Re: David Messiha
ORB File No: 8806
Hearing held on: Monday, February 9, 2026
Place of Hearing: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health
Pursuant to: Section 672.47(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. J. Goldenberg
Members: Dr. R. Kunjukrishnan Dr. M. Green Hon. C. Nelson Mr. J. Cyr
Parties Appearing:
Accused: David Messiha Counsel: Ms. M. Perez
The person in charge of hospital: Representative: Dr. P.L. Darby
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. D. Brandes
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated February 25, 2026)
On September 26, 2024, David Messiha was found not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder on one charge of criminal harassment, and two charges of failing to comply with the terms of a release. This finding was made at a hearing of the Quebec Review Board.
That Disposition directed Mr. Messiha to be discharged subject to a number of conditions. One of the conditions prohibited Mr. Messiha from any drug use.
The panel is aware that subsequent to the September hearing, consent was given by the Attorney General of the Province of Quebec and a consent by the Attorney General of the Province of Ontario that directed Mr. Messiha to be transferred to the Ontario Review Board.
On Monday, February 9, 2026, the Ontario Review Board conducted its initial Disposition hearing for Mr. Messiha.
Position of the Parties
At the outset of the hearing, the parties were canvassed as to their recommendations to the Board.
Dr. Darby appeared as the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (“CAMH”) representative as well as being Mr. Messiha’s most responsible physician. Dr. Darby advised of CAMH’s opinion that that Mr. Messiha remains a significant threat to public safety, and if the Board agrees, CAMH is recommending that Mr. Messiha continue to be subject to a Conditional Discharge with a number of conditions as granted previously by the Quebec Review Board/Quebec Tribunal. CAMH is recommending that Mr. Messiha continue under a Conditional Discharge~~.~~ One of the terms recommended by the hospital is that Mr. Messiha continue to live with his parents at the specified address we were given in the City of Brampton. CAMH is also recommending a no contact provisions, a prohibition against the use of substances, an obligation to provide samples of his urine and/or breath and a requirement to report to CAMH not less than once every two weeks.
Mr. Brandes appeared for the Attorney General. He anticipated supporting the hospital’s recommendation.
We note that Mr. Messiha was present at this hearing and that Mr. Messiha’s mother was also present at this hearing.
Ms. Perez appeared for Mr. Messiha. Ms. Perez advised that she would not be contesting the issue of significant threat, but she is opposing the request that there be a substance prohibition and similarly opposing the request for an obligation to provide samples.
Index Offence
- “Between May 3, 2024 and June 16, 2024, in Longueuil, district of Longueuil, did act towards [last name redacted] Gabriella and members of her family, knowing that [last name redacted] Gabriella is harassed or being reckless as to whether [last name redacted] Gabriella is harassed, did engage in a prohibited conduct referred to in subsection 264(2) of the Criminal Code, causing [last name redacted] Gabriella to reasonably fear for her safety or the safety of anyone known to her, committing thereby the offence punishable on summary conviction provided by section 264(1)(3)b) of the Criminal Code.
On or about July 28, 2024, in Boucherville, district of Longueuil, being at large on a release order, in file number 505-01-191300-249 did fail, without lawful excuse, to comply with a condition of that release order other than the condition to attend court, to wit not to be in the city of Boucherville committing thereby the offence punishable on summary conviction provided by section 145 (5)a) of the Criminal Code.
On or about July 28, 2024, in Boucherville, district of Longueuil, being at large on a release order, in file number 505-01-191300-249 did fail, without lawful excuse, to comply with a condition of that release order other than the condition to attend court, to wit Not to be at or go to the following address: Residence of Gabriella [last name redacted] or any other place where the complainant Gabriella [last name redacted] and members of her immediate family (parents) may live, regardless of the address committing thereby the offence punishable on summary conviction provided by section 145(5)a) of the Criminal Code.
According to documents from the Tribunal Administratif du Québec, three verdicts of Not Criminally Responsible due to Mental Disorder (Non-responsabilité criminelle pour cause de troubles mentaux) were dated September 26, 2024.”
Evidence at Hearing
The Board admitted into evidence the original Disposition from the Quebec Tribunal, Reasons for that Disposition dated December 10, 2024, a document in connection with a transfer to Ontario, and the CAMH Hospital Report dated January 23, 2026. The Alternate Chair raised with the parties the fact that we had been provided with Victim Impact Statements that were filed in the Quebec proceedings. The parties were content that the Victim Impact Statements be admitted into evidence.
As the Hospital Report was made an exhibit, it is not necessary to reproduce the information contained in the Hospital Report. We do note, however, the stated diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder.
In addition to the documentary evidence, the Board heard from Dr. Darby. Dr. Darby assumed care of Mr. Messiha after his transfer to Ontario. Dr. Darby’s colleague, Dr. Wain, did a risk assessment which was contained in the Hospital Report.
Dr. Darby noted that overall, Mr. Messiha has done well. He remains compliant with his medication, and he is very invested in seeking to obtain employment.
Mr. Messiha has moved into his parents’ home and that appears to be working well.
Dr. Darby noted his concern that Mr. Messiha has been using cannabis on occasion since he has moved to Ontario.
