Ontario Review Board
Re: Ahmed Ahmed
ORB File No: 7942
Hearing held on: Thursday, April 10, 2025
Place of Hearing: Brockville Mental Health Centre
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. P. Capelle Members: Dr. S. Hucker Dr. S. Wiseman Ms. M. Chamberlain Mr. A. Mete
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Ahmed Ahmed Counsel: Ms. C. Richards
Person in charge of hospital: Representative: Dr. E. Carefoot
Attorney-General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. J. Wright
Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care Counsel: Ms. J. Lefebvre
REASONS FOR DECISION
(Dated May 27, 2025)
Introduction
On September 10, 2021, the accused, Mr. Ahmed Ahmed, was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on charges that he exposed his genitals to a person under 16 years of age for a sexual purpose; that he caused a disturbance by fighting/shouting/swearing(x2), that he failed to comply with an undertaking, and that he committed an assault with a weapon or imitation weapon, all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada. Mr. Ahmed is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated August 27th, 2024 detaining him at the secure forensic unit of the Brockville Mental Health Centre (“Brockville” or the “Hospital”) with privileges up to and including to live in the community in accommodation approved by the person in charge.
By letter dated March 11th, 2025, the Brockville Mental Health Centre notified the Ontario Review Board that Mr. Ahmed was housed in a locked seclusion room for safety concerns related to assaults on a peer and staff for a period of greater than 7 days. He was first moved to locked seclusion on the afternoon of March 2nd, 2025 and remained in seclusion until March 19, 2025.
The only issue for this hearing was whether the restriction of Mr. Ahmed’s liberty by being transferred to seclusion was warranted and reasonable in the circumstances.
At the commencement of the hearing, counsel for the Hospital submitted that the restriction on Mr. Ahmed’s liberty was necessary and appropriate, and the least onerous and least restrictive measure on March 2, 2025, at the time it was imposed, and continued to be so until March 19, 2025 when it was suspended. Counsel for the Attorney General agreed with the Hospital’s submission. Counsel for Mr. Ahmed took no position.
For the reasons set out below, the Board finds that the decision of the hospital to significantly increase the restriction of Mr. Ahmed’s liberty by secluding him was reasonable and warranted and represented the least onerous and least restrictive decision available to the hospital in the circumstances.
As the only issue before the Board was the restriction of Mr. Ahmed’s liberty, there is no need to repeat the details regarding the index offences as well as regarding Mr. Ahmed’s personal, criminal, and psychiatric history as these are set out in full in the Reasons for Disposition dated October 15th, 2024.
Evidence at the Hearing:
- The Board received documentary evidence in the form of a Hospital Report dated March 27th, 2025 as well as Mr. Ahmed’s Groups (4 pages) received by the ORB on April 8th, 2025. The Board also heard viva voce testimony from Dr. Carefoot, Mr. Ahmed’s treating psychiatrist.
Restriction of Liberty:
- Mr. Ahmed’s restriction of liberty is described in the Hospital reports as follows:
“Mr. Ahmed assaulted a peer on March 2nd and then assaulted staff members and uttered threats to harm others on May 5, 2025. These actions did not appear to be the result of a decompensation of a psychotic disorder or major mood disorder, nor were they related to substance use. Rather, they appeared to be related to elements of antisocial personality disorder. The treatment team did increase Mr. Ahmed’s time out of seclusion slowly in an attempt to avoid further escalating behaviors and the restriction was lifted on March 17th, 2025.”
Testimony of Dr. Carefoot
Dr. Carefoot informed the Board that Mr. Ahmed transferred to Brockville in October 2024 and that she has been his treating doctor since this time. The doctor noted that there had been behavioural concerns with Mr. Ahmed since he arrived at the Hospital.
On March 2, 2025, Mr. Ahmed was observed on camera to grab a co-patient, shake him and swing at him in an attempt to hit him. When staff attended, Mr. Ahmed made threatening statements to them and refused to go to the seclusion room when asked. Security was required to attend the unit and take Mr. Ahmed to seclusion.
Mr. Ahmed’s seclusion was reviewed daily. After seven days of seclusion, the clinical director reviewed the seclusion and after 14 days the seclusion was reviewed by the associate chief of the program and notice was given to the Vice President of the hospital.
When Mr. Ahmed was assessed on March 3rd and he continued to present as angry and irritable. On March 4th he was assessed again and was calmer. Mr. Ahmed’s seclusion relief was increased for an additional hour and to allow him to shower or make calls.
