Re: Omaid Alif
ORB File No: 7433
Hearing held on: Wednesday July 30, 2025
Place of Hearing: Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. R. Bigelow
Members: Dr. A. Park Dr. A. Kerry Mr. J. Goldenberg Mr. J. Cyr
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Omaid Alif Counsel: Mr. A. Rai
The Person in Charge of Hospital: Representative: Dr. J. Pytyck
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. N. MacDonald
AMENDED REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated August 20, 2025)
Please see underlined change to original reasons, made August 22, 2025: “Ms. A. Marshall” has been replaced with “Dr. J. Pytyck” as Representative for the Person in Charge of Hospital.
Introduction
On November 9, 2015, Omaid Alif was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCR) on charges of fail to comply with an undertaking and criminal harassment contrary to the Criminal Code. He is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the Board) dated august 6, 2024 ordering his detention within the Forensic Program of the Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences (the Hospital) with privileges up to and including living in the community in supervised accommodation approved by the person in charge.
On Wednesday, July 30, 2025, the Board convened a hearing to review Mr. Alif’s disposition pursuant to section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Alif was present at the hearing and represented by counsel, Mr. Rai. Mr. Alif’s parents as well as his brother were also present at the hearing.
The issues to be determined at the hearing were whether Mr. Alif continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public as defined in section 672.5401 of the Criminal Code and, if so, to determine what was the necessary and appropriate disposition that was also the least onerous and least restrictive taking into account the factors set out in section 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
Initial Positions of the Parties
At the commencement of the hearing, the parties were requested to provide their initial without prejudice positions with respect to the issues before the Board. Counsel for the Hospital indicated that it was the position of the Hospital that Mr. Alif continued 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 with the only change being the addition of one indirectly supervised travel pass of up to seven days upon first obtaining approval of his itinerary by the person in charge of the Hospital or his/her designate to allow Mr. Alif to attend a family wedding in Montréal.
Counsel for the Attorney General joined the Hospital in that recommendation.
Counsel for Mr. Alif did not contest the issue of significant threat but submitted that the necessary and appropriate disposition would be a conditional discharge and that, should such a disposition be made, his client would consent to a requirement that he reside at his parents residence in Richmond Hill, a requirement that he take treatment pursuant to section 672.55 of the Criminal Code and a “Young clause”.1 In addition, he suggested that condition 4(a) of the current disposition prohibiting the possession or use of intoxicating substances be amended to provide an exception for the possession or use of cannabis purchased from government authorized dealers.
Evidence at the hearing
- The evidence at the hearing consisted of the Hospital Report and the oral evidence of Dr. Pytyck, Mr. Alif’s treating physician.
Findings:
- For the Reasons that follow, the Board finds that Mr. Alif continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate disposition is a continuation of the current detention order with the only change being the addition of a seven-day indirectly supervised travel pass to Montréal upon an itinerary approved by the person in charge or his/her designate.
Index Offences:
The allegations surrounding the index offences as summarized in last year’s Reasons for Disposition are as follows:
Criminal Harassment
Background information in the Toronto Police Service Synopsis noted that Mr. Alif and Ms. Christine Luong attended the same elementary school and high school in Richmond Hill. Mr. Alif became “infatuated” with the victim after a brief contact in grade seven. There was very limited association between them for the rest of high school. Despite this, Mr. Alif’s feelings intensified. Mr. Alif recalled a time in high school when he believed Ms. Luong to be looking at him and he felt overwhelmed with emotion. They did not have any romantic relationship. After they graduated in 2009, Mr. Alif did not get over his feelings for the victim, even though years had passed.
