Re: Safi Nur, 2026 CanLII 12778

Re: Safi Nur

ORB File No: 8198

Hearing held on: Wednesday, January 21, 2026

Place of hearing: Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre

Pursuant to: Section 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code

Before:

Alternate Chairperson: Mr. M. Segal Members: Dr. T. Verny Dr. S. Wiseman Ms. J. Fuller Ms. C. Plyley

Parties Appearing:

Accused: Safi Nur Counsel: Ms. M. Munsterman

The Person in charge of Hospital: Representative: Dr. A. Sandhu Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. M. Dufort

REASONS FOR DECISION

(Dated February 19, 2026)

Introduction

1On December 21st, 2022, Ms. Safi Nur was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on a charge of assault with a weapon, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada ("Criminal Code"). She is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ("ORB" or "the Board"), dated April 15, 2025, amended May 26, 2025, which detains her at the Forensic Service of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health ("CAMH"), Toronto, with conditions that permit her to live in the community in accommodation approved by the person in charge.

2By letter dated October 27, 2025, the hospital notified the Ontario Review Board that Ms. Nur was transferred from a bed on the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre ("ROMHC"), Youth Unit to the Forensic Assessment Unit, which may result in a loss of privileges.

3On January 21, 2026, the Board held a Restriction of Liberty (ROL) hearing to review the restriction of liberty, pursuant to s. 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code. Ms. Nur was present and represented by counsel, Ms. Marni Munsterman.

4The following documents were entered as exhibits:

1: Restriction of Liberties Hearing Hospital Report dated January 21, 2026 2: Social Work Summary dated January 9, 2026 3: Hospital Report dated October 7, 2025, with updates from July 2025

5The Board also had before it the following documents with background information:

• ROL correspondence, including the letter dated October 27, 2025, which notified the Board of Ms. Nur's transfer from the Youth Unit to the FAU
• Two sets of reasons: May 26, 2025, and September 19, 2025
• Disposition Orders dated August 28, 2025, and April 15, 2025, amended May 26, 2025

6The only issue for this hearing was whether the restriction of Ms. Nur's liberty by admission to the hospital was warranted and reasonable in the circumstances, and whether her admission continues to be necessary and appropriate.

Without Prejudice Position of the Parties

7Dr. Sandhu, on behalf of the of the Hospital, submitted that the ROL was warranted and continues to be so. Counsel for the Attorney General indicated the ROL was warranted and continues to be so.

8Ms. Nur agreed it was necessary and appropriate to bring her to the FAU in October 2025. However, she did not agree that her continued detention is necessary and appropriate and sought a discharge.

Current Diagnoses

9Ms. Nur is currently diagnosed with:

• Schizophrenia, multiple episodes, currently in an acute episode
• Cannabis Use Disorder, in controlled environment
• Intellectual disability, mild

Evidence at Hearing

10The hospital's evidence was presented through the exhibits and the oral testimony of Dr. Sandhu.

11The only issue before the Board was the restriction of Ms. Nur's liberty by transfer from the Youth Unit to the Forensic Assessment Unit. The details of the index offences, Ms. Nur's personal, criminal, and psychiatric history will not be repeated, as they were addressed in the Reasons for Disposition dated May 26, 2025.

12Dr. Sandhu testified that Ms. Nur had been a patient on the Youth Unit at the ROHMC since July 2025. In October 2025, she began exhibiting signs of psychosis, which included talking to herself and responding to internal stimuli. She had walking privileges on the Youth Unit and absconded from the hospital while on an escorted walk with staff. Ms. Nur said that she went to a hospital to see if a family member was admitted, then went to her mom's house. She was out of the hospital for 48 hrs and was returned to the unit by police on a Form 49.

13Upon return to the Youth Unit, Ms. Nur lost her walking privileges. She was then transferred to the FAU where she continued to exhibit symptoms of psychosis. Ms. Nur was observed to be narrating or talking about herself to others and speaking in the third person.

14Ms. Nur was not participating in group therapy. She was restarted on a second long-acting injectable, in attempts to stabilize her and reduce her symptoms of psychosis. In December 2025, she self-reported that her auditory hallucinations were decreasing.

15While on the FAU, Ms. Nur disclosed that she had irregular menses. A pregnancy test, a week before the ROL hearing, revealed that she was pregnant (approximately 18 weeks at the time of the hearing). Ms. Nur advised her family physician that she had unprotected sex while at her mother's residence. She had declined both emergency and routine contraception upon readmission to the hospital.

16Ms. Nur remains in the hospital and still has ongoing symptoms of psychosis. Dr. Sandhu had discussed the use of clozapine with her, but it is contraindicated for pregnancy, and she has maintained her current medication regimen.

17Ms. Nur has not had any incidents of physical or verbal aggression on the FAU. She has demonstrated suspiciousness of and referential beliefs regarding the intentions of others, including her treatment team, and does not recognize this as a symptom of her illness.

18Ms. Nur still has a transfer order to CAMH and is on a waitlist with no estimate of when a bed may become available to her.