On March 5th Mr. Ahmed’s seclusion relief was increased to two hours. Mr. Ahmed became frustrated that he remained in seclusion and he made threatening comments towards two staff and threw feces on them. Police attended the unit and charged Mr. Ahmed with two counts of assault with a weapon and two counts of uttering threats. As a result, Mr. Ahmed’s seclusion relief was reduced.
On March 7th Mr. Ahmed was allowed to leave his room to take a shower. On March 8th his seclusion relief was increased to allow for an additional hour and on March 10th it was increased again to two hours. On March 12th Mr. Ahmed was allowed out of seclusion to take a shower, make phone calls and eat his meals as well as two additional hours on the unit. On March 17th Mr. Ahmed was moved from seclusion to a quiet room where the door was locked overnight and his seclusion was officially discontinued on March 19th.
Dr. Carefoot stated that the there have been no seclusions since March 19th however, there have been significant behavioural issues. The doctor explained that Mr. Ahmed has not required seclusion since March 19th partly due to his behaviours being less concerning and partly due to the fact that the staff have developed better strategies to manage Mr. Ahmed.
Mr. Ahmed can be irritable and intimidating towards the hospital staff but seems to have a good relationship with Dr. Carefoot.
Closing Submissions:
At the conclusion of the hearing Counsel for Mr. Ahmed stated that her client was in agreement that the seclusion was required on March 2nd; however; felt it was no longer necessary and appropriate as of March 12th.
Counsel for the Hospital continued to take the position that the restriction of Mr. Ahmed’s liberty was the least onerous and least restrictive measure for the entire period between March 2nd and March 19th, 2025. The Hospital made efforts to increase Mr. Ahmed’s time out of seclusion and has made successful efforts to avoid further periods of seclusion since its conclusion. Counsel for the Crown agreed with the hospital and noted that the Board is not meant to micromanage each decision made by the hospital during the period of seclusion. Mr. Wright submitted that the restriction of liberty was justified and necessary on March 2nd, there was an increase in Mr. Ahmed’s liberty over time, and it remained appropriate until Mr. Ahmed was released from seclusion on March 19th.
The Law
The analytical framework established by Campbell (Re), 2018 ONCA requires the Board to consider the liberty norm and the liberty status of an accused on a restriction. The liberty norm and liberty status for each restriction must be examined to determine the significance of the increase (if any) on the restriction of an accused’s liberty caused by the restriction. In determining the liberty norm of an accused at the outset of each period of restriction, the Board must “take a contextual approach, one that considers the individual’s pattern of liberty in the recent past.” ((Re) Campbell, para. 66). The liberty she/he was actually experiencing (rather than what she/he was entitled to) at the time of the increase is what the Board is to consider, and that “liberty must be of sufficient duration to have become, objectively speaking, the NCR accused’s norm” ((Re) Campbell, para. 65).
The test to be applied to significant increases in the restriction of liberty is the same as is required for dispositions- whether the significant increase is necessary and appropriate to protect the safety of the public.
Analysis and Conclusion
Prior to his seclusion, Mr. Ahmed had been residing in the general population since his transfer to Brockville on October 7, 2024. He was able to be in his room or in the open areas of his unit at his discretion. Mr. Ahmad was able to go to the secure yard daily and attended a computer group a few times each week. Once in seclusion, Mr. Ahmed did not have the ability to leave the seclusion room unless seclusion relief was offered to him and only then in the company of the seclusion relief staff. The Board finds that the inability to leave the seclusion room at will represents a significant increase in the restrictions on Mr. Ahmed’s liberty.
The Board further finds that, the unprovoked assault on a co-patient by Mr. Ahmad was serious and given Mr. Ahmed’s history of violence and impulsivity it was necessaary to seclude him from the general population to ensure the safety of both co-patients and staff. For these reasons, the Board finds that the significant restriction on Mr. Ahmed’s liberty was necessary and appropriate at the time it was imposed.
Mr. Ahmed’s seclusion was reviewed daily by the duty doctor and reviewed by the clinical director after seven days and the chief of the program after fourteen days. While in seclusion, Mr. Ahmed was offered seclusion relief regularly and at increasing levels. As such, the Board finds that the Hospital was aware of its responsibility to impose the least restrictive conditions upon a patient, consistent with public safety, and managed the seclusion appropriately.
For these reasons, the Board finds that the significant increase in the restriction of Mr. Ahmed’s liberty was necessary and appropriate and the least onerous and least restrictive at the time it was imposed and continued to be so until its conclusion on March 19th.
DATED this 27th day of May, 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Ms. M. Chamberlain Legal Member
__________________
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board