Ontario Review Board
Re: Abdoul Diaby
ORB File No: 7603
Hearing held on: Tuesday, January 6, 2026
Place of Hearing: Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre
Pursuant to: Sections 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Ms. M. Labrosse
Members: Dr. S. Lessard
Dr. G. Boulais
Mr. D. D’Intino
Ms. K. Brisson
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Abdoul Diaby Counsel: Ms. A. Murchison
Person in charge of hospital: Representative: Dr. J. Gojer
Attorney-General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. J. Wright
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated February 26, 2026)
Introduction
[1]. On September 16, 2019, Abdoul Diaby, was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on charges of assault (x2) and assault with a weapon (x3), all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada.
[2]. Mr. Diaby is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated January 7, 2025, which detains him on the Secure Forensic Unit of the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre, with privileges up to and including community living in accommodation approved by the person in charge.
[3]. On January 6, 2026, a panel of the Ontario Review Board convened a hearing at the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre, hereinafter referred to as the hospital, to conduct an annual review of Mr. Diaby’s disposition pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Diaby attended his hearing and was represented by counsel, Ms. Amy Murchison, agent for Mr. Mellington Godoy. A hospital report dated December 3, 2025, was entered as Exhibit No. 1 for the hearing.
[4]. The issues to be determined by the Board are whether Mr. Diaby continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and, if so, to determine the necessary and appropriate and least onerous and least restrictive disposition having regard to the factors set out in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
[5]. At the outset of the hearing the parties were canvassed as to their preliminary without prejudice positions for the hearing at which time the hospital recommended that Mr. Diaby continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public, but that a conditional discharge, with a consent to treatment provision, along with other conditions would be adequate to manage the ongoing risk to public safety. Counsel for the Attorney General, Mr. Wright, indicated that he would likely support this recommendation, as did Ms. Murchison, on behalf of Mr. Diaby.
[6]. At the conclusion of the hearing, the parties maintained this joint position.
[7]. For the reasons set out below, the Board finds that Mr. Diaby continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public and that a conditional discharge, with consent to treatment and further conditions which shall be enumerated in the Analysis and Conclusion section of these Reasons, is the necessary and appropriate disposition to manage.
Index Offences
[8]. The details of the index offences are set out in last year’s Reasons for Disposition follows:
“Police Synopsis:
The accused was released on 18 October 2018 on a Recognizance by the Ontario Court of Justice with conditions that include but are not limited to “no weapons” as defined by the Criminal Code of Canada. Further the accused agreed to a Peace Bond by the Ontario Court of Justice, dated 17July 2018, with conditions that include but are not limited to Keep the
Peace and be of good behaviour and “no weapons” as defined by the Criminal Code of Canada.
On 28 April 2019 in the City of Ottawa, the accused was on OC Transpo Bus #6409. The accused was sitting in the back of the westbound bus, when it stopped at the bus stop located in front of 169 Lees Ave. The accused stood and began to walk off the bus, then sprayed an orange substance directly into the face of the victim MV, then stepped off the bus. He then walked to his apartment building at 170 Lees Ave. The attack appeared unprovoked.
The victim was treated by OAC and transported to the Montfort Hospital for symptoms suffered that appear to be exposure to pepper spray.
On 03 May 2019 in the City of Ottawa, the accused was on OC Transpo Bus #8141. He was sitting in the back of the westbound bus, when it stopped at the bus stop located in front of 169 Lees Ave. The accused stood and began to walk off the bus, then sprayed on orange substance directly into the face of the victim AVN, then stepped off the bus. He then walked to his apartment building at 170 Lees Ave.
Three passengers on board the bus (in the same area) were affected by the exposure to the pepper spray. AF’s eyes were burning, ITS felt a burning sensation in her mouth/throat and RA was unable to see out of her eyes and was coughing as her throat felt like it was burning.
RA stated that she saw the accused pull out the bottle of spray prior to using it. Further, OFD Hazmat Inspector Ken Walton did a test on the substance left on the bus and determined it to have the ingredients of pepper spray.
The attack appeared unprovoked.
On 04 May at approximately 12:40 hrs. in the City of Ottawa the accused was on OC Transpo Bus #6651 travelling eastbound on Slater. Between Bay St. and Kent St., the accused took a can of pepper spray and sprayed victims AME and SS in the face. Both victims suffered pain and burning by the attack. A witness, GB, confronted the accused, however the accused got off the bus.