19In response to questions by counsel for the Attorney General, Dr. Sandhu testified that Ms. Nur has recently completed a neuro-cognitive assessment and has been diagnosed with an intellectual disability. This additional diagnosis qualifies her for Passport and Disability Services of Ontario ("DSO") funding. While she's on the FAU, she will have intake assessment with the support of her treatment team to determine how much funding she will receive. This will open up other housing options for her.

20Ms. Nur is capable to make financial decisions; she has the capacity to budget and manage her funds appropriately. However, she is vulnerable to financial abuse in the context of power dynamics or coercion. In the past, she has given her ODSP funds to her boyfriend who had full-time employment, and she has given funds to her mother. This has left her in a vulnerable position when her mom has subsequently kicked her out of the house without funds or clothing.

21If Ms. Nur receives DSO funding, her financial capacity will be reassessed, as she will have access to a lot more funds than her limited ODSP budget. She is vulnerable to the influence of third parties, as she uses funds to demonstrate her love and care for people she is close to.

22Within the hospital, Ms. Nur is not using substances or exhibiting substance-seeking behaviour. She is administered PRN medication on a daily basis to decrease breakthrough symptoms of agitation or psychosis and distress-related symptoms.

23If Ms. Nur were to be discharged from the hospital, she has expressed to Dr. Sandhu that she would live in a shelter with her baby. She is engaged with the Children's Aid Society and voiced that she does not want to be around her mom and does not want her mom to know where she lives. She does not have support outside of the hospital team. Ms. Nur is currently receiving prenatal care with a family physician while on the FAU.

24Ms. Nur is currently on a disposition that requires her to abstain from the use of cannabis. She was quite upset about this and does not accept the contraindications of cannabis use and schizophrenia. However, she is concerned about not smoking while pregnant and is now abstaining for that reason. The treatment team is concerned that in a community setting, Ms. Nur will have limited insight into the need to abstain from the use of cannabis.

25The team needs a plan to support Ms. Nur's discharge into the community of Ottawa, while awaiting a transfer to Toronto. There is anticipated stress in a transfer to the community, which would increase with pregnancy. Ms. Nur is susceptible to high-risk behaviours, which have included sex work and substance use. The team would like to stabilize Ms. Nur, so that she can return to using privileges, such as unsupervised walks, while receiving prenatal care in the hospital.

26In response to questions from Ms. Nur's counsel, Dr. Sandhu confirmed that Ms. Nur's Passport and DSO funding will allow her to apply for housing options that were not previously available to her. The funding will follow her if she is transferred to CAMH. Now that the treatment team has a better understanding of Ms. Nur's intellectual disability, they have adjusted how they support and educate her to improve Ms. Nur's understanding and retention of the information.

27Dr. Sandhu confirmed that the treatment team is not planning to keep Ms. Nur in the hospital until transfer to CAMH. Rather, the team is supporting her by working to stabilize her symptoms and secure suitable housing. Ms. Nur has lived safely in Toronto, albeit without permission, while maintaining remote appointments with her treatment team. She is working on a privilege ladder to increase her independence, depending on her engagement with group and individual therapy. Ms. Nur has increased her attendance and engagement in individual and group therapy since the second long-acting injectable was started. The treatment team is working with Ms. Nur to educate her about her mental health needs and symptoms, while encouraging her autonomy.

Closing Observations

28Dr. Sandhu had no further comments.

29Ms. Dufort submitted that the Form 49 and ongoing restriction of liberty are still justified.

30Ms. Nur agreed that it was necessary and appropriate to be brought into the hospital and transferred to the FAU in October. However, she remains adamant that her ongoing detention is not necessary and appropriate and is seeking to be discharged.

Analysis

31Ms. Nur continues to exhibit signs and symptoms of psychosis, including talking to herself, responding to internal stimuli and suspiciousness and referential beliefs about the intentions of others. She continues to request and meet the objective criteria for daily anti-psychotic PRN administration.

32Ms. Nur did not put forth a plan for where she would live if she were to be discharged. She had expressed to Dr. Sandhu an intention to reside with her baby in a shelter and is currently working with CAS and her family physician regarding her prenatal care and education around medical and parenting options.

33The Board accepts Dr. Sandhu's evidence that Ms. Nur remains vulnerable to outside influences and engages in high-risk behaviour, such as substance use and sex work, when in the community, but has in the past, managed to live in the community with out-patient supports.

34The Board is encouraged by Ms. Nur's progress as she has increased her attendance at one-to-one and group therapy and continues to maintain a positive rapport with her treatment team.

35Of importance in assessing Ms. Nur's continued admission to the FAU is the team's plan to continue supporting Ms. Nur in obtaining her DSO and Passport funding, assisting her in applying for suitable housing, and providing her with education regarding her mental health symptoms, pregnancy, and financial capacity. The goal to stabilize Ms. Nur's active psychotic symptoms and transition her back into the community, pending her transfer to CAMH is appropriate.

36The treatment team's approach to supporting Ms. Nur, in a manner that both respects her autonomy and her learning abilities, is to be commended.

37The Board finds that the Restriction of Liberty was appropriate and the least onerous and least restrictive measure that could be taken. The Restriction of Liberty continues to be appropriate.

38The current disposition is appropriate.