Re Gaffar Othman, 2026 CanLII 18293

Ontario Review Board

Re: Gaffar Othman

ORB File No: 8750

Hearing held on: Wednesday, January 21, 2026

Place of Hearing: Providence Care Hospital

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

Before:

Alternate Chairperson: Mr. J. Hanbidge

Members: Dr. S. Hucker Dr. W. Loza Ms. K. Weisbaum Mr. A. Bouvier

Parties Appearing:

Accused: Gaffar Othman Counsel: Mr. M. Rodé

Person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. T. Tom Representative: Dr. M. Chan

Attorney-General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. G. Skerkowski

REASONS FOR DECISION & DISPOSITION

(Dated February 24, 2026)

Introduction:

1. On March 20, 2025, the accused, Gaffar Othman, was found not criminally responsible (“NCR”) on account of mental disorder on charges of sexual assault and indecent act, all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (“Criminal Code”). Mr. Othman is currently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated July 25, 2025, which detains him at the Secure Forensic Unit of Providence Care Hospital (“PCH” or “the hospital”) with privileges up to and including to enter the community of Kingston within 20 kilometres of the hospital, indirectly supervised.

2. By letter dated January 9, 2026, the hospital notified the Ontario Review Board that Mr. Othman was transferred to seclusion due to an ongoing risk and mental decompensation, thereby restricting his liberty.

3. On January 21, 2026, the Ontario Review Board held a hearing at the hospital to review the decision to significantly increase the restrictions of liberty (“ROL”) of Mr. Othman pursuant to section 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code and to review the Disposition pursuant to section 672.81(1). Mr. Othman was present at his hearing and represented by his counsel, Mr. Michael Rodé.

4. The following documents were entered as Exhibits at the hearing:

• Providence Care Hospital Notices of Restriction of Liberties (x4)
• ORB responses to the Restriction of Liberties (x4)
• PCH ROL Consultation Notes, dated August 25, 2025
• PCH Progress Notes, dated January 7, 2026
• PCH Rule 13 Notice to Waypoint Mental Health Centre, dated January 9, 2026
• PCH letter, dated January 9, 2026
• Hospital Report, dated June 4, 2025
• Waypoint Response to Rule 13 Notice, dated January 21, 2026

5. The issues to be determined at the hearing were: whether the ROL of Mr. Othman resulting from the incident on December 20, 2025, beginning as of that date and continuing as of the day of the hearing, was warranted; whether Mr. Othman continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public as defined in section 672.5401 of the Criminal Code and, if so, what is the necessary and appropriate Disposition that is also the least onerous and least restrictive taking into account the factors set out in section 672.54 of the Criminal Code. In making the appropriate Disposition, the Board also considered a Rule 13 request to transfer Mr. Othman to Waypoint.

6. For the reasons set out below, the Board found that the ROL of Mr. Othman resulting from the incident on December 20, 2025, beginning as of that date and continuing as of the day of the hearing, was warranted. Mr. Othman continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. The necessary and appropriate Disposition is a Detention Order, including a transfer of Mr. Othman to Waypoint, which is the least onerous and least restrictive approach.

Initial Positions of the Parties

7. Ms. Tom’s tentative position was that the initial restriction of liberty was warranted in the circumstances and that the ongoing restriction of liberty continued to be warranted. With respect to a Disposition, the hospital sought transfer of Mr. Othman to Waypoint. Mr. Othman continues to be a significant threat to the safety of the public. The appropriate Disposition is a Detention Order, using the current Disposition in place as the precedent with changes to some terms and conditions based on the letter of January 21, 2026, from Waypoint, and with Mr. Othman remaining at the hospital in the interim.

8. On behalf of the Attorney General of Ontario, Mr. Skerkowski submitted that the Crown agreed with hospital with respect to the initial and ongoing restriction of liberty and the issue of significant threat to the safety of the public, as well as with the proposed terms of the Detention Order Disposition and the transfer to Waypoint.

9. On behalf of Mr. Othman, Mr. Rodé indicated that it was not a joint submission. While he did not plan to challenge the finding of significant threat to the safety of the public, with respect to the restriction of liberty, he would wait to hear the evidence before taking a position. Regarding the appropriate Disposition, he opposed any changes to the existing Detention Order and the transfer to Waypoint.

Index Offences

10. The circumstances surrounding the finding of fitness are described in the Hospital Report as follow:

“At approximately 2:10 p.m. on Tuesday September 17, 2024, Kingston Police Officer's Cst. Dale Clarke and Cst. Chris van Laren were radio dispatched to attend the area Norman Rogers and Van Order Drive, City of Kingston for a reported black male grabbing a female’s buttocks. RD 24-33024 The complainant, contacted police advising of the incident. The complainant then followed the above mentioned male, later identified as Gaffar OTHMAN. The complainant stated he observed the male was into a unit at C[…] Crescent.

