Ontario Review Board
Re: Marcus Matamba
ORB File No: 7683
Hearing held on: Tuesday, October 21, 2025
Place of Hearing: Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre
Pursuant to: Sections 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. P. Capelle
Members: Dr. S. Lessard
Dr. G. Boulais
Ms. M. Labrosse
Mr. R. Rainboth
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Marcus Matamba
Counsel: Ms. M. Lord
Person in charge of hospital: Representative: Dr M. Strike
Attorney-General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. M. Dufort
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated December 5, 2025)
Introduction
On January 23, 2020, Marcus Matamba, was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on charges of indecent acts (x2) contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada.
Mr. Matamba is currently subject to an Ontario Review Board (“ORB”) disposition dated October 3, 2024, which detains him at the Secure Forensic Unit of the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre with privileges up to and including to live in the community in 24 hours per day supervised accommodation approved by the person in charge.
On October 21,2025, the ORB convened a hearing at the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre, hereinafter referred to as the hospital, to conduct the annual review of Mr. Matamba’s disposition pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Matamba attended his hearing and was represented by his counsel, Ms. Melanie Lord.
An updated hospital report dated September 18, 2025, was entered as Exhibit No. 1 for the hearing. A letter dated March 17, 2025, from the hospital to the ORB notifying it that Mr. Matamba had been transferred from the Forensic Rehabilitation Unit (“FRU”) to the Forensic Assessment Unit (“FAU”) with no resulting change in privileges was also filed as an Exhibit for the hearing, as was the responding letter from the ORB.
The issues for this hearing are whether Mr. Matamba continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and, if so, to determine the disposition that is necessary and appropriate in the circumstances.
Positions of the Parties
At the outset, the parties were canvassed as to their initial positions for the hearing. The hospital recommends the maintenance of the current disposition with the addition of the new condition 2(f) permitting Mr. Matamba to enter the community accompanied by staff or an approved person. The hospital is also recommending the addition of a clause that permits Mr. Matamba to use cannabis, but only with the prior written approval of his treatment team.
Counsel for the Attorney General, Ms. Dufort, anticipated agreement with the hospital recommendation but reserved in order to ask questions about the change related to cannabis use.
Counsel for Mr. Matamba, Ms. Lord, indicated her agreement with the hospital’s preliminary position.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the Board was presented with a joint submission on the issue of significant threat to the safety of the public and with respect to the necessary and appropriate disposition.
Findings of the Board
- For the reasons set out below, the Board finds that Mr. Matamba continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the maintenance of the current Disposition, namely a detention order on the terms and conditions, as amended above, remains the necessary and appropriate and least onerous and least restrictive disposition to manage his risk at this time.
Index Offences
- The circumstances are described in the hospital report and in last year’s Reasons for Disposition as follows:
“On or about the 23rd day of September in the year 2019 at the City of Ottawa did willfully commit an indecent act in a public place, namely a McDonalds restaurant, where he was observed masturbating himself in the presence of one or more persons, contrary to Section 173 (1) of the Criminal Code of Canada. On or about the 12th day of November in the year 2019 at the City of Ottawa did willfully commit an indecent act in a public place, namely McKenzie Building, Carleton University, by masturbating himself in the presence of one or more persons, contrary to Section 173 (1) of the Criminal Code of Canada.
On or about the 12th day of November in the year 2019 at the City of Ottawa did, while bound by a probation order made by the Ontario Court of Justice on 24 January 2019, without reasonable excuse, failed to comply with such order, namely “ne pas vous rendre aux campus de l’Université d’Ottawa et de l’Université Carleton.”
Background History
Mr. Matamba’s personal, legal, and psychiatric history is set out in detail in the hospital report. Briefly summarized, Mr. Matamba is 26 years of age and was born in Congo. He lived in Niger with his family for approximately 10 years. His father died when he was very young. Mr. Matamba came to Canada with his mother and sister in 2011.
Mr. Matamba completed his high school education in Gatineau, Quebec in 2014. He had a problem with absenteeism and drugs. He has a limited employment history and has done small jobs including with Reliance Technology Services for a year and a half.
The hospital report describes a long history of extensive substance use, starting at the age of 16. Mr. Matamba would consume marijuana, ecstasy, molly (hallucinogens), and speed (amphetamines). He has admitted having used virtually every kind of illicit substance, other than injectables. He has also reported having sold drugs to earn extra cash. Mr. Matamba would also consume large amounts of strong alcohol, at times drinking 40 ounces of hard liquor in one sitting several times a week.