Patrol officers attended in the area of the accused's residence at 170 Lees. At 13:43 hrs., the accused was arrested as he walked up to the building. Upon being searched a tool resembling an ice pick, a knife and a chainsaw blade were located. A can of pepper spray was also located in his jacket pocket.
While the accused was being transported to the cellblock, he was having a two-way conversation with himself. He was loud, uncooperative and belligerent once at the cellblock. When he was in the lawyer's room, he began banging the phone receiver on the window and was yelling.
At approximately 15:00 hrs., the accused was lodged in cell #26. The accused tampered with the sprinkler head and was warned to stop as he could face a charge of mischief. The accused continued to do so and removed the sprinkler head causing gas to escape and making the sprinkler head inoperable. The accused was moved to cell #29 while the building engineer could clean the pieces of broken metal. While this was happening, the accused damaged the second sprinkler head, rendering this one inoperable.
The accused is charged with Assault with a Weapon x 4, Administer Noxious Substance x 3, Mischief Interfere with Property x 7, Mischief Under $5000 x 2, Breach Recognizance x 3, and Breach Sec 811 Recognizance x 6.
A mental health assessment is requested as the accused is talking to himself and has a history of mental health incidents with Ottawa Police Services.”
Background History
[9]. Mr. Diaby’s personal, legal and psychiatric history is set out in detail in the hospital report. Briefly summarized, Mr. Diaby is presently 33 years of age. He is single and has no children. Prior to his arrest on the index offences, he was residing independently in a subsidized apartment in Ottawa and was supported by the Ontario Disability Support Program.
[10]. Mr. Diaby was born in Ivory Coast and emigrated to Canada at the age of 10. He was placed in foster care between the ages of 15 and 19. He completed high school in Ottawa. He reported working for Garda, a security company, before his arrest on the index offences.
[11]. Mr. Diaby’s psychiatric history commenced in 2014 when he was seen by the outpatient department at the Ottawa Hospital. Medical documents indicate he presented with symptoms of schizophrenia. He was brought to the Emergency Department of the hospital in October 2016 while experiencing significant psychotic symptoms of delusions and paranoia. He was admitted on a Mental Health Act Form 1.
[12]. Mr. Diaby reports having first used alcohol at the age of 16. He reports having been using cannabis regularly before his arrest on the index offences.
Criminal History
[13]. Mr. Diaby’s criminal record includes convictions between 2016 and 2018 for failing to comply with court orders, mischief, and five convictions of assault.
Psychiatric History
[14]. Mr. Diaby reported first seeing a psychiatrist at the age of 16 while in high school. He recalled being bullied and having to defend himself. He was seen at a clinic at the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario where he was prescribed medications for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. He could not recall whether these medications were helpful and reported stopping them after a few months.
[15]. Mr. Diaby’s subsequent interaction with a psychiatrist occurred approximately five years ago. He began hearing a noise in his apartment and was referred to a psychiatrist. He was vague in explaining how this occurred. Mr. Diaby stated he then started seeing Dr. Mathias of the ROMHC and was diagnosed with schizophrenia. He was prescribed Abilify by intra-muscular injection and became “paralyzed.” When asked to explain what this meant he stated that he experienced “a burning sensation, twitching.” He subsequently refused to continue the injection. Mr. Diaby reported seeing a social worker prior to the commission of the index offences. He stated she worked at the Montfort Renaissance. He believed his social worker was unhelpful as "she was Caucasian” and he needed "security" in the community. He believed that Caucasians were targeting him.
[16]. Mr. Diaby stated that he was hospitalized at the Montfort Hospital in October 2018. He stated that people were trying to fight him, and he needed to "defend" himself. He reported that he stayed in the hospital for one week and was given Abilify. He denied any history of suicide attempts or self-injurious behaviours. He did not see himself as an aggressive person and stated that he only "defends himself when needed."
[17]. Mr. Diaby’s current diagnoses are:
Schizophrenia; and
Cannabis Use Disorder.
Evidence at the Hearing
[18]. The hospital’s evidence was presented through its report dated December 3, 2025, and through the oral testimony of Dr. Julian Gojer who remains Mr. Diaby’s attending psychiatrist.