Officer's were unable to locate the female and several door knocks yielded negative results.

The complainant photographed the male involved and forwarded to police for evidence.

At approximately 5:50 p.m. on Tuesday September 17, 2024, Kingston Police Officer's Cst. Dale Clarke and Cst. Chris van Laren were radio dispatched to attend the area of 251 Yonge Street, city of Kingston for a reported black male walking south bound naked, later identified as Gaffar OTHMAN. He was described as a black male, 30-35 years, heavy set with a beard, grey hooded sweater and black shorts that were down as he walked south bound on Yonge Street.

While walking sought bound on Yonge Street at the intersection of Yonge Forsythe Street, OTHMAN walked past victim, grabbed her right buttocks. Victim advised this took her by surprise and did not permit OTHMAN to do this. Victim stated OTHMAN did not speak to her and continued south bound on Yonge Street. While on route, Kingston Police dispatch updated officers that OTHMAN had flashed the complainant, new complainant and her friend. In speaking with police, complainant advised she was heading north bound on Yonge Street when she observed a OTHMAN matching the above description walking south bound on Yonge Street. The complainant states OTHMAN was fully clothed as previously stated, upon looking away and looking back, the complainant observed OTHMAN to have his shorts and under garments around his ankles.

The complainant the loses visual of the OTHMAN who is later observed by another witness. The witness advises he was walking east bound near the abandoned OTHMAN had his shorts and underwear down, wearing a grey hooded sweater. At that time, OTHMAN then takes all his clothes off before entering Lake Ontario.

At 6:05 p.m., Officer's Cst. Van Laren and Cst. Dale Clarke arrived on scene. Officer' observed OTHMAN swimming in the water approximately 100 yards from the shoreline. OTHMAN was voiced out to several times with no response.

At 6:28 p.m., Officer's requested that assistance of KFR and their marine unit.

At 6:54 p.m., Cst. Fournier placed OTHMAN under arrest.”

Background

11. The Hospital Report, dated June 4, 2025, sets out Mr. Othman’s background in detail and has been considered by the Board and is briefly summarized below.

12. Records indicate that Mr. Othman was born on January 23, 1998, in Abu Dhabi, in the United Arab Emirates. He has a fraternal twin brother. Mr. Othman came to Canada with his mother and twin brother at the age of two years old. His mother and father divorced after one year of marriage. Mr. Othman was raised solely by his mother. He has no relationship with his father.

13. Mr. Othman and his family moved to Kingston, Ontario when he was three years old. He has lived with his mother in Kingston since that time. He has not had any significant romantic relationships or significant friendships. Mr. Othman has no children.

14. Mr. Othman is supported by the Ontario Disability Support Program (“ODSP”).

15. Records indicate that Ms. Aliya Seed, Mr. Othman's mother, reported that during pregnancy she experienced some complications. These included pre-eclampsia, intermittent bleeding, and urinary tract infections.

16. The Forensic Inpatient Assessment authored by Dr. Hassan (Oct. 2024) states Mr. Othman was reported to have been a sensitive child who required more attention than his fraternal twin brother. He attended the Challenge Program in middle school, and the International Baccalaureate (18) program at Kingston Collegiate Vocational Institute, a local high school. Both programs are attended by students with high academic achievements. Mr. Othman has not had any paid vocational experience.

17. Mr. Othman began demonstrating behavioural changes in 2013, at age 14. He began restricting his food intake and excessively exercising. The change in behavior was reported to have been attributed to bullying.

18. Mr. Othman was followed by the Hotel Dieu Eating Disorders program in 2014. He was diagnosed with anorexia nervosa, and obsessive-compulsive disorder. Mr. Othman experienced several hospital admissions between 2014 and 2016. Mr. Othman was diagnosed with Schizophrenia in August 2016.

19. From 2016 to present, Mr. Othman has had numerous inpatient hospital admissions for psychiatric reasons. Mr. Othman displays a pattern of medication non-compliance leading to inpatient admissions.

20. He has been on Community Treatment Orders (“CTO”) and followed by North Shore Assertive Community Treatment Team (“ACTT”). His history indicates that Mr. Othman had often been non-compliant with the terms of his CTO, such as not taking antipsychotic medication, and re-introduction of antipsychotics and stabilization has been a primary reason for admission.

Legal History

21. The CPIC for Mr. Othman shows that on September 5, 2024, Mr. Othman was convicted of: Assault a Peace Officer, and Assault with Intent to Resist Arrest.

