Re: A.M.
ORB File No: 7666
Hearing held on: Monday, January 19, 2026
Place of hearing: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Ms. C. Finley
Members: Dr. G.A. Chaimowitz Dr. L. Leong Ms. M.L. Bridger Mr. J. Cyr
Parties Appearing:
Accused: A.M. Counsel: Ms. A. Szigeti
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Mr. D. Blumenkrans Doctor: Dr. A. Igoumenou
Attorney General of Ontario: Ms. R. Weinberg
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated March 2, 2026)
Overview
Introduction
On December 18, 2019, A.M. was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (“NCR”) on charges of assault causing bodily harm, sexual assault, and assault with a weapon contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada. He is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board (“ORB/the Board”), dated January 24, 2025, discharging him subject to conditions, including that he reside at a specified address and take treatment as prescribed by his doctor pursuant to s.672.55 of the Criminal Code.
On January 19, 2026, the Board convened a hearing pursuant to s.672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. A.M. was present and represented by Ms. Szigeti.
At the outset of the proceedings, all parties were canvassed as to their positions on the two issues to be determined by the Board: whether Mr. A.M. continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public, and if so, the necessary and appropriate disposition having regard to the criteria set out in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
Mr. Blumenkrans, on behalf of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (“CAMH/the hospital”), submitted that Mr. A.M. no longer met the threshold for significant threat and, therefore, should receive an absolute discharge. Ms. Szigeti agreed with the hospital’s position. Ms. Weinberg, on behalf of the Ministry of the Attorney General, submitted that Mr. A.M. remains a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate disposition was a continuation of the current conditional discharge, with the same terms and conditions.
Findings
- For the reasons that follow, the panel finds that Mr. A.M. remains a significant threat to the safety of the public and the necessary and appropriate disposition is a conditional discharge with conditions including that he have no contact with the victim, A.B., not be in possession of a weapon, remain in the province of Ontario unless he has a prior approved itinerary, and that he report not less than once a month.
The Evidence
- The evidence at the hearing consisted of the Hospital Report, dated January 8, 2026 (ex. 1), and the viva voce evidence of Dr Igoumenou, Mr. A.M.’s Most Responsible Physician.
Previous Period Under the ORB
From 1995 to 2001, Mr. A.M. dated MG. They cohabited for a year. On April 19, 2001, Mr. A.M. punched and hit MG several times while repeatedly telling her to admit that she was “a devil” and a “witch”. He attempted to drag her to the seventh-floor balcony, stating that she had to die. When she resisted, he struck her head against the door frame. Mr. A.M. attempted to stab MG with a kitchen knife. The assault ended when someone knocked on the door. However, Mr. A.M. locked MG in the apartment for a further two hours.
On October 1, 2001, Mr. A.M. was found NCR on charges of forcible confinement, assault with a weapon and aggravated assault. After spending ten months at CAMH, he was discharged to reside in August 2002 in the community. He was followed by a forensic outpatient team.
In November 2003, Mr. A.M. met KG and entered into an intimate relationship. He did not disclose this relationship to the treatment team. At the time, Mr. A.M. was subject to a conditional discharge with a condition to reside with his mother, accommodation that had been approved by the hospital. Unbeknownst to the forensic team, Mr. A.M. was residing in an apartment with a friend (not KG). On November 8, 2003, Mr. A.M. was experiencing increased paranoia and became increasingly angry towards KG. When she tried to leave the apartment, he prevented her. Over a nine-hour period, Mr. A.M. repeatedly sexually assaulted KG, struck her with a leather belt, and slapped and punched her on the head. He later reported that he thought his sexual actions would assist in getting her to admit to her wrongdoings and cult extra-relational involvement. The team noted concerns regarding adherence to psychotropic medications. Mr. A.M. later disclosed that he had been non-adherent to olanzapine for 2 months leading up to November 2003.
Arising out of the November 8-9, 2003, incident, Mr. A.M. was convicted of sexual assault, forcible confinement, assault with a weapon and uttering threats x 2. He was sentenced to 5 years in the penitentiary and thus became a dual status offender. On April 8, 2005, the ORB ordered Mr. A.M. to be transferred from Millhaven to Oakridge (now Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care). At the time of admission, he presented as agitated and expressed paranoid ideation regarding hospital staff. He was described as angry, unpredictable, and uncooperative. He became more settled by June 2005 after being treated with olanzapine.
