Re: Ezana Berhane, 2025 CanLII 78514

Ontario Review Board

Re: Ezana Berhane

ORB File No: 8053

Hearing held on: Thursday, June 19, 2025

Place of Hearing: Brockville Mental Health Centre

Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code

Before:

Alternate Chairperson: Mr. G. Beasley

Members: Dr. G. Eayrs

Dr. Y. Alatishe

Mr. M.D. Segal

Ms. R. MacIntyre

Parties Appearing:

Accused: Ezana Berhane

Counsel: Mr. N. Fakih

Person in charge of hospital: Representative: Dr. S. Alabi

Attorney-General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. C. Breault

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated August 7, 2025)

Introduction

1. On April 6, 2022 Ezana Berhane was found not criminally responsible on charges of criminal harassment, failing to appear for court and failing to comply with a recognizance (x2), contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada. Mr. Berhane is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board (ORB) dated July 4th, 2024 and an order amending that Disposition dated July 30th, 2024, which Disposition discharges him on certain terms and conditions.

2. On June 19th, 2025, the Ontario Review Board convened at the Brockville Mental Health Centre, hereinafter referred to as the Hospital, to conduct Mr. Berhane’s annual review hearing. Mr. Berhane was present and was represented by his counsel Nader Fakih. Dr. Alabi appeared as the representative of the Hospital and Ms. Breault as counsel for the Attorney-General of Ontario.

3. The issues for this hearing are whether Mr. Berhane represents a significant threat to the safety of the public and, if so, to determine the disposition that is necessary and appropriate in the circumstances.

4. For the reasons set out below, the Board finds that Mr. Berhane no longer represents a significant threat to the safety of the public and is therefore to be absolutely discharged.

Index Offences

5. The allegations giving rise to the charges on the index offences are summarized in last year’s Reasons for Disposition as follows:

“On April 21, 2021, he was charged with criminal harassment involving his former supervisor Ms. Grainger. Between February 2020 and April 2021, he had repeatedly contacted her, primarily through email, notwithstanding repeated requests by her that he stop. He contacted Ms. Grainger ten times even after being told to stop by the Ottawa Police. Following his arrest, he was released with conditions that he not contact or communicate with her in any way either directly or indirectly. On May 28, 2021 he was charged with failing to comply with his release conditions after he repeatedly emailed Ms. Grainger. On July 7, 2021 he was charged again with failing to comply as a result of further emails sent to Ms. Grainger. He continued to repeatedly contact her over the subsequent months. On November 2, 2021 he attended her workplace in Gatineau, Quebec. The next day, he once again was charged with failing to comply. That very afternoon he sent her another four emails.

Current Diagnosis

6. Mr. Berhane’s current diagnosis is Unspecified Schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorder.

Background

7. The Hospital Report was prepared for this hearing and filed as an Exhibit. It provides significant information related to Mr. Berhane’s personal background and psychiatric history. Mr. Berhane is 45 years of age and resides in Ottawa. He received a Bachelor’s degree in Economics from Carleton University. He later received a Master’s degree in Public Administration from Queen’s University in June 2018. He began working as a policy analyst with the federal government in 2006 on a full-time basis while studying for his Master’s degree on a part-time basis. He was terminated from his employment with the government in May 2021 and since then has been financially supported by his parents. He has no criminal record.

8. According to the Hospital Report, Mr. Berhane’s brother noted that Mr. Berhane’s mental health began to decline in May 2018. He went on a four-month medical leave from work in the fall of 2019 appearing “very tired and stressed”. Mr. Berhane’s brother recalled that Mr. Berhane was not showering, not changing his clothes and not looking after his personal grooming. He appeared depressed and on occasion spoke with someone who was not in the room.

Position of the Parties

9. At the outset of the hearing, Dr. Alabi stated, that in the opinion of the treatment team, Mr. Berhane no longer represents a significant threat to the safety of the public and was therefore entitled to an absolute discharge. Ms. Breault stated that she was likely to support the recommendation of the hospital at the conclusion of the evidence. Mr. Fakih supported the recommendation of the hospital.

Evidence at the Hearing

10. The evidence on behalf of the hospital was presented by Dr. Alabi. He is the co-author of the hospital report which was filed as an Exhibit. Dr. Alabi stated that he became Mr. Berhane’s attending psychiatrist in January of 2025. Dr. Alabi stated that all of his evidence can be found in the hospital report. By way of update, he stated that he has met with Mr. Berhane on three occasions since becoming his attending psychiatrist. In his opinion, Mr. Berhane has been stable, and his major mental illness is fully in remission. Mr. Berhane has good insight into his disorder. He has good insight into his ongoing need for antipsychotic medication and has been fully compliant. Dr. Alabi said that Mr. Berhane has made himself available to the team at any time that they have requested and has not refused any cooperation. Dr. Alabi testified that he has specifically spoken to Mr. Berhane and questioned him about the index offence and the victim. Mr. Berhane has made it clear to Dr. Alabi that he has not made and has no intention of making any attempts to reach out, by any means, to contact the victim.

11. Finally, Dr. Alabi stated that he had discussed Mr. Berhane’s case with Dr. Gulati, who had been Mr. Berhane’s attending psychiatrist for a number of years. Dr. Alabi stated that Dr. Gulati supported the recommendation for the absolute discharge.

12. In response to questions from Ms. Breault, Dr. Alabi confirmed that Mr. Berhane’s illness has been in remission for a number of years. Mr. Berhane receives his antipsychotic medication by way of long-acting injection every three months. He has indicated an intention to continue with this treatment. Dr. Alabi stated that if an absolute discharge was given then the treatment team would reach out to Mr. Berhane’s family doctor to provide ongoing support for a number of months following the disposition. Dr. Alabi stated that while Mr. Berhane was previously identified as not having any empathy towards the victim, he has developed insight and has demonstrated remorse to Dr. Alabi for his index offences. Mr. Berhane has also improved in his insight into his illness, the symptoms and the need for ongoing medication. Dr. Alabi said that Mr. Berhane is fully engaged with the treatment team.