For about two years prior to the index offences, Mr. Matamba reports having had no permanent home and was living a homeless existence. He described having very little contact, if any, with his family.
Criminal History
Mr. Matamba was found guilty of assault and threats in March 2015 in Youth Court and sentenced to 12 months’ probation. In August 2017, he was found guilty of threats. His sentence was suspended, and a further year of probation ordered. In February 2018, he was found guilty of assault, fail to appear and theft under(x2), resist arrest, and breach of undertaking. Once more, his sentence was suspended, and 12 months’ probation ordered. Two weeks later, he was found guilty of fail to appear, theft under and ordered to pay a $250 fine, with a year of probation. In March 2018, he was found guilty of fail to appear(x6) and sentenced to 79 days’ custody. In April 2018, he was found guilty of breaches and sentenced to 30 days’ jail. In August 2018, he was found guilty of theft under, fail to appear and sentenced to ten days.
In January 2019, Mr. Matamba was found guilty of theft under(x2), fail to appear and sentenced to 12 months’ probation. In March 2019, he was found guilty of theft under(x5), breach of probation, assault, and sentenced to 79 days jail. In July 2019, he was found guilty of indecent acts (x2) and sentenced to 45 days jail and one-year probation.
Psychiatric History
In October 2017, Mr. Matamba was brought to the Gatineau Hospital in a disorganized state. He was admitted involuntarily and told the doctor he had been using cannabis.
In January 2018, Mr. Matamba was hospitalized at the Montfort Hospital in Ottawa. Police had found him in the street in an agitated state. He was talking about seeing images of planets and lightning and talking about Zeus. Mr. Matamba’s thinking was disorganized but, while laughing for no reason, but otherwise denied any other delusion or hallucination. Urine drug screens tested positive for amphetamines, methamphetamines, and cannabis. His symptoms resolved in a day. The psychiatrist discharged Mr. Matamba with a diagnosis of psychosis, brought on by stimulants, with antisocial personality traits.
In late January 2019, Mr. Matamba was again seen at the Gatineau Hospital on an urgent psychiatric consultation. He was showing signs of paranoid psychosis. Mr. Matamba described having used cannabis. Police had brought him to the hospital finding him to be agitated and disorganized in the street. He was also threatening, to the point where the psychiatrist stopped their meeting. Once at the ROMHC, it was obvious that he did not understand he had been already found not criminally responsible. He believed that he was still able to plead guilty and was only in the hospital for another assessment. Mr. Matamba was encouraged to consult a lawyer to sort out his legal situation.
During Mr. Matamba’s first weeks as an inpatient, his behaviours were hard to assess. Staff could not tell if he was experiencing hallucinations or had delusional beliefs. He had disputes with co-patients, was irritable, and physically aggressive with staff. On February 22, 2020, a code white was called. When staff brought him to his room, he punched one with a closed fist and tried to strangle the other. He bit and scratched at team members and was administered a chemical restraint.
The hospital neuropsychologist, Ms. Marcil, assessed Mr. Matamba’s cognitive abilities. His overall intellectual function was found to be extremely weak. Skills associated with communication, community access, academic functioning, recreation, personal care, self-direction, and social skills were in the borderline range. He also showed a weak level of skills in terms of the ability to live independently and for personal health and safety. Mr. Matamba met two of the three criteria for a mild intellectual development disorder.
Mr. Matamba’s current diagnoses are:
Mild Intellectual Disability
Schizophrenia
Substance Use Disorder: Cannabis, Alcohol, Stimulants, and Opioids, in a controlled environment
Antisocial Personality Disorder
Evidence at the Hearing
The hospital’s evidence was presented through its report as well as through the oral testimony of Dr. Melanie Strike. This evidence is summarized below.
During the reporting year, Mr. Matamba remained an inpatient at the hospital until July 10, 2025, when he was discharged to a supervised group home managed by AISO (Association pour l’intégration sociale d’Ottawa) which offers services to people with intellectual disabilities.
Mr. Matamba spent most of the year on the FAU of the hospital, but for a brief period when he was transferred to the FRU, only to be brought back to the FAU.
During his admission to hospital Mr. Matamba continued to improve and did not present any signs of physical aggression or sexual inappropriateness and his mental stability was maintained without any evidence of psychotic symptoms.
While in hospital, Mr. Matamba was prescribed Vyvanse and Suboxone, which doses were increased during the year in order to help Mr. Matamba abstain from consuming illicit drugs. Vyvanse is prescribed to Mr. Matamba for his attention deficit disorder to help him abstain from using stimulants that can otherwise cause him to experience psychotic symptoms.