In due course, Mr. A.M. launched a conviction appeal. In September 2007, his appeal was successful, and his sentence was converted to NCR verdicts. He ultimately was transferred to CAMH. While admitted to hospital, Mr. A.M. was adherent with treatment, participated in programming, and showed some insight into the negative impact of substances on his mental status. The team felt that he demonstrated increased awareness.
Mr. A.M. was discharged to reside in the community in October 2009. He resided in an apartment and was financially supported by the Ontario Disability Support Program (“ODSP”) and some food delivery service work. In December 2009, the team made inquiries about a sexological assessment that had been conducted in 2008. Mr. A.M. had fabricated that he had undergone phallometric testing. He reluctantly agreed to participate in Sex Offence Relapse Prevention counselling. Reports from his counsellor were that Mr. A.M. “had gained some insight into the triggers involved in the re-offence cycle”.
Between 2009 and 2011, Mr. A.M. was involved in a relationship with Earlene, whom he introduced to the treatment team. They were temporarily engaged but they ended the relationship on an amicable basis.
On August 25, 2014, Mr. A.M. was absolutely discharged. Although he had continued access to the forensic team to assist with a transition to community supports, he declined their assistance. He indicated that he was in the process of seeing a psychiatrist in the community but could not get in contact with one. Mr. A.M. was referred to Archway Clinic, but he declined that option as he did not like the environment. Mr. A.M. did not follow up with the clinical team.
Index Offences
In 2011, Mr. A.M. started dating AB. They married in March 2013. She reported several incidents of violence between 2012 and 2015. Of note, this is while he was still under the auspices of the ORB. AB stated that Mr. A.M. accused her of being a witch and speaking to his mother. He assaulted her all over her body, including her face. At one point, he grabbed a knife and threatened to slit her throat if she continued to lie to him. She resumed sexual relations in order to make the abuse stop. AB remained in the relationship because Mr. A.M. had apologised. During 2012 to 2013, he exhibited signs of paranoia, antagonism, and mood lability, suggestive of residual psychotic disturbances. Due to problems with medication compliance, he was switched to a long-acting injectable antipsychotic medication.
In December 2013, Mr. A.M. demanded access to AB’s Facebook account. When she refused, he began hitting her and prevented her from escaping. AB eventually provided her password in order to stop the assaults. Charges were laid in relation to this incident but were later withdrawn.
On March 7, 2015, Mr. A.M. returned home late and began to question AB’s identity. He confined her in the apartment for five hours. During that time, he slapped her, hit her and threatened to kill her. He became increasingly paranoid and suspicious, accusing AB of engaging in witchcraft, sexual manipulation and infidelity. He had adhered to medication until the time of this incident. On March 8, 2015, less than six months after being absolutely discharged, Mr. A.M. was charged with assault with a weapon, assault causing bodily harm and sexual assault.
On October 13, 2017, the court ordered a dangerous offender assessment of Mr. A.M. At the conclusion of the assessment, Dr. Klassen indicated that, in his opinion, the defence of NCR was available to Mr. A.M. As noted above at the outset of the reasons, Mr. A.M. was found NCR on December 18, 2019.
Background Information
The Hospital Report contains details about Mr. A.M.’s personal history and progress while under the Board and need not be reviewed in detail in these reasons beyond the following material facts.
Mr. A.M. is a 52-year-old man who was born and raised in Ghana. He moved to Canada when he was nineteen with his mother and stepfather. He completed a degree in history at York University. In 2011, Mr. A.M. enrolled in York University for a second time to pursue an accelerated two-year Bachelor of Science in Nursing. Mr. A.M. completed 75% of this course and left the program.
Mr. A.M. started consuming alcohol and cannabis in his late teens. He identified that alcohol had a negative effect on him in that it made him irritable, impulsive and angry. He reported that he last used cannabis in 2015.
Mr. A.M.’s first contact with mental health services occurred in 1999. Mr. A.M. was admitted to the William Osler Health Centre after reportedly having threatened his wife and child. He presented as paranoid, in particular, towards his wife. He was treated with antipsychotic medication and discharged. At the time, Mr. A.M. disclosed occasional drinking and cannabis use. The diagnosis on discharge was paranoid disorder (brief reactive psychosis).