[19]. Dr. Gojer stated that Mr. Diaby has had a very good year. He has continued to take medication, a long-acting injectable (“LAI”) Trinza, administered every three months. He has attended all his appointments with the hospital and has maintained his stability throughout the year.
[20]. Dr. Gojer added that Mr. Diaby’s mood has been stable, and he has not expressed any thought disorder or persecutory delusions over the course of the past year.
[21]. Mr. Diaby lives independently in a market rent apartment and is working at Walmart. Mr. Diaby’s mother continues to be a good source of support for him, but he is otherwise quite socially isolated. He has stated that he has no friends and wishes to go back to the Ivory Coast.
[22]. Despite the prohibition on substance use, Mr. Diaby has been forthcoming with the fact that he continues to consume cannabis regularly and this is confirmed by random urine drug screens that have all been positive for cannabis over the course of the past year. According to Dr. Gojer, though Mr. Diaby has previously demonstrated a sensitivity to cannabis which has caused the deterioration of his illness, his LAI is currently protecting against any decompensation at this time. Dr. Gojer believes that Mr. Diaby may be using cannabis moderately. There have been instances in the past where heavy cannabis use has led to a deterioration when Mr. Diaby was not complying with treatment.
[23]. In the opinion of Dr. Gojer, Mr. Diaby will likely deteriorate fairly quickly if he stops his medication, particularly if he is consuming cannabis. This would lead him to have a recurrence of persecutory delusions which could lead him to act aggressively and violently as was the case at the time of the index offences and, more recently, when he was charged for an aggressive incident occurring in an OC Transpo station which was captured on video. Mr. Diaby was ultimately acquitted of those charges.
[24]. Unfortunately, there has been no change with respect to Mr. Diaby’s insight into his illness and the need for treatment which remains completely absent at this time. Mr. Diaby does not believe that he has a mental illness and does not believe that cannabis has any negative effect on him. Mr. Diaby has also indicted that if he is granted an absolute discharge, he will stop taking treatment.
[25]. According to Dr. Gojer, Mr. Diaby is tolerating the long-acting injectable Trinza and not complaining of any notable side effects. Despite this he wants to discontinue it because he does not feel that he needs it.
[26]. Mr. Diaby remains extremely guarded and despite efforts to engage him in psychotherapy, there was no progress made to help him develop more insight into his illness.
[27]. Mr. Diaby continues to indicate a wish to travel to Cote d'Ivoire where he still has family, as his father passed away in the last year. Dr. Gojer had some concern that Mr. Diaby might not return if he was allowed to travel to Cote d'Ivoire, nor does Dr. Gojer know if cannabis would be accessible there; however, he is prepared to take that chance and is recommending the inclusion of a provision allowing Mr. Diaby to travel to Cote d'Ivoire, with an approved itinerary for a period of up to 30 days. The hospital is recommending a change to the reporting provision to not less than once per month.
[28]. For travel to Côte d’Ivoire to take place, it would require more discussion, careful planning and clear conditions for such a trip. Mr. Diaby has expressed a desire to travel on his own to Cote d'Ivoire and does not currently have a passport.
[29]. In response to questions posed to him by counsel for the Attorney General, Mr. Wright, Dr. Gojer acknowledged that in spite of Mr. Diaby continuing to consume cannabis, which is evidenced by his positive random drug screen, the hospital has not brought him as a consequence of the breach of disposition because he has remained stable on his LAI. Mr. Diaby has no intention to stop using cannabis.
[30]. With respect to the travel to Cote d'Ivoire, Dr. Gojer believes that the presence of Mr. Diaby’s mother would be a good reason for him to come back rather than to stay there as he has stated his intention to do in the past.
[31]. In response to questions posed to him by members of the hearing panel, Dr. Gojer responded as follows:
(a) Mr. Diaby rejects his diagnosis and denies that there is any connection between his cannabis use and his mental condition.
(b) Though cannabis is contraindicated for someone like Mr. Diaby who suffers from schizophrenia, the LAI that he is taking is currently blocking the negative effects of the cannabis. The hospital is adopting a harm reduction approach in the hope that Mr. Diaby will eventually understand the negative effects of cannabis on his mental condition.
(c) If he was to stop taking medication, Mr. Diaby’s risk would gradually escalate. Dr. Gojer indicated that it would be his intention to return before the Board if Mr. Diaby was to stop taking his medication but also acknowledged that it would be helpful to have the condition in the disposition that requires him to be brought to hospital in the event of a breach of his disposition.