Mr. Matamba has demonstrated good engagement towards his treatment for substances. He works both with the members of the Forensic Services of the hospital and also has a case worker at Le Cap which offers services for people with concurrent disorders. Mr. Matamba has been working on strategies to abstain from substance use; however, he continues to use cannabis. His most recent THC levels confirm a reduction in the quantities that that he is using. Cannabis use is currently prohibited by the terms of Mr. Matamba’s disposition. Mr. Matamba has disclosed that he purchases cannabis in a regulated cannabis store. He claims that using cannabis, in moderate doses, will assist him in abstaining from the use of other substances such as stimulants.
Since being discharged to the supervised group home, Mr. Matamba has been doing relatively well. There have been a few incidents following his discharge, but these have been managed well with the assistance of the treatment team and the residence staff.
Dr. Strike explained that the treatment team is being very open and transparent with Mr. Matamba regarding a plan to allow him to use cannabis in a controlled manner. Dr. Strike added that cannabis does not appear to negatively impact Mr. Matamba’s illness and that continued compliance with antipsychotic medications is the key to managing his risk.
Dr. Strike stated that communication between the treatment team and the housing staff is quite good.
AISO insists that its residents strictly follow the terms of their ORB dispositions or court orders. Accordingly, the hospital is asking to include an exemption for cannabis use in Mr. Matamba’s disposition, as they believe that this is a better way of managing risk and ensuing the stability of his accommodation where he benefits from having a high level of supervision. The hospital agrees to permit Mr. Matamba to use cannabis so long as it is not impacting his mental condition. The plan is to include this in his behavioural plan such as what has been done in relation to the taking of Vyvanse.
In response to questions posed to her by counsel for the Attorney-General, Ms. Dufort, Dr. Strike responded as follows:
(a) Mr. Matamba is currently meeting with his addiction counsellors both at the hospital and with Le Cap on a weekly basis.
(b) The hospital is adopting a harm-reduction approach with Mr. Matamba as they have determined this to be the better way to manage his risk and to curb his substance-seeking behaviour.
(c) With respect to the Vyvanse and Suboxone prescriptions, the strategy that the hospital is adopting is somewhat “off label” as both medications help to control Mr. Matamba’s substance-seeking behaviours. Mr. Matamba complains that Suboxone makes him drowsy, but he has been educated that he must take it in order to be able to continue taking Vyvanse.
(d) The use of cannabis to be incorporated in the behavioural plan. The plan will specify that cannabis can only be obtained through an approved dispensary. To date, there have been no details confirmed yet about the kind of cannabis product or the level of THC. The hospital plans to work on specifying those details.
(e) Mr. Matamba will be forced to consume cannabis off the property of his residence as there is a strict prohibition against drug use at that residence. Dr. Strike acknowledged that the details have yet to be worked out, including how to ensure that he is not consuming with other co-residents and how to regulate the quantity of cannabis that he is allowed to use. Dr. Strike confirmed that all of this will be in writing in the behavioural plan.
- In response to questions posed to her by members of the hearing panel, Dr. Strike responded as follows:
(a) The treatment team is not concerned that cannabis will be a gateway drug that will encourage Mr. Matamba to use further substances. On the contrary, this is intended as a harm-reduction approach to limit Mr. Matamba’s drug-seeking behaviours and use of other substances.
(b) The plan aims to help him maintain his current accommodation, which is considered highly protective for Mr. Matamba. If he loses that accommodation, Mr. Matamba will end up having to be placed in a regular group home in the community where substances abound.
(c) Dr. Strike emphasized that the plan to allow Mr. Matamba to use cannabis will not happen unless all the pieces are in place.
(d) Dr. Strike agreed that the disposition should reference the person in charge rather than the treating psychiatrist with respect to the cannabis provision.
(e) Dr. Strike confirmed that the substance use disorder involving opioids has been removed from Mr. Matamba’s diagnosis this year, as it is in sustained remission and no longer meets the criteria under the DSM-V.
(f) Dr. Strike confirmed that Mr. Matamba is required to take both Vyvanse and Suboxone as a further harm reduction strategy and that he is required to take both or none at all.
(g) Mr. Matamba’s urine drug screens have been negative for cannabis since September 3, 2025, however the hospital is convinced that Mr. Matamba will resume using cannabis and that this will lead to him losing his accommodation as he is very likely unable to abstain in the long term.
- No other evidence was presented.