22. A discharge summary from Kingston Health Sciences Centre (“KHSC”), authored by Dr. Dijana Oliver, dated June 25, 2018, reports that Mr. Othman was charged with indecent exposure in May 2018. This was not reflected in Mr. Othman's CPIC record that was checked on September 18, 2024. The Forensic Inpatient Assessment, authored by Dr. Tariq Hassan (October 8, 2024), indicates that Mr. Othman was brought to the KHSC in police custody for exposing himself to a worker at Kingston Transit. This occurred during an admission to KHSC from March 23 to May 25, 2017. Mr. Othman was referred to the Addiction Mental Health Services - KFLA (“AMHS-KFLA”) Court Diversion Program.

23. Mr. Othman was convicted of Uttering Threats on August 26, 2019. The Forensic Inpatient Assessment (Dr. Tariq Hassan, 2024) reports that Mr. Othman was brought to the KHSC as his mental health had been deteriorating while incarcerated. Mr. Othman had been incarcerated at the Quinte Detention Centre for posting death threats on social media.

Psychiatric History

24. Mr. Othman’s psychiatric history was summarized in the Reasons for Disposition dated August 11, 2025, following his annual review held on June 24, 2025. The summary is useful and so is included below.

25. Mr. Othman was first admitted to the KHSC for psychiatric treatment from January 7 to 21, 2014. The admission was the first of eight admissions in 2014. His discharge diagnoses over the course of 2014 included anorexia nervosa, obsessive compulsive disorder, and schizophrenia. Incidents related to the admissions included an assault on his mother, self-harm from punching himself in the face while in seclusion, and a scalp laceration resulting from his mother hitting him in the head with a frying pan.

26. By 2016, his mother reported that he had become more isolated and his school performance had declined. He was messy and refused to shower or change his clothes, which his mother first noticed six months after he stopped taking Invega Sustenna injections in November 2014. On August 22, 2016, he was admitted on a Form 1 under the Mental Health Act (“MHA”) due to his mother's concern that he would cause her bodily harm. This was extended to a Form 3 under the MHA on August 24, 2016, due to concerns that his mental illness could result in serious physical or mental deterioration to Mr. Othman. He was also placed on a Form 33 under the MHA, having been found incapable of consenting to treatment. His mother agreed to be his substitute decision-maker (“SDM.”) Then, on August 30th, his mother had a change of heart and refused to have her son treated against his will. She also refused a CTO for him. On September 6, 2016, Mr. Othman withdrew his challenge to a finding of incapacity and was started on Invega Sustenna injections, which were subsequently organized by the “Heads Up” team.

27. Mr. Othman was again admitted to KHSC from March 23 to May 25, 2017, after he was brought to the KHSC by police after exposing himself to a worker at Kingston Transit. He was found to be disorganized with religious ideations. He was followed by Dr. Khan and the “Heads Up” team. Upon discharge, Mr. Othman's mother was agreeable to placing Mr. Othman on a further CTO.

28. Mr. Othman was again admitted to KHSC from June 21 to June 25, 2018. Despite receiving a long-acting injectable medication, Mr. Othman remained psychotic with religious delusions, delusions of control and thought disorganization. He believed his neighbour and brother were Satanists. He thought his neighbor controlled him with telepathic powers. Two days prior to admission, Mr. Othman was found pacing in the basement and appeared preoccupied while brandishing a knife.

29. Mr. Othman was formally charged with indecent exposure from the incident in May 2018. On June 21, 2018, the day of admission, police recalled when Mr. Othman punched his brother in the face. He was admitted to the KHSC on a Form 1/42 under the MHA and isolated due to acute safety concerns. He was put in locked seclusion when he was agitated and not responding to verbal de-escalation. On June 25th Mr. Othman's mother contacted the hospital unit and requested Mr. Othman be released as she believed it was normal for brothers to fight. He was discharged on June 25th when found to be at baseline. He was subsequently followed by Dr. Delva and the ACT Team while prescribed Invega Sustenna. There were two more admissions in 2018 to the emergency department of KHSC related to agitation and violent behavior towards family members. His paliperidone dosage was subsequently increased.

30. Mr. Othman was again admitted from August 26 to November 13, 2019, after decompensation of schizophrenia that occurred secondary to medication non-adherence. At that admission, Mr. Othman had been brought to KHSC from the Quinte Detention Centre after having been incarcerated for issuing death threats on social media. A Consent and Capacity Board hearing upheld treatment with antipsychotics, electric convulsive therapy (“ECT”), and a CTO.