13. When asked about employment by Ms. Breault, Dr. Alabi stated that Mr. Berhane has been volunteering his services in the community. This has occasionally led to opportunities for paid work. Dr. Alabi stated that Mr. Berhane has a strong support system in the community, as evidenced by the attendance by his mother and brother at the hearing. He has abstained from the use of substances and has been stable for more than three years. In summary, Dr. Alabi stated that, in his opinion, Mr. Berhane no longer meets the threshold of significant threat and is therefore entitled to an absolute discharge. Dr. Alabi concluded by stating he was confident that Mr. Berhane would not attempt any contact with the victim.

14. In response to questions from Mr. Fakih, Dr. Alabi said that Mr. Berhane understands what mitigates the symptoms of his major mental illness. In speaking about the index offences, Mr. Berhane describes hallucinations that he was having at the time which are no longer present. Mr. Berhane knows that this is due to the medication he is receiving along with the support of the treatment team. Dr. Alabi stated that he placed significant weight on the opinion of the treatment team because he has only known Mr. Berhane for the past six months. He said that, of the members of the team, three were most actively involved in Mr. Berhane’s treatment. Dr. Alabi stated that he specifically accepted their unanimous opinion, that Mr. Berhane was no longer a significant threat, in coming to his own conclusions.

15. Dr. Alabi stated that he did not have specific information about the volunteer community service Mr. Berhane was engaged in beyond the information that it was some kind of immigration service. Mr. Berhane has been making efforts to obtain paid employment and has been expanding his area of search and modifying his job expectations. Mr. Berhane has been able to continue to maintain his own home in the community, assisted by the rent he receives from his brother who lives with him.

16. In response to questions from members of the panel, Dr. Alabi stated that there should be no need for Mr. Berhane to attend the Royal Ottawa Hospital as part of any ongoing treatment plan. Locus of his care will now be with his family doctor. Dr. Alabi was asked about the impact of the consent to treatment clause on Mr. Berhane’s insight. Dr. Alabi stated that Mr. Berhane has consistently stated that he understands the need to continue with antipsychotic medication. Dr. Alabi does not believe that the insight is just a result of the consent to treatment clause. Dr. Alabi stated that Mr. Berhane has “connected the dots” of this illness and its impact on his behaviour. When asked about the short period of time that he has been responsible for Mr. Berhane’s care, Dr. Alabi stated that he has had full discussions with Dr. Gulati and that he has a full understanding of Mr. Berhane’s case. Dr. Alabi agreed that Mr. Berhane’s family are significant factors in his community support. Dr. Alabi stated that there have been no issues with Mr. Berhane complying with any of the conditions of his conditional discharge over the past reporting year. He reiterated that if an Absolute Discharge was awarded, then the treatment team would stay available to assist Mr. Berhane and his community doctor for the next 12 months.

17. Neither Ms. Breault nor Mr. Fakih called evidence at the hearing.

Submissions of the Parties

18. At the conclusion of the evidence, Dr. Alabi and Mr. Fakih reiterated the position taken at the outset of the hearing that Mr. Berhane was entitled to an absolute discharge. Ms. Breault submitted that having considered the evidence at the hearing, she also was in support of the absolute discharge.

Analysis and Disposition

19. The threshold issue for the panel to consider in respect of Mr. Berhane is whether or not he represents a significant threat to the safety of the public. The Criminal Code defines significant threat as “a risk of serious physical or psychological harm to members of the public resulting from conduct that is criminal in nature but not necessarily violent”. As set out in Carrick (Re): 2015 ONCA 866, the significant threat standard is an onerous one. In R. v. Ferguson 2010 ONCA 810, the Court stated that “it must be a foreseeable and substantial risk of physical or psychological harm to members of the public that is serious and beyond the trivial or annoying. A very small risk of even grave harm will not suffice, a high risk of relatively trivial harm will also not meet the substantial harm standard.”

20. The panel is unanimous in its decision that the evidence does not support a finding that Mr. Berhane meets the threshold of significant threat. He has demonstrated good insight into his mental illness and the need for treatment. He has been fully compliant with his antipsychotic medication. Mr. Berhane has a strong supportive network in the community, particularly from his brother who resides with him in his home. Mr. Berhane has demonstrated empathy and remorse for the harm he caused the victim and expressed that he has no plans to contact her at any time in the future. Mr. Berhane’s illness is currently in remission and he has remained abstinent from substance use for the entirety of the time that he has been under the jurisdiction of the ORB. The hospital’s opinion and recommendations are summarized as follows on page 32 of the hospital report:

“The Hospital is of the unanimous opinion that given Mr. Berhane current presentation and risk consideration, he does not pose a significant threat to the safety of the public. Mr. Berhane risk of violence is mitigated for by stable and steady mental state, compliance with medication, good insight into mental disorder, and sustained engagement with supervision. He has abstained from intoxicants. He has stable housing and improved personal supports.”

21. Finally, Dr. Alabi testified that in the event of an absolute discharge, Mr. Berhane and his community doctor will continue to receive the support of the treatment team for the next year.

22. The panel is unanimous in finding that Mr. Berhane no longer represents a significant threat to the safety of the public and is therefore entitled to an absolute discharge. Mr. Berhane and his family were informed of this decision at the conclusion of the hearing.

DATED this 7th day of August, 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.

Mr. G. Beasley

Alternate Chairperson

__________________

Office of the Registrar

Ontario Review Board