Re: Oluseun Omiyi
ORB File No: 8207
Hearing held on: Tuesday, January 27, 2026
Place of hearing: St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton, West 5^th^ Campus 100 West 5^th^ Street, Hamilton, Ontario
Pursuant to: Sections 672.48(1) and 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Ms. S. Clapp
Members: Dr. H. Bloom Dr. A. Kerry Hon. A. Sosna Mr. A. Mete
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Oluseun Omiyi Counsel: Mr. L. Dimitry
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. L. Barney
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. C. Gzik
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated March 3, 2026)
Introduction:
On December 1, 2022, Oluseun Omiyi was found unfit to stand trial on charges of utter a threat to cause death or bodily harm, assault with a weapon, and mischief over five thousand dollars, all contrary to the Criminal Code. She is currently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (“ORB” or the “Board”) dated January 30, 2025, whereby she is detained at the Forensic Psychiatry Program at St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton, West 5^th^ Campus (“SJHCH” or the “hospital”) with privileges up to and including living in Hamilton in accommodation approved by the person in charge. She is also required to refrain from having weapons in her possession, and refrain from contacting the victim of the alleged index offences (her ex-husband).
On January 27, 2026, a panel of the Board convened at SJHCH to review Ms. Omiyi’s fitness to stand trial and her Disposition pursuant to sections 672.48(1) and 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Ms. Omiyi attended the hearing with her counsel, Mr. Dimitry.
The Hospital Report dated December 15, 2025, was marked as Exhibit 1. In addition to the documentary evidence, Ms. Omiyi’s attending psychiatrist Dr. Jonathan Duboff, and Ms. Omiyi, gave evidence.
The issues to be determined at the hearing were whether Ms. Omiyi continues to be unfit to stand trial in accordance with section 2 of the Criminal Code, and if so, what is the necessary and appropriate Disposition taking into account the factors set out in section 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
Ms. Gzik advised that a prima facie hearing was held on February 20, 2025 and the next one is scheduled for February 23, 2027.
Position of the Parties:
At the outset of the hearing, the parties were asked for their initial without prejudice positions. On behalf of the hospital, Ms. Barney took the position that Ms. Omiyi remains unfit to stand trial and a continuation of the existing Detention Order is the necessary and appropriate Disposition. Ms. Gzik expected to support the position of the hospital on behalf of the Attorney General.
Mr. Dimitry stated that he did not have instructions, but Ms. Omiyi wanted the Board to know that she does not have any charges before the Board or the court. All parties maintained their positions during final submissions.
Findings:
- For the reasons that follow, the panel found that Ms. Omiyi remains unfit to stand trial and that the necessary and appropriate Disposition, which is also the least onerous and least restrictive in the circumstances, is a continuation of the existing Detention Order.
Alleged Index Offences:
- The circumstances of the alleged index offences were set out at pages 3-4 of the Hospital Report, and can be summarized as follows. Ms. Omiyi and her husband had been separated since 2017, however Ms. Omiyi lived in the basement of the family home. Between May 2017 and August 2022, Ms. Omiyi allegedly damaged the family home. This included breaking drywall, pouring laundry detergent and other liquids into the heating vents, removing and destroying all blinds from the windows, damaging the fridge, and breaking a bathroom countertop and sink. The damage was estimated to be approximately $15,000. On August 8, 2022, Ms. Omiyi was sitting in the hallway outside of her husband’s bedroom. When her husband came out of his room and took a picture of her, she lunged at him with a knife and attempted to stab him. Ms. Omiyi’s husband was able to disarm her, and he sustained minor injuries consisting of scratches to his left arm.
Background:
Ms. Omiyi’s personal history is outlined in the Hospital Report, however the information is limited because Ms. Omiyi’s ex-husband refused to communicate with the treatment team and Ms. Omiyi provided little information. In summary, Ms. Omiyi is a 60-year-old separated woman who was born in Nigeria. She immigrated to Canada with her husband around 1998 and is a Canadian citizen. She has four adult children (their names and whereabouts are not known). Ms. Omiyi’s parents are deceased, and it is unknown if she has any siblings. Ms. Omiyi’s first language is Yoruba and she learned English in adulthood. Her education and employment history is unknown; however, there is reference in the Hospital Report to Ms. Omiyi having a diploma in business administration.