Course Since the Last Disposition
Mr. A.M.’s current diagnosis is schizophrenia (in remission) and substance use disorder (alcohol and cannabis, in remission). Sometime in 2012-2013, he was prescribed injectable antipsychotic medication due to problems with medication adherence. In March 2015, he switched to an oral antipsychotic medication while he was in detention. Mr. A.M. continues to be treated with an oral antipsychotic medication that he self-administers. The hospital has confirmed that he regularly picks up his medication from the pharmacy.
Since his NCR finding six years ago, Mr. A.M. has resided in the community in a subsidized apartment. The treatment team reports that he has not engaged in violence, aggression, or sexually disinhibited behaviours. His mental status has remained stable, with no evidence of psychosis or disturbance of mood. Mr. A.M. has continued to work for Skip the Dishes and Uber Eats. He maintains contact with his mother, stepfather and four siblings who reside in Brampton.
Dr. Igoumenou testified before the panel. She indicated that Mr. A.M. has had another good year. There have been no reported issues with medication compliance. Dr. Igoumenou testified that there have been improvements in Mr. A.M.’s insight into his mental illness and the need to take medication. He is able to recognize past behaviour when he was unwell and recognizes that he needed medication. However, in the Hospital Report, the doctor indicated that Mr. A.M.’s insight into the need for medication had improved but remained superficial.
All urine drug screens have been negative for substances. However, Mr. A.M. has reported to the team that he drinks a glass of wine or beer on a casual basis every few months. He is aware that this is contrary to his disposition. In August 2025, during a discussion with his Forensic Consultation and Assessment Team (“FORCAT”) therapist, Mr. A.M. reported that he occasionally consumes a glass of wine to cope. He claims it helps him with his emotions. On questioning Dr. Igoumenou agreed that his using alcohol in contravention to the conditions in his disposition is a concern. She added that it was good that it was discussed in therapy. There have been no observed changes in Mr. A.M.’s mental state. Dr. Igoumenou testified that there have been no known risk issues in relation to his alcohol use.
Dr. Igoumenou reported that Mr. A.M. engaged in eight individual psychological therapy sessions with a practicum student with FORCAT between May and December 2025. He was referred to address anger issues and relationship difficulties. The therapist noted there has been improvement in his insight of his role in these areas.
Dr. Igoumenou testified that the following facts led her to conclude that she could not positively say that Mr. A.M. remains a significant threat to the safety of the public: his psychotic illness is in full remission with medication; he is adherent to medication; his urine drug screens have been negative; there has been no change in his mental state; he has remained fully employed and living independently in the community; and he recently successfully attended therapy sessions. Dr. Igoumenou testified that she cannot positively state that Mr. A.M. would commit a serious criminal offence if granted an absolute discharge.
Dr. Igoumenou identified stressors that Mr. A.M. has experienced over the past year. He is stressed and worried about his mother’s health and failing memory. Also, his application for a truck driving licence was rejected. In the doctor’s opinion, in both situations, Mr. A.M. managed the stress well. The doctor noted that Mr. A.M. seems more open to discussing stressors as they were occurring, whereas in the past, he would have been secretive.
Dr. Igoumenou testified that should Mr. A.M. receive an absolute discharge, a non-forensic community treatment team would be available to provide support to him. He has been referred to the CAMH outpatient psychiatry team, a non-forensic team. Dr. Igoumenou’s referral was to a more intensive support for higher support follow-up. However, in that team’s opinion, Mr. A.M. did not need that higher level of support. In February, Mr. A.M. has an interview scheduled with the team that does the relatively lower level of supervision and follow-up. Mr. A.M. also enjoys a good relationship with his general practitioner who would take on the role of prescribing his medication.
Mr. A.M. has stated that he would like to wait until he receives an absolute discharge before pursuing a romantic relationship. He confided that, over the past year, he has had two sexual encounters. There also were times when he went on a date, but it did not progress further. On other occasions, Mr. A.M. has stated that he preferred to stay single as he did not want to disrupt his current status of feeling well. Dr. Igoumenou testified that Mr. A.M. has stated that he may not enter into a relationship at all unless there were positive signs that the relationship “would be good”. He wanted a relationship with a woman who was not rude, argumentative or loud as he recognizes that they are “triggers” for him.
