Re Samar Sarkis-Younes, 2025 CanLII 92521

Ontario Review Board

Re: Samar Sarkis-Younes

ORB File No: 5511

Hearing held on: Wednesday, August 20, 2025

Place of Hearing: North Bay Regional Health Centre-North Bay Site

Pursuant to: Sections 672.48(1) and 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code

Before:

Alternate Chairperson: Mr. C. Flanagan

Members: Dr. W. Komer Dr. M. Green Ms. C. Murray Ms. B. Naegele

Parties Appearing:

Accused: Samar Sarkis-Younes Counsel: Mr. W. G. Stickland

Person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Mr. T. Trenker

Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. M. Mazurski

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated September 9, 2025)

Introduction

1. On September 10, 2009, Samar Sarkis-Younes was found unfit to stand trial on account of mental disorder on a charge of assault, contrary to the Criminal Code.

2. Ms. Sarkis-Younes is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board (“Board”) dated September 11, 2024, which discharges her subject to conditions including that to reside in a 24-hour supervised home run by Community Living, Greater Sudbury.

3. On August 20, 2025, the Board convened at the North Bay Regional Health Centre – North Bay Site (“NBRHC” or the “Hospital”) to conduct Ms. Sarkis-Younes’ annual review to determine her fitness to stand trial pursuant to s. 672.48(1) of the Criminal Code and to make a disposition pursuant to 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code.

4. Ms. Sarkis-Younes was not in attendance at the hearing. Mr. Stickland, counsel for Ms. Sarkis-Younes, attended the hearing and advised that Ms. Sarkis-Younes found the hearing too stressful and did not wish to attend. Further that he had instructions to proceed in her absence. The Board made an order pursuant to s. 672.5(10)(a) of the Criminal Code, permitting the hearing to proceed in Ms. Sarkis-Younes absence and appointed Mr. Stickland counsel for the hearing. Ms. Sarkis-Younes’ mother, Mrs. Sarkis, attended the hearing. A Hospital Report dated July 21, 2025, was filed as Exhibit 1 at the hearing.

5. For the following reasons, the Board finds that Ms. Sarkis-Younes continues to be unfit to stand trial on account of mental disorder and agrees with the joint submission to continue the current disposition.

Initial Position of the Parties

6. At the outset of the hearing, the parties were canvassed as to their initial recommendations to the Board.

7. Mr. Trenker, on behalf of the Hospital, submitted that Ms. Sarkis-Younes was a significant threat to the safety of the public, remained unfit to stand trial and that the most appropriate disposition was a continuation of the current disposition.

8. Ms. Mazurski, on behalf of the Attorney General of Ontario, supported the Hospital’s recommendation.

9. Mr. Stickland, on behalf of Ms. Sarkis-Younes, conceded significant threat and joined in the recommendation.

10. All parties maintained their initial recommendation in closing submissions.

Alleged Index Offences

11. The index offences are described in last year’s Reasons for Disposition dated September 11, 2024, as follows:

“Ms. Sarkis-Younes allegedly assaulted a three-year old child on June 28, 2009, while attending a movie theatre in Sudbury with her mother. Allegedly, Ms. Sarkis-Younes grabbed the child’s face and attempted to gouge out his eyes. At the time of the offence Ms. Sarkis-Younes was residing in a group home at 16 Evans Street in Copper Cliff. It is reported that the group home staff advised Mr. Sarkis- Younes’ mother not to take the accused to a theatre.

According to the Greater Sudbury Police, apart from the index offence, there had been eight assault complaints filed against Ms. Sarkis-Younes over time, requiring her to be apprehended eight additional times under the Mental Health Act. She has never been convicted on any of these charges.”

Personal Background/Psychiatric History

13. Ms. Sarkis-Younes’ personal history and psychiatric background are detailed in the Hospital Report filed as an exhibit at the hearing and need not be repeated here.

14. Ms. Sarkis-Younes is a 40-year-old woman who suffers from severe mental retardation and Down Syndrome. She also suffers from significant permanent visual impairment.

15. Ms. Sarkis-Younes functions in the severe range of developmental disability with decision-making ability in the range of a three-year-old. Despite extensive pharmacological treatment and placement in structured environments she continues to pose a high risk of disruptive, aggressive and self-injurious behaviour.

16. Ms. Sarkis-Younes has resided in a 24/7 supervised group home in the Greater Sudbury area since 2008. Her mother, Mrs. I. Sarkis, relationship with her daughter’s treatment team has been conflictual and disruptive. This has required group home staff to monitor and limit all contact between Ms. Sarkis-Younes and her mother.

17. Ms. Sarkis-Younes was found unfit to stand trial on December 10, 2009. The most recent prima facie hearing was held on July 18, 2025. Her substitute decision-maker is the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee (“OPGT”).

Current Diagnosis

18. Ms. Sarkis-Younes’ current diagnoses are Severe Mental Retardation and Down Syndrome.

Evidence at the Hearing

19. The Hospital’s evidence was presented through the oral testimony of Dr. S. Le to supplement the evidence contained in the Hospital Report filed as an exhibit at the hearing.