Ms. Omiyi and her husband were married for 28 years and separated in 2017. After the separation, Ms. Omiyi lived in the basement of the family home. Her ex-husband and two children lived upstairs at the time of the alleged index offences. Ms. Omiyi does not have a history of substance use.
Criminal History:
- Ms. Omiyi does not have a criminal record; however, health records indicated that she had been arrested for assault against her adult son in January 2018. She was sent to Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences (“Ontario Shores”) where she was made fit to stand trial under the authority of a Treatment Order. Ms. Gzic advised during the hearing that these charges were resolved by way of a peace bond in May 2018.
Psychiatric History:
The Hospital Report included a summary of Ms. Omiyi’s inpatient admission to Ontario Shores pursuant to a Treatment Order from January 16 to April 13, 2018. It was noted that Ms. Omiyi was guarded with personal information and refused to provide a social history. She was treated with antipsychotic medications and made a partial recovery from her symptoms. Her insight into her mental illness remained impaired and she expressed a plan to stop taking medication upon her release from the hospital. Ms. Omiyi was found fit to stand trial and her discharge diagnosis was Unspecified Schizophrenia Spectrum and Other Psychotic Disorder.
Ms. Omiyi was admitted to Credit Valley Hospital from December 2018 to January 2019 after being apprehended under the Mental Health Act by police. Ms. Omiyi’s family were concerned about her increasingly bizarre behaviour and they described her as paranoid, isolated, and difficult to manage. Ms. Omiyi denied having any mental health diagnosis and declined any follow-up. Her discharge diagnosis was Schizophrenia (likely).
Since being under the jurisdiction of the Board, Ms. Omiyi has consistently denied that she has a mental illness and has been adamant that her court matters have been resolved. Early in her admission, the Hospital Report stated that her symptoms of psychosis were so severe that she was incapable of understanding basic concepts of her legal situation and was unable to have a meaningful conversation. Ms. Omiyi had grandiose delusions that she was the “President of Canada” and all of her court matters had been resolved because she was exempt. She refused to attend court when she was found unfit to stand trial and refused medications. Over the last few years, only marginal improvements have been made on the issue of fitness to stand trial despite treatment with antipsychotic medications and individual psychoeducation about the forensic system and Ms. Omiyi’s legal matters.
Numerous efforts were made by the treatment team to contact Ms. Omiyi’s ex-husband (including calling and sending letters) with no response. When he ultimately was reached, he refused to talk to the treatment team given the no contact order. One of Ms. Omiyi’s son’s contacted the treatment team and visited Ms. Omiyi in April 2024; however, this appeared to be only related to the family’s financial crisis and the need to sell the family home. There has been no contact from Ms. Omiyi’s family since then.
The Hospital Report stated that Ms. Omiyi’s diagnosis is Schizophrenia. She is incapable of consenting to treatment and managing her finances, and the Public Guardian and Trustee is her substitute decision-maker in both domains.
Evidence at the Hearing:
The Hospital Report stated that Ms. Omiyi’s presentation, activity, and mental status have been incrementally improving with treatment with antipsychotic medications. She has not been observed to have overt hallucinations or disorganized thinking or behaviours; however, she continues to have persecutory and paranoid delusional beliefs, particularly surrounding her legal matters and family, as well as negative symptoms including amotivation, lack of spontaneous speech, and flat affect. She has not been a management concern, but requires ongoing prompting and assistance with personal care. She is minimally engaged with therapeutic supports, and her ability to prepare meals and navigate the community have not been able to be assessed.
Ms. Omiyi is described as having little to no insight into her mental health diagnosis, the need for treatment, and her detention under the Board.
Community living was added to Ms. Omiyi’s Disposition last year. The Hospital Report stated the following about the issue of housing (at page 34):
“The clinical team completed a Level of Care Utilization System for Psychiatric and Addiction Services (LOCUS) assessment; the results recommend Ms. Omiyi would require supportive residential services to meet her needs in the community and to safely manage her risk. As previously identified, the OPG&T has managed the sale of the matrimonial home and, although a definitive sum has not been disclosed at this time, the trustee has approximated a total that would likely find Ms. Omiyi ineligible for subsidized housing in the city of Hamilton. As such, Ms. Omiyi would require support to secure housing in the form of retirement or group homes, however it will be important to await the exact funds available to better understand Ms. Omiyi’s options in the community. According to the Trustee, there are significant debts which require settlement before the funds can be realized.”