Mr. A.M.’s offences have specifically targeted women. Dr. Igoumenou testified that Mr. A.M. has acknowledged that he did not handle those challenging situations well. He has stated that, in the future, he would use his coping strategies, like walking away or taking space. When asked if Mr. A.M. would be able to put to use the skills he learned in therapy, Dr. Igoumenou indicated that she did not know.
During the course of his recent therapy sessions, Mr. A.M. stated he felt that he has made significant progress in the areas of anger management and cultivating a healthy understanding of interpersonal relationships. He continued to maintain that he did not experience emotional pain. He shared some information about a past relationship, and identified practical barriers (e.g., finances, better housing, and employment) as the only things preventing him from entering a new relationship at present. Toward the end of the session, the therapist and Mr. A.M. agreed that, despite his progress, it may be worthwhile to continue exploring what a healthy relationship looks and feels like for him.
One of the biggest risk factors for Mr. A.M. is intimate relationships. He identified that, especially during the last index offences, he consumed alcohol and spirits, and that increased his impulsiveness and aggressiveness. Further, Mr. A.M.’s mental illness had a direct impact on his reactiveness and anger. When asked, Dr. Igoumenou testified that she did not know the exact trigger but identified that Mr. A.M. was mentally ill at the time and also using alcohol.
Dr. Igoumenou agreed with the following passage from the Hospital Report: “He has difficulty appreciating the manifestations of his mental conditions (especially when unwell) and the factors that influence its course. When experiencing worsening psychotic symptoms, he often has not sought out further professional support and treatment as needed.” 1 Although Mr. A.M. had a doctor at the time of the index offences, he did not seek out assistance when he was unwell. Of note, at the time of the index offences, Mr. A.M. was being treated with long-acting injectable antipsychotic medication.
Dr. Igoumenou agreed that, after being released from the Toronto South Detention Centre in 2016, Mr. A.M. lived in the community in his apartment. For nine of the past ten years, Mr. A.M. has been residing on his own with no incidents.
In response to questions from the panel, Dr. Igoumenou confirmed that medication compliance is a risk factor, together with consuming alcohol. Mr. A.M.’s insight into his illness and the need for medication has improved this year, albeit superficially. Mr. A.M. is currently receiving a minimum dose of antipsychotic medication that previous doctors have tried to increase to reach a therapeutic level. The team is only able to confirm that Mr. A.M. regularly picks up his medication as this type of medication is not included in regular blood testing. Dr. Igoumenou testified that on the current dose, Mr. A.M.’s illness is managed well without side effects. This is based on the fact that Mr. A.M. has not reported any symptoms of psychosis and none have been observed by the treatment team. In Dr. Igoumenou’s opinion, he is in full remission at the moment. Mr. A.M. has told the doctor that he will continue to take medication because he sees the positive effects.
Dr. Igoumenou was asked how much of the intimate partner violence comes from Mr. A.M.’s major mental disorder and how much comes from his personality construct. The doctor testified that every single modality plays a role: his psychotic illness and alcohol in the form of disinhibition and increased aggressiveness and impulsiveness. The personality construct, as reflected in his elevated PCL-R2 score of 22 out of a possible 40 points which may be considered “moderate” relative to North American male forensic psychiatric patients, “does not help”, even in the absence of the mental illness.
Mr. A.M.’s personality construct played a role in his violence, even in the absence of mental illness.
Dr. Igoumenou agreed that there was a period when Mr. A.M. was in a relationship where he was violent over a three-year period, and so the violence presumably was not exclusively occurring during acute episodes of mental illness.
The Hospital Report includes the following observation under “Maladaptive Personality Traits”3:
“While Mr. A.M. has no documented history of conduct-disordered behaviour during his formative years, he exhibits some antisocial personality features in adulthood, mainly impulsivity, aggressiveness, and deficits in empathy. He is sensitive to interpersonal interactions with others and can easily become provoked and resentful of any perceived maltreatment by others, real or delusional in nature.”