31. From March 3 to March 12, 2020, Mr. Othman was admitted to the KHSC Burr 4 unit. The discharge summary, dated March 12, 2020, indicated that Mr. Othman was admitted due to multiple factors. There had been numerous police contacts and on the day of admission his mother phoned paramedics as Mr. Othman had been found lying on the ground completely unclothed.

32. Mr. Othman was admitted to KHSC three more times in 2020, each time related to aggressive incidents and each time discharged to his mother's home with follow up from the ACT Team.

33. Mr. Othman was again admitted to KHSC from January 16 to July 15, 2021. He was brought by police to the emergency department following an argument with his mother that resulted in Mr. Othman breaking furniture. His CTO had lapsed in November 2020. He received his last dose of Invega Sustenna on November 13, 2020. His mother reported that Mr. Othman's symptoms had worsened during this stay in hospital. Mr. Othman was transferred from the North Shore ACT Team to the PSR ACT Team under the care of Dr. Ayonrinde. He remained incapable to consent to treatment, and a CTO was completed on July 13, 2021. He was discharged on July 15, 2021, to his mother's home.

34. Mr. Othman was admitted to KHSC for stabilization on December 15, 2021. The summary authored by Dr. Oliver, and dated December 15, 2021, stated that Mr. Othman was admitted for stabilization, psychiatric assessment, and re-introduction of antipsychotic medication. Prior to admission he was reported to have not been coping in the community. He was transferred to PCH on March 23, 2022. His previous CTO was completed; however, it was not signed by his SDM, his mother. He remained in PCH from March 23 to August 24, 2022. The discharge report authored by Dr. Richard Millson, dated August 24, 2022, stated that Mr. Othman was admitted for continued stabilization and to trial paliperidone without the addition of ECT. Upon discharge, Mr. Othman returned to his mother's home and was in the care of the PSR ACT Team.

35. Mr. Othman was admitted to KHSC from May 30 to June 7, 2024. He was brought to the hospital by police for threatening to harm his mother. He had been refusing his antipsychotic medication despite the requirements of his CTO. While in hospital, Mr. Othman was restarted on Invega Sustenna and discharged on June 7, 2024, to his mother’s home and the care of the PSR ACT Team.

36. From June 24 to July 9, 2024, Mr. Othman was admitted to KHSC. Limited information was available about this admission, however, available information states that he was admitted for “homicidal ideation.” He was again admitted to the PCH forensic mental health unit for assessment of criminal responsibility and fitness to stand trial from September 25 to November 22, 2024. He was subsequently found incapable to consent to a CTO on November 18, 2024. Consent was provided by his mother. The CTO was assumed by Dr. Danilo de Jesus of the PSR ACT Team. Mr. Othman was then returned to the custody of the Quinte Detention Centre and the care of the ACT Team. He was uncooperative with the assessment and therefore the assessment was inconclusive. Dr. Selhi advised that he could return to PCH for another evaluation for criminal responsibility.

Documentary Evidence—Hospital Report, May 28, 2025

37. The Hospital Report of May 28, 2025, includes extensive details about: i) Mr. Othman’s course in hospital from January 8 to March 5, 2025, provided by Dr. Selhi; ii) Mr. Othman’s course in hospital from March to June, 2025, provided by Dr. Selhi; iii) a section from the Psychological Risk Assessment Report dated May 16, 2025, by Dr. Christine Rose; iv) a Psychiatry Progress Report by Dr. M. Chan dated January 7, 2026.

38. For the purposes of these Reasons for Disposition, each of the four items are worth referencing and are summarized here, as follows:

i) Hospital Course January 8 to March 5, 2025, provided by Dr. Selhi

39. Mr. Othman's previous forensic admission at PCH from September 25 to November 26, 2024, occurred almost entirely in seclusion due to his impulsivity, psychiatric instability, and aggression. His evaluation for criminal responsibility was initiated during his hospital course beginning January 8, 2025, until March 5, 2025. Upon admission to the forensic unit at PCH on this occasion, Mr. Othman was calm and in behavioral control. He was largely medication compliant. He continued to accept his long-acting injectable antipsychotic medication. There was one instance in which he threw his food and kicked the door to his room, which led to a brief period of seclusion.

40. Mr. Othman continued to be ambivalent towards accepting oral antipsychotic medication into early February. He later refused these. He routinely stated that he did not see a benefit in taking more medication over what he felt was required and continued to have difficulty with reality testing. Other symptoms of psychosis included delusions of control, ideas of reference and thought broadcasting. He denied any thoughts that were sexually explicit in nature. Nevertheless, Mr. Othman reported that his symptoms had improved since his initial admission, while his insight remained limited. He also accepted the view that his experiences could be part of his mental illness. He remained stable without oral medication.

ii) Hospital Course from March 2025 to June 2025, provided by Dr. Selhi

41. Following his NCR hearing on March 20, 2025, Mr. Othman showed relative stability throughout the spring of 2025, however, he continued to respond to delusions and other symptoms of psychosis. He showed a calm and cooperative manner during almost all psychiatric interviews. He attended his monthly conferences and visited with his mother on the unit. He occasionally interacted with peers and attended recreational groups with some prompting. He made use of the yard and sometimes watched TV in the common area of Pod A. He did spend an excessive amount of time in his room and sometimes covered his window with paper.