(d) When Mr. Diaby threatened to leave Canada for Cote d'Ivoire and not return, it was at the time that he was unhappy with being in hospital and was having issues with his previous psychiatrist, prior to the transfer of care to Dr. Gojer.
(e) Though Mr. Diaby is not currently receiving any rental subsidies, the hospital could look at providing him with rental subsidies should he encounter any financial issues and potential financial stressors.
[32]. No other evidence was presented.
Submissions of the Parties
[33]. As stated, the parties maintained their preliminary position that Mr. Diaby continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public and that a conditional discharge with a consent to treatment provision, along with a reduction in reporting and permission to travel to Cote d'Ivoire is the necessary and appropriate disposition in all of the circumstances.
[34]. Counsel for the Attorney General, Mr. Wright, added that he was not opposed to the inclusion of the travel condition and though this is somewhat of a leap of faith, it will require significant planning and is unlikely to happen in the immediate future given that Mr. Diaby does not even have a passport at this time.
[35]. Counsel for Mr. Diaby, Ms. Murchison, indicated her agreement with the hospital recommendation and indicated for the record that Mr. Diaby consents to take treatment under s. 672.55(1) of the Criminal Code. With respect to the proposed travel to Côte d'Ivoire, Ms. Murchison added that Mr. Diaby has proved to be quite forthcoming with the treatment team regarding intentions in several respects and that if he says he will return from his trip, he will do so.
Analysis and Conclusion
[36]. Having considered all of the evidence presented at the hearing, and the joint submission of the parties, the Board finds that Mr. Diaby continues to meet the threshold of significant threat to the safety of the public as set out in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code of Canada and as further defined in the Supreme Court of
Canada decision Winko v. British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute), 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625.
[37]. According to R. v. Winko, a significant threat to the safety of the public means a real risk of physical or psychological harm to members of the public that is serious in the sense of going beyond the merely trivial or annoying. The conduct giving rise to the harm must be criminal in nature.
[38]. Our finding that Mr. Diaby continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public rests on the fact that he suffers from schizophrenia that can present with prominent paranoid delusions when he is inadequately treated, as was the case at the time of the index offences. He perceives that he is the victim of constant racist attacks and must defend himself against those who are attacking him and will resort to physical violence to do so. Mr. Diaby’s insight into his illness and the need for mediation remains completely absent.
[39]. Though he has considerably improved and stabilized over the past year, Mr. Diaby is in constant breach of his disposition by continuing to use cannabis, which has historically led to decompensations of his schizophrenia. The fact that he is taking the LAI has been protective against decompensation, so far. The hospital is adopting a harm reduction approach at this time.
[40]. Given the correlation between cannabis use and Mr. Diaby’s lack of insight into the fact that he suffers from a major mental illness and needs medication, the LAI antipsychotic is key to maintaining his stability. Absent his consent to take treatment under 672.55(1), we would be unable to conclude that a conditional discharge could adequately manage the risk to public safety.
[41]. With respect to the issue of overseas travel, the Board extensively deliberated whether this can be done safely, because of Mr. Diaby’s previously stated intention not to return, his lack of insight, and his chronic cannabis use which could lead to issues in a different jurisdiction. Ultimately, the Board agrees to include a condition to permit Mr. Diaby to travel to Cote d'Ivoire for up to 30 days with an approved itinerary but requiring him to travel with an approved person. Though no person was specifically identified during the hearing, Dr. Gojer’s evidence was that it would be better if Mr. Diaby’s mother was able to travel with him on such a long trip and we conclude that the travel is only possible with this added protection.
[42]. Accordingly, having considered the four factors set out in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code, namely the protection of the public which is the paramount consideration, the mental condition of the accused, his reintegration into society and his other needs, the Board finds that a conditional discharge, with consent to take treatment, is the necessary and appropriate, least onerous and least restrictive disposition in all of the circumstances. The conditional discharge shall include the requirement to report to the hospital not less than once per month, to continue to abstain from substances and to submit to random drug screening. As stated, there shall be a condition not to travel internationally without the permission of the hospital and an approved itinerary, for a period not exceeding 30 days, with an approved person.
DATED this 26th day of February 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Ms. M. Labrosse Alternate Chairperson
__________________
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board