Dr. Igoumenou agreed that in order to be sure that Mr. A.M.’s risk is managed, the team needs to be sure of both medication adherence and honesty. In her opinion, Mr. A.M.’s self-reporting of his alcohol consumption is a sign of honesty. She otherwise would not have been aware of any substance use as all urine drug screens have been negative.
When asked whether she thought a non-forensic team would be focussed enough and understand the forensic risks attached to any variation in Mr. A.M.’s otherwise positive presentation, Dr. Igoumenou responded that she could not possibly say. The community mental health team is a general psychiatric community mental health team. She did not know how well equipped they would be in managing his risk of intimate partner violence. Mr. A.M.’s engagement with this team would be on a voluntary basis.
At the conclusion of the evidence, all parties maintained their initial positions.
Analysis and Conclusion
The panel carefully considered the Hospital Report and the evidence of Dr. Igoumenou, and unanimously concluded that Mr. A.M. remains a significant threat to the safety of the public.
In Winko v. British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute), 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625, the Supreme Court of Canada stated that a significant risk is 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". There must be a positive finding by the Board of such risk to engage the provisions of the Criminal Code and to support restrictions on an NCR accused’s liberty. Something else, for example, uncertainty, cannot suffice. Critically, an accused NCR bears no onus to prove that they are not or no longer a significant threat, nor are they obliged to adduce evidence to that effect: Billing (Re), 2023 ONCA 764. If the Board cannot resolve the question of whether or not the NCR accused constitutes a significant threat to public safety, it must grant the accused an absolute discharge.
It is also well established that in coming to a conclusion on the issue of significant risk, a Review Board is to closely examine a range of evidence including the circumstances of the original offence, the past and expected course of the accused's treatment, the present state of the NCR accused's medical condition and the NCR accused's own plans for the future, the support services existing for the NCR accused in the community and, perhaps most importantly, the recommendations provided by experts who have examined the NCR accused. As regards the latter, the Board may reject such expert evidence. However, the Board’s decision ultimately must be based on the evidence, not, for example, on a sense of caution: Marsec (Re), 2015 ONCA 658.
Mr. A.M. is a 52-year-old man who has a history of multiple NCR findings for serious similar offending. His offending has been linked to a major mental disorder, but also to a personality construct that includes deficits in empathy, impulsivity, and increased aggression and resentment. His history shows that his is a perpetrator of Intimate Partner Violence and as such that is a risk factor going forward.
Mr. A.M.'s history of violence towards intimate partners involves sexual and physical aggression that has resulted in multiple serious charges. The panel is mindful that some of those charges were withdrawn, so is exercising caution before relying on those. Following Mr. A.M.'s original finding of NCR in 2001, he violently re-offended while under the jurisdiction of the Board and under the supervision of a forensic treatment team. There were several instances of intimate partner violence during his three-year relationship with AB (between 2012 and 2015). Within seven months of being absolutely discharged by the Board in 2014, he again violently re-offended and was charged with similar offences in 2015, even while compliant with his medication.
Some of Mr. A.M.’s violent behaviour is driven by active psychosis and is reactive and impulsive in nature. It is focused on intimate partners who are incorporated into his delusional beliefs. However, of note, his violent and sexual offending against his partners also took place over extended periods, as noted above between 2012-2015. This suggests a history of serial sexual and physical violence against partners beyond what may have happened during periods of acute psychosis.
The risk re-offence scenario in Dr. Igoumenou’s hospital report includes Mr. A.M. being noncompliant with medications and using alcohol and drugs. His offending, if it occurs, will be grave and serious, as demonstrated in the index offences which resulted in NCR findings. Mr. A.M.’s past offending has included sexual assault, assault with a weapon, aggravated assault, assault and forcible confinement.
Unfortunately, Mr. A.M.’s insight into needing medications is described as superficial, leading the panel to the opinion that his previous nonadherence to medications will likely reoccur because of this critical element. When he previously was under the supervision of a forensic treatment team, he committed the second serious assaults. Clearly, the presence of any psychotic symptoms was not observed by the team.