In 2011, Mr. Alif sent Ms. Luong letters through one of her friends, professing his feelings for her. Ms. Luong responded via her friend that she was not interested in a relationship with him. Mr. Alif began sending her messages through Facebook. Ms. Luong did not respond. In one of the messages, Mr. Alif indicated that he had found her resume online and that he obtained her home address in Richmond Hill. He went to her address hoping to see her. Ms. Luong eventually deactivated her account. In early 2016, Mr. Alif began sending Ms. Luong more messages through Facebook, but she did not receive any of the messages since she had deactivated her account. Mr. Alif sent hundreds of messages professing his love for Ms. Luong. He stated repeatedly that he would stop contacting her, but he persisted in doing so. In November of 2016, Mr. Alif asked another friend of Ms. Luong to pass along a letter to her, which the friend did.
In February of 2017, Mr. Alif began sending Ms. Luong Instagram messages, telling her how strongly he felt of her. He indicated that he would be the prime suspect if she were ever to go missing. Ms. Luong did not respond, and she blocked Mr. Alif’s account. However, Mr. Alif created more accounts, and he continued to send her messages. Around the same time, Ms. Luong reactivated her Facebook account and received the hundreds of messages that Mr. Alif had sent. She attended the police station on February 19, 2017, and she reported the matter.
While at the police station, Mr. Alif sent Ms. Luong a picture of his erect penis, again professing his feelings for her. At the request of Ms. Luong, police contacted Mr. Alif and cautioned him regarding Criminal Harassment. Mr. Alif indicated that he understood and agreed not to contact Ms. Luong any further. However, on March 6, 2017, Mr. Alif sent Ms. Luong more Instagram messages. In one of the messages, he stated, “And if u wanna [sic] charge me with criminal harassment, I’ll plead guilty. I’ll do the 10 years.” He sent Ms. Luong more messages on March 12 and April 2, stating that he loved her and that he would stop sending her messages. On April 10, Mr. Alif was arrested and charged with Criminal Harassment.
- Fail to Comply with Undertaking
After being charged with Criminal Harassment on April 10, 2017, Mr. Alif entered into an Undertaking and was released from the police station. The Undertaking included a condition directing Mr. Alif to refrain from communicating with Ms. Luong or going anywhere he knew her to be.
On June 16, 2018, Mr. Alif sent Ms. Luong an email. In the email, he asked her not to be alarmed or stressed and he indicated that he knew he could get into “a lot of trouble.” He indicated that he would not hinder her if she was building a home or family. He spoke about his idea about a washing machine that would line dry and fold clothing, and he indicated he planned to make that his “dowry” to Ms. Luong. He made a reference to marrying her and giving her half and working on the idea together. He noted his competition had received a 60-million-dollar investment, but that he thought his methodology was superior. He indicated that Ms. Luong was on his mind more. He encouraged her to make a family with someone more stable. He indicated that he saw a picture of Ms. Luong with “Yalda and a guy with a similar name to mine, I’m just thinking that you might not hate the thought of me that much.” He told her he would always love her, “no matter what.” He told her he was sorry for everything, and he did not know how to make it up to her. He told her he wanted to be beside her at every moment and that he did not want her to think that she hated him. He said she would always be his “savior.” He said he did not care if his idea flopped and that he was making it for Ms. Luong. He indicated that he was “really scared someone is going to use what I’ve done to harm you. I don’t want anyone to hurt you. I’m planning on surrendering myself.” Ms. Luong reported the breach to police and Mr. Alif was arrested on June 18, 2018.
Background Information Regarding the Accused:
Mr. Alif was born in New Delhi, India, and he moved to Canada at a young age with his parents and five siblings. He was the youngest in a sibline of six. Mr. Alif described his relationship with his parents and siblings as limited while growing up. His father worked nights at a convenience store and Mr. Alif had little contact with him. Mr. Alif did not speak Persian, and his parents spoke limited English, therefore, communication between them was difficult.
Mr. Alif struggled in elementary school. He was identified as having specific learning disabilities in the areas of English and math, and was placed in special education classes. He was bullied heavily by other children from the age of nine after moving to a new school, which led him to withdraw socially.