42. With respect to medication adherence, despite being compliant with his long-acting injectable Invega Sustenna, Mr. Othman's behavior showed some decline during April and May 2025, resulting in the need to increase its frequency and dosing. These measures ultimately failed, and Mr. Othman remained inconsistent with either regularly scheduled oral antipsychotics or accepting as-needed medication. Haldol was added to his medication regimen. He remains on oral Haldol with the long-acting antipsychotic Invega Sustenna; however, his inconsistent acceptance of medication resulted in undertreated symptoms.

43. With respect to rule adherence, Mr. Othman has had three seclusions. Aside from that, Mr. Othman has had no positive drug screens, AWOL attempts, or chemical restraints. He was granted privileges at his court hearing on March 20, 2025, specifically, in hospital accompanied by staff and grounds accompanied by staff, however, he did not use any of these privileges in recent months.

iii) Psychological Risk Assessment report dated May 16, 2025, by Dr. Christine Rose

44. The Hospital Report at page 13 includes an excerpt from the Psychological Risk Assessment report of Dr. Christine Rose dated May 16, 2025. It provides a detailed explanation of the methods used to calculate risk for non-sexual violence and sexual violence. The “Overall Risk Estimate” on page 19 of the Hospital Report provides Dr. Rose’s summary of Mr. Othman's risk, as follows:

“Based on actuarial estimates, Mr. Othman's risk for sexual violence is Well Above Average Risk. This rating is within the context of an absolute discharge on the date of his 2025 ORB hearing. Review of available information suggests that Mr. Othman's risk for sexual violence is associated with symptoms of psychosis. Mr. Othman lives with treatment resistant schizophrenia that has not been optimally treated at various points in his life, largely due to medication non-compliance. File information suggests episodes of poor sexual self-regulation during periods of active psychiatric symptoms. There was no available evidence of sexual dysregulation in the context of optimally treated or remitted symptoms. Thus Mr. Othman’s Static 99R score likely represents his static risk based solely on behaviors that occurred when he was actively mentally ill.

Mr. Othman's risk for non-sexual violence, as assessed by the HCR-20, is considered to be High in the context of an absolute discharge. Under the external control offered by a detention order, Mr. Othman's risk would fall in the Moderate to High range, depending on the severity of his psychotic symptoms and compliance with medications.”

iv) Psychiatry Progress Note, January 7, 2026

45. Dr. Chan wrote that he assumed Mr. Othman's care after taking over from Dr. Selhi in December 2025. Dr. Chan reports that working with Mr. Othman has proved extremely challenging. Mr. Othman has had extended stays in the hospital observation suite because of his deteriorating mental state and behaviour associated with not taking his oral antipsychotic medication. When he maintains adherence to his oral medications in conjunction with his Invega Sustenna injectable, he has been able to function in the inpatient pod. He had seemed to be open to taking oral medication but then would demonstrate non-adherence. He was recently switched to injectable Clopixol.

46. Dr. Chan notes that since the incident on December 20, 2025, that led to a ROL, Mr. Othman is now viewed as having treatment resistant schizophrenia. He experiences mental status fluctuations associated with heightened concerns about aggression. The hospital developed a proposal for use with Mr. Othman in the high intensity treatment room to manage him with a strict behavioral approach correlated to his mental state, an approach that has been utilized since he became a forensic patient in May 2022. The proposal highlights his well-documented history of non-adherence with treatment and a symptom profile including asociality, poor motivation, affect impairment, persecutory thinking, auditory hallucinations, thought blocking and worsening paranoia.

47. Dr. Chan notes that prior to his forensic involvement, Mr. Othman had 19 inpatient admissions to the local general hospital since 2014. He also had a history with the justice system for threatening conduct and indecent exposure, as well as a separate history of assaults on family members at home. Mr. Othman “is an extremely risky individual especially given his poor medication adherence.”

48. At the conclusion of the Progress Note, Dr. Chan writes of Mr. Othman,

“Now that he has refused the oral medication on two consecutive days, I am very worried about further deterioration of mental state and behavior, especially interacting with staff or patients. He has already begun to demonstrate more physical aggressive gesturing in interactions with nursing.