Dr. Darby is of the opinion that Mr. Messiha remains a significant threat to public safety. Dr. Darby relies on the events of the index offences including the two charges where he breached his obligation not to have contact with the victim. Dr. Darby describes the situation as a persistent pattern of inappropriate conduct. The Hospital Report contains a list of some other charges. The Hospital Report also notes a history of medication noncompliance. Dr. Darby noted that the main issue in this hearing is whether this Board should include the request from the hospital for a prohibition against the use of cannabis and an obligation to provide samples. Dr. Darby and the clinical team are of the opinion that a cannabis prohibition is both warranted and necessary.
Dr. Darby noted the following from pages 21 and 22 of the Hospital Report:
“During the period of offending behaviour, he estimated using a couple grams of cannabis per week. He stated cannabis was always a factor in his actions as he smoked cannabis the day prior or the day before he tried to contact Gabriella.”
This, of course, refers to Mr. Messiha and Gabriella is the first name of the victim of the index offences.
The risk assessment portion of the Hospital Report also identifies substances as a significant risk factor.
Dr. Darby noted that the clinical team did consider whether a Detention Order was necessary and appropriate but ultimately concluded that Mr. Messiha’s threat to public safety could be managed with a Conditional Discharge with the living condition and the condition prohibiting the use of cannabis and the obligation to provide samples.
In response to questions from Ms. Perez, Dr. Darby acknowledged that his patient is pleasant, and his knowledge that presently there are no outstanding charges for Mr. Messiha.
Ms. Perez asked whether the hospital was seeking a prohibition against the use of all intoxicants. Dr. Darby indicated that the hospital was not seeking a prohibition against the use of liquor and was seeking a prohibition against the use of cannabinoids.
Ms. Perez suggested that Mr. Messiha had volunteered the information to Dr. Darby of his use of cannabis on four occasions and Dr. Darby agreed that was an accurate conclusion.
Ms. Perez suggested that her client was appropriate in arranging his necessary medication ahead of time when he moved to Ontario. Dr. Darby agreed that Mr. Messiha did so.
In response to questions from a panel member related to Mr. Messiha’s insight, Dr. Darby believes that the patient has some insight but noted that the patient frequently says that he would like to get off all medications at some point in the future. Dr. Darby also noted Mr. Messiha’s limited or poor insight into the use of cannabis. Mr. Messiha frequently says that cannabis is not a risk for him.
Dr. Darby agreed with the suggestion from the panel member that Mr. Messiha requires more education with respect to any use of substances.
In response to questions from another panel member, Dr. Darby advised that the recommendation for a Conditional Discharge with all of the terms requested is a unanimous one of the clinical team.
Another panel member referred Dr. Darby to paragraph 34 of the Reasons of the Quebec Tribunal:
“Concerning his substance use, the accused admits that he consumed cannabis last year, but that he has since stopped and that this is the best decision he has made. He does not intend to resume it.”
Dr. Darby agrees that Mr. Messiha’s current use and belief concerning substances is totally contrary to Mr. Messiha’s statement and/or evidence before the Quebec Tribunal.
- No other evidence was heard at this hearing.
Final Submissions
Dr. Darby was content to rely on his evidence. He submitted that the use of substances clearly was a factor in the index offences. Dr. Darby submitted that the safety of the public absolutely requires there to be a prohibition against cannabis and an obligation to provide samples.
Mr. Brandes agreed with the hospital. Mr. Brandes submitted that the evidence fully makes out that Mr. Messiha is a significant threat to public safety. Mr. Brandes noted the serious nature of the index offences. Mr. Brandes also noted Mr. Messiha’s lack of insight with respect to the risk of using substances.
Ms. Perez reminded the panel that her client has done reasonably well since his move to Ontario. She submits her client is invested in treatment. She noted that her client brought his medication with him when he moved to Ontario. Ms. Perez also noted that Mr. Messiha admitted his use of substances on four occasions and noted that there is no evidence of any inappropriate conduct following his use of substances since his return to Ontario.
Findings of the Board
The Board accepts the evidence of Dr. Darby and the evidence contained in the Hospital Report. In particular, we accept that Mr. Messiha remains a significant threat to public safety.
We agree with the evidence that Mr. Messiha’s threat to public safety can be managed safely with a Conditional Discharge providing Mr. Messiha complies with all of the terms requested by CAMH. This panel has no hesitation in finding that a prohibition against the use of cannabis and synthetic cannabinoids is necessary and is appropriate. We note that the Tribunal in Quebec also had a condition prohibiting Mr. Messiha from using substances and the fact that Mr. Messiha has used substances notwithstanding the terms of the Quebec Tribunal.
The panel also agrees that an obligation to provide samples is absolutely necessary and we have no hesitation in including the prohibition and the obligation to provide samples as conditions of Mr. Messiha’s Conditional Discharge.
In reaching our Disposition, the Board has taken into consideration public safety, Mr. Messiha’s mental condition and his other needs, and Mr. Messiha’s reintegration into society.
DATED this 25^th^ day of February, 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Mr. J. Goldenberg Alternate Chairperson
__________________
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board