Mr. Alif performed better academically in high school, and he achieved an 82% average by the end of Grade 12. He enrolled in a Bachelor of Business Administration program at Wilfred Laurier University; however, he struggled, and he eventually dropped out after completing his first year of study.
Substance Use History
Mr. Alif has reported that he first began to drink alcohol at the age of 15 but was never a daily drinker. Over the three years prior to the index offences is, he describes himself as an occasional drinker, drinking “maybe once in a blue moon”.
Mr. Alif began to use cannabis when he was 17 and used cannabis on a daily or near daily basis commencing in 2015 or 2016. He believed that cannabis motivated him to do things and made him more focused. However, he also believed that cannabis may have contributed to his paranoia.
Mr. Alif also reports that he experimented with cocaine, psilocybin mushrooms and salvia but did not use any of those substances on a regular basis and last used any of them five years prior to the index offences.
Legal History:
- Mr. Alif had no criminal record prior to the index offences.
Psychiatric History
Mr. Alif’s brother reported that Mr. Alif had been depressed since high school, lost interest in schoolwork and his academic performance declined. Mr. Alif spoke about suicide and his brother believed that this was related to his infatuation with the complainant.
Mr. Alif’s brother also reported that about two weeks prior to the index offences, his brother had become paranoid, was speaking more rapidly and was not making sense.
Current Diagnosis
- Mr. Alif’s current diagnoses are schizophrenia and cannabis use disorder (moderate).
Evidence of Dr. Pytyck
- Dr. Pytyck indicated that she had been Mr. Alif’s attending psychiatrist since February 2019. She noted that Mr. Alif had a mixed year with several positive urine screens, the last being in January 2025. She also referred to a violent incident which occurred several days prior to his last annual review which was summarized at page 33 of the Hospital Report as follows:
On July 26, 2024 Mr. Alif’s urine toxicology screen was negative for any banned substances however, no antipsychotic medication was detected.
Further on July 26 after returning from his indirectly supervised hospital and grounds privileges, Mr. Alif was preoccupied with the belief that he was being “chemically castrated” by his medication; Abilify. Mr. Alief presented as acutely agitated and paranoid. His behaviour was erratic, loud and confrontational. Mr. Alif’s behaviour continued to escalate, and he engaged in verbal, physical and property destruction. He severely damaged two doors on the unit, punched a security guard in the back of the head and wielded a piece of wood as a weapon. He refused to go to his room. Staff were unable to verbally deescalate Mr. Alif, and he required five-point mechanical restraints and STAT intramuscular medication. Staff strongly suspected Mr. Alief used substances while using his privileges however he adamantly denied the same.
Dr. Pytyck noted that Mr. Alif had been discharged to Ballantyne House, a 24/7 supervised residence in the community, on June 16, 2025, and that since discharge, there had been no evidence of cannabis use and no incidents of concern but that he displayed little engagement at the residence.
Dr. Pytyck stated that, in the opinion of the treatment team, a conditional discharge was clearly premature. Mr. Alif had previously been discharged to the family home in July 2021. She noted that the residence was quite far from the hospital, that he used cannabis almost continuously, was readmitted to Hospital in January 2022 and that a restriction of liberty hearing determined that the restriction of his liberty was justified.
Dr. Pytyck referred to a recurrence of psychotic symptomology experienced by Mr. Alif commencing in April 2023 summarized, in the Hospital Report, as follows:
Mr. Alif was largely free of psychotic symptomatology throughout the reporting year up until April of 2023, when he reported ideas of reference regarding the victim’s social media page (thoughts that the number of followers on her own and her friends’ pages had relevance for him). He maintained at that time that he understood that the numbers were simply coincidental. However, in May of 2023, his ideas of reference progressed to frank delusions, in that he believed that the victim had blocked someone on social media in response to Mr. Alif blocking her. He believed that this was a signal from the victim and he acknowledged an increase in his erotomanic thoughts about her, indicating that he “loved” her and “wanted a family” with her. This increase in psychotic symptomatology was likely due to covert relapse to cannabis on the part of Mr. Alif over the past few months, which he had disclosed to the treatment team after being unable to give a urine sample on request. He indicated he had been providing false urine samples for the past few months in order to evade detection.