Even if we could go down the incapacity pathway successfully, oral medications cannot be coerced. And we know that the maximum dose of Invega is not adequate alone.

Therefore, I strongly believe at this time where we're at with this individual, that we need a higher secure setting to undertake his treatment/management. He has a history demonstrating difficulties in general hospital settings and now even in the forensic settings such as ours.”

Current Diagnoses

49. Mr. Othman’s current diagnosis is treatment resistant Schizophrenia.

Evidence at the Hearing

50. The hospital’s evidence was presented through its Report as well as through the oral testimony of Dr. M. Chan, Mr. Othman’s current treating psychiatrist.

51. In response to questions from Ms. Tom, Dr. Chan stated that he has been Mr. Othman’s treating psychiatrist since December 11, 2025. Dr. Chan had reviewed Mr. Othman’s medical chart and Reasons for Disposition (dated August 11, 2025), which accounts for Mr. Othman’s history in detail. Mr. Othman has been in seclusion since his ROL began on December 20, 2025. He remains in seclusion.

52. Mr. Othman has a severe schizophrenic illness. He has problems with the treatment plan that is in place. He is not fully compliant. His behaviour fluctuates. It is a struggle to get him to take oral medications.

53. The event leading to his seclusion took place on December 20, 2025. An elderly female patient was trying to come into the television room. Mr. Othman was exiting the television room. Believing he had right of way, Mr. Othman pushed the woman. She fell and hit her head. She was seen in the emergency room and sent back to the unit. Mr. Othman was sent to the observation suite and remains there. Staff tried to explain to Mr. Othman why his behaviour was not appropriate. Dr. Chan wanted to work with Mr. Othman on his medication options and treatment plan. The team continues to have difficulties with Mr. Othman. While it is understandably difficult to be held in the observation suite, Dr. Chan has been pleading with Mr. Othman to take oral medications, as he does better when including oral medication, Olanzapine, along with injectable Invega Sustenna. He is now totally declining Olanzapine.

54. Mr. Othman knew that Dr. Chan completed paperwork regarding his incapacity to consent to treatment. His mother has now consented to a new injectable medication, Clopixol, and Mr. Othman is doing better, saying it is helping his thinking slow down. It is very early, but the team is optimistic about his prognosis. His dosage still needs to be monitored.

55. Since Mr. Othman has been in seclusion, he has seen daily by a psychiatrist, with further ongoing review at higher levels of clinical oversight within the hospital. He is not yet ready to come out of seclusion. Two weeks before the hearing, the team considered moving him to a high intensity treatment room, which management approved. However, the team has not yet been able to implement the move because of Mr. Othman’s current mental state. The team hopes to be able to move him within a day or so following the hearing. The move will mean that Mr. Othman continues to have a ROL in place, but in a more comfortable room. In order to transition out of the current ROL, Mr. Othman will need to show improvement in his mental state, i.e., in his affect, emotional state and interactions.

56. He was returned to the hospital about one year ago. He was found NCR in March 2025. He has a lengthy history outside of the forensic system of medication non-adherence. He has more than ten years in the community with multiple hospital admissions, with the same problems with medication compliance throughout, accompanied by a deteriorated mental state leading to behavioural problems.

57. Mr. Othman does not agree with Dr. Chan on the issue of his behavioural problems. He appears not wanting to associate his behavioural problems to his mental illness. He does not appear to realize that a severe mental illness amplifies a person’s behaviours and related struggles. When he is stable and well, his mother says he is pleasant. When he is not optimally medicated and his behaviour in the community deteriorates, his conduct becomes problematic and his risk to public safety increases. His risk is to anyone around him and includes some sexually problematic conduct, as it was at the time of the index offence. When he has lived at home, his mother has historically borne the brunt of his behaviour and other family members are at risk.

58. With respect to the incident that involved pushing a female patient and leading to the restriction of liberty on December 20, 2025, that was the first time that sort of thing happened in relation to a co-patient. In the past, staff in the general hospital were assaulted. Any staff are at risk. When Mr. Othman relapses and is paranoid, anyone could be at risk. His risk increases when he starts to experience active symptoms and in the past Mr. Othman has recognized when it is happening. This has been a major struggle for him over the past year when he has been inadequately treated. In the past when Mr. Othman optimally took oral medication along with injectable Invega Sustenna, he did better, however, he now refuses to take oral medication.

59. Although Dr. Chan was not sure how many times Mr. Othman has been in seclusion since arriving at the hospital, the current ROL is not the first time, and his total number of times in seclusion is “more often than he should have been” when he was in the care of his previous treating psychiatrist, Dr. Selhi. Dr. Chan stated, “We’ve hit a bump in recent months.” Even so, Mr. Othman is doing better with his new long-acting injectable. Going forward, the team will need to see if the new long-acting injectable will be sufficient; if so, oral medications might not be needed.