The Hospital Report stated that a cognitive assessment was undertaken to better understand Ms. Omiyi’s clinical presentation and implications for her fitness to stand trial. It was noted that attempts had been made to engage Ms. Omiyi in fitness training and education about the forensic system, but her ability to benefit was limited despite improvements in her clinical presentation. This assessment concluded that Ms. Omiyi is a woman of average intelligence; however, when specific neurocognitive domains were examined, she evidenced various deficits on indices of attention, working memory and learning, as well as language. It was noted that impairments in memory and attention are consistent with cognitive impacts associated with longstanding Schizophrenia. A number of recommendations regarding alternative teaching modalities were made (at page 37).
The Hospital Report stated that the Psychological Risk Assessment that was completed in 2024 remained valid. It concluded that Ms. Omiyi’s estimated risk of violence was moderate, which reflected ongoing psychosis and absent insight. With the current supports of a Detention Order in place, the risk was low (at page 35).
The Hospital Report stated the following about Ms. Omiyi’s fitness to stand trial (“FTST”) in the Clinical Risk Summary (at page 38):
“Despite having continued insight-oriented conversations and psychoeducation regarding her FTST throughout this reporting period, including being provided with printed material to read on her own, Ms. Omiyi has demonstrated only marginal improvements in her FTST. She has been less irritated when discussing her legal proceedings and less persistent in encouraging the clinical team to find “a judgment for seven days” from a Brampton courthouse that states she should not be in custody. However, Ms. Omiyi has continued to state that she should not be in hospital, that she does not have pending legal matters, that she does not have any mental illness which is why she feels she is being wrongfully detained and is awaiting discharge from hospital. She has also continued to resist or refuse explanations of her actual current clinical status, including her finding of unfit to stand trial, being under a disposition from the Ontario Review Board, and her current legal matters. Due to Ms. Omiyi’s active symptoms of mental disorder, it is my clinical opinion, based on a balance of probability, that she remains unfit to stand trial.”
- The Clinical Risk Summary stated the following about the issue of significant threat (at page 38):
“Ms. Omiyi also has a number of historical and dynamic risk factors that together meet the threshold of significant threat to the safety of the public; she is still suffering from severe symptoms of psychosis that remain active, including an entrenched and systematized delusional belief, despite adherence to antipsychotic medications. Her insight into her psychotic disorder is absent and she does not appreciate the need for psychiatric medications. As a consequence of her mental illness, she previously became paranoid towards her family and threatened her ex-partner with a knife; her actions inflicted a moderate degree of psychological harm and had a potential for inflicting a moderate to high degree of physical harm. Currently she has no social supports, psychiatric follow-up, or residence in the community.”
Dr. Duboff testified that he had been Ms. Omiyi’s attending psychiatrist for almost three years. Ms. Omiyi’s mental status was quite stable and her medications had been optimized. She was using her indirectly supervised passes on hospital grounds, as well as community passes with staff. Ms. Omiyi engages minimally and requires a lot of support from staff, as she expresses a lot of hesitancy with any change to her routine. Ms. Omiyi’s affect is more reactive and she has not been voicing somatic delusions.
Dr. Duboff testified that housing placements remain on hold for Ms. Omiyi until there is more information about the sale of the family home and Ms. Omiyi’s financial situation. When the time comes for a progression to community living, a very gradual and stepwise approach will be required.
Dr. Duboff was not prepared to say that Ms. Omiyi was permanently unfit as they were still seeing gradual improvements. He was happy to see Ms. Omiyi at the hearing because she had not attended her first few court and ORB hearings.
Dr. Duboff testified that he had last assessed Ms. Omiyi’s fitness to stand trial the day before the hearing. While Ms. Omiyi understood basic concepts of legal proceedings (such as plea options, potential outcomes, the roles of key professionals in the courtroom, oaths, and perjury), it was Dr. Duboff’s opinion that she remained unfit to stand trial. Although Ms. Omiyi could name the charges against her, she remained adamant that the charges had been resolved and no longer applied to her. Dr. Duboff testified that although Ms. Omiyi was able to communicate with her counsel, the “sticking point” for a number of years has been that she does not have the ability to appreciate information about the application of legal charges to her and therefore is unable to provide instructions to her counsel. She is consistently unable to appreciate why she is detained, why she is under the ORB, and believes that it is all incorrect and a matter of injustice.