Final Submissions of the Parties
At the conclusion of the hearing, the Board was presented with a joint submission of all parties that Mr. Matamba continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public and that a detention order remains the necessary and appropriate disposition.
The parties were ad idem with the changes being sought to the disposition which includes the change to condition 2(f) regarding access to the community to include an approved person and also to remove the prohibition on cannabis use but specifically require that it must be pursuant to the written permission of the person in charge. Dr. Strike emphasized that the hospital will not allow for this harm reduction approach unless all the necessary pieces are in place. This approach is based on the fact that there is no evidence that Mr. Matamba’s violence risk is impacted by the use of cannabis and also that the hospital believes that this is an important harm reduction approach to help preserve Mr. Matamba’s current accommodation in the community.
Counsel for the Attorney General, Ms. Dufort, indicated that after hearing the evidence she is supporting the hospital’s recommendation.
Counsel for Mr. Matamba, Ms. Lord, also indicated her support of the hospital position emphasizing that Mr. Matamba has only recently been discharged from the hospital and that he is working diligently to demonstrate his ability to follow the rules and that he has made significant progress in the past year.
Analysis and Conclusion
Having considered all of the evidence tendered at the hearing, and the joint submission of the parties, the Board finds that Mr. Matamba continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public as defined in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code of Canada, and as further defined in Winko v. British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute), 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625.
According to R. v. Winko, a ‘significant threat to the safety of the public’ means a real risk of physical or psychological harm to members of the public that is serious in the sense of going beyond the merely trivial or annoying. The conduct giving rise to the harm must be criminal in nature.
Our finding that Mr. Matamba continues to meet the threshold of significant threat to the safety of the public is based on the evidence presented which persuades us that without an ORB disposition, and the intensive support and supervision of the hospital, Mr. Matamba would resume using stimulants, disengage from treatment and experience a severe decompensation of his illness, leading to further criminal offending. This was the pattern for several years leading up to the index offences.
In addition to suffering from schizophrenia, Mr. Matamba has a mild intellectual disability, and a severe substance use disorder. He also had a long history of criminal offending and a diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder.
Mr. Matamba recently moved to a residence with specialized supports for individuals with cognitive disabilities. He appears very well supported in this residence and the hospital wants to ensure that he does not lose his place.
The evidence establishes that there is no correlation between cannabis use and the worsening of Mr. Matamba’s psychotic disorder. At this time, the hospital treatment team has determined that the best way to try to manage Mr. Matamba’s substance use issues is by adopting a harm-reduction approach by allowing him to use cannabis in a controlled manner. This is intended to help him abstain from stimulants, which severely impact his illness and would most likely result in Mr. Matamba losing his placement in the specialized supervised group home where he currently resides.
Mr. Matamba has been abstinent from cannabis for the last seven weeks; however, the hospital does not believe this is sustainable in the long term.
Though we express some reservation with the joint submission that has been presented in this hearing, we must give due consideration to the fact that the evidence is not suggestive of a link between Mr. Matamba’s use of cannabis and his risk to the safety of others. Though he has been abstinent for the last seven weeks due to the fact that he would otherwise lose his housing, Mr. Matamba has been using cannabis, in contravention of his disposition, without any corresponding decompensation of his illness. His compliance with his long-acting injectable medication is a protective factor, as is the significant structure and supervision in place to manage him in the community.
The Ontario Court of Appeal decisions in Re Davies, 2022 ONCA 716 and Re Jakaj, 2024 ONCA 490 both stand for the principle that there must be some link in the evidence, when dealing with the threshold issue and even at the stage of disposition, between the identified concern and the risk to be managed. The evidence before us establishes no such correlation.
The hospital’s plan of using a harm-reduction approach to manage Mr. Matamba’s stimulant use disorder by allowing him to use cannabis may therefore be put to the test over the next year, provided that all the safeguards are in place, as intended.
Having considered the four factors set out in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code, namely the protection of the public, which is the paramount consideration, the mental condition of the accused, his reintegration into society and his other needs, the Board finds that the necessary and appropriate, and the least onerous and least restrictive disposition is a continuation of the current detention order with the following changes:
2(e) permission to enter the community accompanied by staff or an approved person;
2(f) permission to enter the community of Ottawa indirectly supervised or accompanied by staff or an approved person.
4(a) Abstain absolutely from alcohol and other intoxicants, except cannabis (THC) with the prior written approval of the person in charge of the hospital and the consent of the residence in accordance with the terms pre-determined by the treatment team.
DATED this 5th day of December 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Ms. M. Labrosse
Legal Member
___________________
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board