60. The next step for Mr. Othman once he is no longer in seclusion will be to move him to the high intensity treatment room. Given his history, moving him back to the ward would be a concern. The team would need to consider how best to manage that.

61. Dr. Chan supports a transfer of Mr. Othman to Waypoint. His previous treating psychiatrist, Dr. Selhi, became frustrated with his lack of progress. Dr. Chan was willing to take over Mr. Othman’s case. Mr. Othman has been told that if the hospital cannot optimize his treatment, he would need to be moved to another hospital. Mr. Othman’s status of being a significant threat to the safety of the public is because of his mental illness. If the team could fully stabilize his illness, he would be “pleasant.”

62. In response to questions from Mr. Skerkowski, Dr. Chan stated that the victims of Mr. Othman’s index offence were female. There was a sexual “hands off” component (i.e., exposing himself) that escalated to touching. With respect to there being a possible paraphilic component to Mr. Othman’s illness, Dr. Chan stated that the issue has been touched upon in discussions of Mr. Othman’s case but is not being explored at this time. His mental illness is the primary challenge, as his behaviours flow from that.

63. With respect to the incident involving the female co-patient on December 20, 2025, there was no formal complaint, no criminal charges and the police were not involved. Of note, the co-patient was female. She is still resident at the hospital. There are other female patients on the ward but no related problematic behaviour. If Mr. Othman is on the wards, he would cross paths with female staff and patients. With respect to the proposed transfer, there are no female patients at Waypoint. It is a highly secure facility.

64. Mr. Othman’s mother was at the hearing; when asked, Dr. Chan stated that he did not know her age. She resides in Kingston and had been visiting Mr. Othman at the hospital prior to his current seclusion; since then, they have been speaking via telephone. Dr. Chan stated that if Mr. Othman is at Waypoint, the distance would make visits with his mother more difficult, however, the primary concern is public safety, adding that, “If we could get past that, it might be a different situation.”

65. In response to questions from Mr. Rodé, Dr. Chan clarified that by making the statement, “If we could get past that, it could be different”, he meant that Mr. Othman’s situation would be different if the team could get Mr. Othman to a point of being more stable and break the current treatment impasse; if that were the situation, it might be possible for the team to continue to treat him at the hospital. If there are treatment concerns and the team cannot work with Mr. Othman, he would need to be moved.

66. Mr. Othman was started on Clopixol a week before the hearing. Early indications suggest is it helping and Mr. Othman is improving. He is saying he believes it is helping his thinking. His mother is receiving similar reports from him and she thinks the treatment shows promise. The assessing psychiatrist seeing Mr. Othman in seclusion says similar things. It is Dr. Chan’s hope that Mr. Othman will continue to improve and become stable. If Mr. Othman does show improvement, it is possible he could transition to the high intensity treatment room as early as the day of the hearing, or the following day.

67. With respect to the question of whether or not Dr. Chan would continue to support a transfer to Waypoint if Mr. Othman improved to the point that he could go back to the ward, Dr. Chan stated that he would see things in terms of a more flexible approach. Waypoint appears to have a long wait list. If Mr. Othman continues to improve, Dr. Chan posed the question of whether or not the hospital has the discretion to hold off on the transfer, if the Board makes an order for a transfer.

68. In response to questions from the panel, Dr. Chan stated that Mr. Othman has not yet had any psychological interventions. Psychology resources at the hospital are currently limited. He has lots of nursing contact. He has the support of the team, but team members have not yet had a chance to explore variable outside of treatment with antipsychotic medications. Unlike at Waypoint, the hospital does not have any sexual offender programming, but with respect to a transfer to Waypoint, that might be an additional consideration.

69. Dr. Chan stated that in the past, a hospital with a medium security unit might have had a discretion (sometimes called a “yo-yo clause”) to refer an accused back to a setting with higher security, such as Waypoint, without an order from the Board. Dr. Chan added that he believes this option no longer exists.

70. If Mr. Othman is released back to the ward, he would need to be better managed, not only in relation to the incident involving the co-patient on December 20, 2025, but also in relation to all other patients and staff. When he is moved to the more comfortable setting, he will still be under a ROL, similar to a modified observation approach, and his case will still be reviewed daily, as is currently happening.

71. If Mr. Othman were to come back to the ward, examples of how he might be better managed would first consider whether the same co-patient is on the ward; if that were the case, there would need to be a discussion about how to make sure there would be no further confrontational interactions between her and Mr. Othman. Given his history, the safety of everyone on the ward would need to be considered. That has not been a problem to date. It would be feasible to manage. The team would need to be involved, as would Mr. Othman. One challenge would be the limited physical space on the ward.