Additionally, notwithstanding Mr. A.M.’s and the doctor’s statements acknowledging that there is a link between alcohol use and violence, Mr. A.M. has consumed alcohol (albeit in small amounts and infrequently, according to his self-reporting). He drinks notwithstanding the awareness of risk and despite his disposition requiring him to absolutely abstain from alcohol. Given the doctor’s reliance on his self-reporting, honesty and being law abiding are very important issues. This is particularly critical given his history of being less than forthright with his previous treatment team.
According to the risk assessment instruments, Mr. A.M. has a moderate risk of reoffending sexually. Individuals with the same SORAG score as Mr. A.M.’s have a 59% rate of recidivism over 10 years; individuals with the same STATIC-99R score as Mr. A.M.’s have a 41% recidivism rate over 10 years. Although the panel does not see these as determinative, they identify a significant risk of sexual reoffence based on standard risk assessment tools.
If granted an absolute discharge, Mr. A.M. will have the opportunity to receive support from a community level team. However, this team is unlikely to have the forensic skills to manage his risk, including the training to manage the risk of intimate partner violence. Mr. A.M.’s attendance would be voluntary and, in the panel’s view, insufficient to manage his complex risk needs. Historically, he did not accept support when previously granted an absolute discharge.
As previously noted, a risk factor for Mr. A.M. is his intimate partner relationships. He is, in the panel’s opinion, likely to enter into an intimate relationship with a partner at some point. Indeed, in September 2023, he indicated he was waiting to get an absolute discharge before seeking a romantic relationship. His concerning risk factors will elevate the risk for violence and will need close monitoring. In addition, being described as having a risk of intimate partner violence does not fully capture his behaviour and the extent of his serial sexual offending and the resulting trauma experienced by his victims over extended periods of time. His statements that he “wanted a relationship with a woman who was not rude, argumentative or loud as he recognizes that they are “triggers” for him”, whilst seemingly thoughtful, raise questions about his response if he finds his partner rude, argumentative or loud.
Should Mr. A.M. relapse, either through medication, non-compliance or substance use, or a combination of both, he would be expected to decompensate rather quickly. When Mr. A.M. is acutely unwell, there is a real, not speculative, likelihood that he will commit criminal acts that will inflict significant physical and psychological harm on members of the public. His past re-offending intimate partner violence behaviour with serious consequences to his victims over extended periods of time resulting in two NCR findings attest to the high likelihood of similar criminal acts being committed in the future.
The panel recognizes that there is no onus on Mr. A.M. to prove that he is not a significant threat to the safety of the public. The panel further recognizes that Mr. A.M. has been living in the community for an extended period of time. However, with all due respect to Dr. Igoumenou, the panel does not accept her opinion that there is insufficient positive evidence to meet the threshold of significant threat to the safety of the public. This period of non-offending and continued wellness does not so much evidence that the risk factors have been adequately addressed as distinct from evidencing the benefit in having Mr. A.M. being monitored by the forensic treatment team. Colloquially, it is important that there have been eyes on Mr. A.M.
Mr. A.M. committed violent offences while under the jurisdiction of the Board and then within months of receiving an absolute discharge. In the panel’s view, this reasonably warrants – indeed, necessitates – an especially careful look at prediction of his risk. Past risk assessment practices arguably failed in this particular case. Given the nature of his serious violence over extended periods of time, it is clear that his risk stems from more than noncompliance with medication or alcohol use. This history coupled with his past serious dishonesty, obfuscation, and failure to disclose significant personal circumstances to his previous treatment teams, continue to loom large and provide positive evidence sufficient to meet the threshold of significant threat to the safety of the public.
Altogether, given Mr. A.M.’s serial significant offending that encompasses significant intimate partner violence, his personality construct, his mental illness, his superficial insight, and his use of alcohol in breach of his disposition, the panel finds that Mr. A.M. continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public.
In considering the necessary and appropriate disposition, the panel finds that a conditional discharge but with less restrictive and less onerous conditions would provide the team with the tools to adequately manage Mr. A.M.’s risk. He will report as required and not less than once a month, have no contact with AB and his travel privileges will remain the same.
In arriving at our conclusion, the Board has considered the paramount factor of the safety of the public, Mr. A.M.’s mental condition, his community reintegration, and his other needs, all as required by s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
DATED this 2nd day of March, 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Ms. C. Finley Alternate Chairperson
__________________
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board