Dr. Duboff testified that the treatment team had pursued the recommendations from the cognitive assessment without success. Ms. Omiyi was provided with verbal, written, and visual information related to legal concepts. When the use of a Yoruba interpreter was suggested, Ms. Omiyi adamantly denied that it was needed. Dr. Duboff added that he had never felt that language was a barrier to communication with Ms. Omiyi.
In response to questions from Ms. Gzic about whether Ms. Omiyi was confusing the charges she had incurred in relation to her adult son in 2018, with those related to her ex-husband in 2022 (noting that the adult and ex-husband may have the same name), Dr. Duboff was unable to comment. He stated that Ms. Omiyi consistently maintained that she was told that she had to serve seven days and that had been completed. She was also reluctant to talk about the nature of her charges. Dr. Duboff also noted that he had shown Ms. Omiyi the paperwork related to her charges and hearings, and she responded that they were all lies. She also denied that she had any charges when Dr. Duboff told her about the prima facie case that occurred in February 2025.
In response to questions from Mr. Dimitry, Dr. Duboff explained that in the first year and a half under the jurisdiction the Board, Ms. Omiyi was frustrated and would raise her voice when education about her charges was attempted. She experienced persecutory beliefs and accused Dr. Duboff of conspiring to keep her in the hospital. In the past year, Ms. Omiyi appeared to listen more, and was exasperated, confused, and sad about the situation. She was more accepting of receiving the legal documents related to her Treatment Order, the finding of unfitness, her charges, and the Hospital Report. However, she consistently maintained that all of her charges had been resolved.
In response to questions from the panel, Dr. Duboff stated that he did not think that Ms. Omiyi had a reality based understanding of her situation and she would not be able to be meaningfully engage in the court proceedings. When asked how Ms. Omiyi understood the Board hearing, he responded that Ms. Omiyi hoped to be able to explain to the Board why she should not be in the hospital and why she should be discharged home.
Ms. Omiyi testified. She repeated many times that she had been required to stay in detention for one week, and it had been over four years now. She stated that she had no psychosis, no mental illness, and she was never found unfit on account of a mental disorder. Her court case had been adjudicated completely and there was no court case or retrial anymore. Ms. Omiyi denied making any death threats, assaulting anyone with a weapon, or destroying property. Ms. Omiyi testified that she should be able to go home because she did not do anything wrong and had been through so much already.
Analysis and Conclusions:
Based on the Hospital Report and the evidence of Dr. Duboff and Ms. Omiyi, the panel concluded that Ms. Omiyi remains unfit to stand trial when considering section 2 of the Criminal Code and the relevant case law. It was clear from the evidence that while Ms. Omiyi has an understanding of the legal process, she adamantly and consistently denies that she has any outstanding charges that would require ongoing court proceedings. She therefore cannot apply the information to her own situation. This is despite valiant efforts to try and educate her in many ways about her charges and the forensic system. The panel found that Ms. Omiyi does not have a reality based understanding of her legal situation, and would be unable to meaningfully instruct counsel or participate in legal proceedings. Dr. Duboff did not think that Ms. Omiyi was permanently unfit at this juncture, and it is hoped that with further improvements in her mental status, Ms. Omiyi will be able to gain an understanding of her legal situation. Her having been made fit once before, in the spring of 2018, when she was subject to a Treatment Order, suggests that fitness restoration is possible.
The panel found that Ms. Omiyi continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public, and accepted the reasoning set out in the quotation from page 38 of the Hospital Report cited above. Ms. Omiyi’s risk to the public is impacted by her active delusions and lack of insight. Without the oversight of the forensic system, the panel was satisfied that Ms. Omiyi would likely stop her psychiatric medications (as she had done in the past) and her psychotic symptoms would worsen. This would include paranoia and delusions of reference which would likely cause Ms. Omiyi to defend herself with physical means, which would then lead to physical and/or psychological harm to others, as happened at the time of the alleged index offences.
The panel concluded that a Detention Order with the same terms and conditions as last year was the least onerous and least restrictive Disposition for Ms. Omiyi at this time. Ms. Omiyi has not yet exercised many of the privileges that are in her current Disposition. She also has community living in her Disposition, which allows for her to be placed on waiting lists when it is determined why type of housing Ms. Omiyi will require going forward.
DATED this 3^rd^ day of March 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Ms. S. Clapp Alternate Chair
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board