20. Ms. Sarkis-Younes’ clinical status has remained stable over the reporting year with little change to her ongoing presentation. She continues to reside in her own independent accommodation within Namaste Group Home in Copper Cliff, Ontario, operated by Community Living Greater Sudbury (CLGS). Staffing ratio in the home is 1-1, with 2-1 supervision in the community. Ms. Sarkis-Younes is happy living in this accommodation.

21. Ms. Sarkis-Younes is profoundly disabled and has a severe intellectual disability with no expectation of improvement in her cognitive capacity. Dr. Le confirmed that Ms. Sarkis-Younes is likely permanently unfit. According to Dr. Le, Ms. Sarkis-Younes is unable to make reality-based decisions to conduct a defence and instruct counsel. She is unable to understand the nature or object, or consequences of the proceedings and does not have the capability of understanding or meaningfully participate in court proceedings.

22. Ms. Sarkis-Younes has access to Dr. Koka, a local psychiatrist, while Dr. Le remains her forensic psychiatry consultant for her care. The outreach team has a good working relationship with Community Living in Sudbury and is in regular contact. With reliable adherence to her behavioural support plan designed and implemented by her care team at Namaste, Ms. Sarkis–Younes can safely participate in a variety of community outings, including grocery shopping, day programming, and horse therapy.

23. Ms. Sarkis-Younes’ only family member in Canada is her mother, Mrs. I. Sarkis. As reported in the Hospital Report, Mrs. Sarkis does not always agree with the treatment her daughter receives by her care team. Her adversity towards her daughter’s care team has continued to have a negative impact on the quality of her interactions with her daughter.

24. Dr. Le stated that Ms. Sarkis-Younes remains a significant threat to the safety of the public. The doctor adopted the risk assessment contained in the Hospital Report which stated on page 72 in part:

“Ms. Sarkis-Younes’ aggression towards others and her self-injurious behaviours continue to “be safely and effectively managed in her present setting with her dedicated community support system. She remains appropriately placed in an independent apartment style setting, with a team dedicated to promoting her autonomy and enhancing her quality of life.

Community Living Greater Sudbury has repeatedly made it known that, but for the involvement of the forensic program by way of the Disposition of the Ontario Review Board, which regulates the contact between Mrs. Sarkis and Ms. Sarkis-Younes, it is highly likely the organization would be unable to continue to manage Ms. Sarkis-Younes in her current environment.

It remains the opinion of Ms. Sarkis-Younes’ care team that approval by the Forensic Outreach team for all contact between Ms. Sarkis-Younes and Mrs. Sarkis remains necessary and appropriate to ensure the effective management of the enduring risk Ms. Sarkis-Younes poses to the safety of others, which is of paramount consideration.”

25. No further evidence was called at the hearing.¹

Conclusion and Disposition

26. Having considered all the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board agrees with the joint submission of the parties and finds that Ms. Sarkis-Younes remains unfit to stand trial and continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public.

27. It is clear on the evidence of Dr. Le, whose evidence we accept, Ms. Sarkis-Younes remains unfit to stand trial on account of mental disorder and is likely permanently unfit. Ms. Sarkis-Younes is profoundly disabled with diagnoses of severe mental retardation and Down Syndrome and has extremely limited cognitive abilities. She is unable to make and communicate reality-based decisions in the conduct of her defence or instruct counsel to do so. She lacks a reality-based understanding of the nature or object of the proceedings and their possible consequences. Consequently, this Board finds that Ms. Sarkis-Younes does not meet the limited cognitive capacity test as set out in R.v. Bharwani, 2025 SCC 26.

28. There is also a joint submission on the evidence that Ms. Sarkis-Younes remains a significant threat to the safety of the public. We agree. Ms. Sarkis-Younes remains a high risk of disruptive, aggressive and self-injurious behaviour as evidenced by the index offence. She requires a highly supervised and structured setting together with a specific behavioural plan to address her level of risk. Ms. Sarkis-Younes is happy residing at the Namaste Group Home. With a dedicated community support system in place, including constant 1:1 supervision, two-on-one staffing in the community, and ongoing effective liaison with her outreach treatment team effectively manages her ongoing violent risk.

29. Considering the finding of significant risk, this Board did not consider making a recommendation pursuant to s. 672.851(1) of the Criminal Code that this matter be referred to court to hold an inquiry to determine whether a stay of proceedings should be ordered.

30. Consequently, this Board finds the necessary and appropriate disposition is the continuation of the existing conditional discharge disposition on the same terms and conditions. This Board wishes Ms. Sarkis-Younes well in the upcoming year.

31. In reaching our decision, this Board has considered the need to protect the public from dangerous persons, Ms. Sarkis-Younes mental condition, her reintegration into society, and her other needs.

DATED this 9th day of September 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.

Mr. C. Flanagan

Alternate Chairperson

___________________

Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board

Footnotes

1. 1After the conclusion of the hearing, including all the evidence and final submissions of the parties and just prior to leaving the room, the mother of Ms. Sarkis-Younes stated she wished to read a document. Given the hearing had concluded and no party sought to tender the document into evidence, it was not received by the Board.```