanimously finds that Mr. Mahamoud continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public. In arriving at this determination, the Board considered the joint position of the parties and accepted the uncontroverted evidence of Dr. Wood that Mr. Mahamoud represents a significant threat. In arriving at this finding Board also accepted the following excerpt from page 97 of the Hospital Report:
His mental state will most likely decompensate, similar to the events leading up to the current hospitalization, if he is not in a 24/7 supervised housing with staff that understand his behaviours and boundaries.
(b) Disposition
Flowing from the Board’s finding that Mr. Mahamoud continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public it must shape a Disposition for the year ahead. Its paramount consideration in doing so must be the safety of the public while also considering Mr. Mahamoud’s needs pursuant to s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
The necessary and appropriate disposition for Mr. Mahamoud provides him as much freedom as possible without subjecting the community to a real risk of dangerous behaviour.
In considering Mr. Mahamoud’s needs, the Board was pleased to learn that since July of 2024 no incidents of sexually inappropriate behaviours or violence have been reported. There is recent optimism for a community placement as Karis Disability Services, has been identified as a potential community placement agency with funding resources. Mr. Mahamoud is also on a waitlist for a community engagement worker through Innovative Community Support Services (ICSS).
A Detention Order remains necessary and appropriate at this juncture as Mr. Mahamoud has not yet been tested in the community. Therefore, the Hospital will continue to require the ability to approve Mr. Mohamoud’s housing given his history of elopements as well as the ability to return him expeditiously to the ROMHC in the event his mental state begins to decompensate.
Conclusion
Therefore, the Board unanimously determines that the necessary and appropriate Disposition required to manage the threat Mr. Mahamoud poses to the safety of the public while still meeting his needs, is a Detention Disposition.
In making this Disposition, the Board considered the joint position and submissions of the parties and the evidence of Dr. Wood and is satisfied that this determination is both necessary and appropriate. The Board reviewed the provisions of s. 672.54 of the
Criminal Code and considered the need to protect the public from dangerous persons, Mr. Mahamoud’s mental condition, his reintegration into society and other needs.
DATED this 18th day of December 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Mr. P. Capelle Legal Member
___________________
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board