Dr. Pytyck noted that Mr. Alif’s insight was limited and despite compliance with medication, there was a significant concern with respect to continuing compliance absent monitoring, the return of psychotic symptomology even while adherent to medication, that Mr. Alif had been unable to maintain abstinence and a concern with the ability of the Mental Health Act to manage risk was his use of substances covertly.
In response to questions from counsel for Mr. Alif, Dr. Pytyck agreed that over the reporting year, despite the positive urine screens, there had been no psychotic symptoms noted but noted that his mental state was clearly shown to be sensitive to the use of cannabis.
In response to questions from panel members, Dr. Pytyck indicated that Mr. Alif’s insight into the index offences was limited, although it had improved over time. He now understood that his behaviour had frightened the complainant but when psychotic, he would be overwhelmed and unable to continue to hold that belief. She also noted that Mr. Alif continues to justify some of his behaviour.
Evidence of Mr. Alif
Mr. Alif read a written statement to the panel in which he indicated that, with respect to the incident in July 2024, his emotions got the better of him and that his violent behaviour was a result of his having believed that he was being violated by the medication prescribed for him. He has a future purpose in his life to work on his inventions and show more respect to his family.
He acknowledged that the use of cannabis was impeding his progress but did not believe that marijuana had any significant effect on his behaviours. In the future, his intention was to only use substances in social situations.
His major goal was to be able to pass on his genetic information for the future.
Final Submissions of the Parties
- All parties maintained their initial positions at the conclusion of the hearing.
Analysis and Conclusion, significant threat:
Although the issue of significant threat was not contested at the hearing, the Board nevertheless makes an independent finding that the evidence clearly supports a finding of significant threat. Mr. Alif suffers from a major mental illness, schizophrenia, as well as a cannabis use disorder (moderate). His insight into his illness, the need for medication and the index offences is limited. As recently as April 2023, he suffered a significant recurrence of symptoms of his illness including a return of delusional thoughts with respect to the complainant of the index offences. He has no insight into the impact of the use of cannabis on his mental state despite evidence of a clear correlation between cannabis use and his mental state, even when adherent to medication. As recently as last summer, Mr. Alif developed clearly paranoid beliefs with respect to the impact of medication on his fertility resulting in his acting out aggressively, assaulting a security staff member, threatening to use a weapon and required five-point restraints and intramuscular sedation.
There is a significant risk that absent supervision of the Board, Mr. Alif would cease medication, return to the regular use of cannabis with a resulting return of the psychotic symptoms he suffered from at the time of the index offences and an unacceptable increase in his risk to cause physical and/or psychological harm to members of the public.
Analysis and Conclusion, Necessary and Appropriate Disposition:
The Board finds that the evidence supports the continuation of the current disposition without change and that there is no air of reality to consideration of a conditional discharge. If granted a conditional discharge, Mr. Alif’s plan would be to return to his family home, where he was previously discharged and within six months of discharge was returned to the Hospital. If he returned to the family home, there is little doubt that he would return to the regular use of cannabis which has been shown to have a clear negative impact on his mental state.
The Board accepts the evidence of Dr. Pytyck that the Hospital requires the ability to approve accommodation to ensure that there is necessary monitoring to ensure adherence to medication, abstinence from cannabis use and to detect early signs of decompensation before his risk escalates.
The Board also accepts the evidence of Dr. Pytyck that the provisions of the Mental Health Act would be insufficient to manage risk.
DATED this 20th day of August 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Robert Bigelow
Alternate Chairperson
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board
Footnotes
- See Re: Young 2011 ONCA 432