72. In response to questions from the Alternate Chair, Dr. Chan agreed that there is more work to do with respect to Mr. Othman’s ongoing progress; for example, Dr. Chan would like to add Clozapine to Mr. Othman’s medication regimen, but Mr. Othman is “not there yet.” With respect to the question of whether a move to Waypoint at this time would be premature, given Mr. Othman’s recent progress and that there would always be the option of an early Board hearing if the current regimen is not successful, Dr. Chan stated that there is still an issue of timing. Since the impasse in December 2025, the hospital was able to anticipate the current hearing date soon after to address issues, i.e., just a month later. The concern going forward would be about how soon a Board hearing could be convened, and the Board render a new Disposition, should that be required again.

73. The Alternate Chair indicated that once the Board makes an order for the transfer, Waypoint would have to receive Mr. Othman once a vacancy is confirmed. Dr. Chan asked if any sort of discretion by the hospital could then be applied. The Alternate Chair indicated that such a discretion might enter into the realm of treatment, which is not within the jurisdiction of the Board. Dr. Chan stated that as of a week prior to the hearing, he would have agreed that a transfer of Mr. Othman to Waypoint was necessary. As of the day of the hearing a week later, and the updated reports Dr. Chan is receiving about Mr. Othman, he is more optimistic, although he realized that at the same time there is still a lot of work to do with Mr. Othman. Dr. Chan agreed with the Alternate Chair that it is currently a very dynamic situation. Dr. Chan stated that he was not able to give a definitive answer on the issue of transfer; he is pleased with Mr. Othman’s recent progress, but at the same time, he does not want to preclude the option of a transfer.

74. When asked by the Alternate Chair, Dr. Chan confirmed that he agreed with the content of the Hospital Report, and specifically the findings related to the ROL being warranted at the time it was implemented and continuing as of the day of the hearing. Dr. Chan also agreed that Mr. Othman continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and should continue to be subject to a Detention Order Disposition, with or without a transfer, depending on what the Board decides.

75. Following questions from the panel, Ms. Tom posed further questions to Dr. Chan. Dr. Chan stated that he found Mr. Othman incapable to consent with respect to treatment last week. That finding precipitated the change in Mr. Othman’s medication to Clopixol. Mr. Othman did not challenge Dr. Chan’s finding. (Mr. Othman’s mother is his SDM and consented to the change in medication.) If Mr. Othman does well on his new long-lasting injectable medication, he might become capable. Issues of capacity are usually reviewed on a six-month cycle, but if Mr. Othman becomes capable sooner, a capacity review could happen earlier.

76. The nursing team coaxed Mr. Othman to try Clopixol; he was agreeable, but he also wanted his mother as his SDM to be part of the decision. Dr. Chan stated that he hopes that Mr. Othman will agree to continue Clopixol if he continues to experience benefits. That is still an unknown, but that is Dr. Chan’s hope. Mr. Othman oscillates between being cooperative with respect to treatment and back to not being so. It is this “flip-flop” pattern that creates his risk.

77. In response to further questions from Mr. Skerkowski, Dr. Chan stated that it is not clear, based on the letter from Waypoint, as to how long a transfer would take; there appear to be a lot of variables. Currently, there are no available beds at Waypoint. Dr. Chan took that to mean that Waypoint is currently full and that it will take some time for a space to open. In the meantime, the team hopes to move Mr. Othman out of the seclusion suite with a day or two following the hearing. He will still be in a restricted room, but more comfortable than where he is now, and with a television.

78. Mr. Rodé had no further questions.

79. No further evidence was called.

Submissions

80. Ms. Tom submitted two issues. The first issue before the panel was the ROL, starting on December 20, 2025, and continuing as of the day of the hearing. Based on the evidence of Dr. Chan, the Hospital Report and the progress note, the ROL was warranted and continued to be so. It resulted from Mr. Othman pushing of a co-patient and her resulting injury. Since then, Mr. Othman has been assessed daily. There was a change in a finding of capacity, followed by starting a new medication. The hospital intends to transfer Mr. Othman to a high intensity treatment room; however, he will still be under a ROL, which is warranted given his history and the incident on December 20, 2025.

81. Mr. Othman’s current Disposition is a Detention Order. The hospital is seeking an order that transfers him to Waypoint, which is the least onerous and least restrictive option taking into account his risk and his needs, as well as the safety of the public.

82. Mr. Othman has struggled with respect to his mental health and his lengthy history in both the civil and forensic systems. His is mental illness and his disinclination to take medications create his risk. Over the past week, there have been improvements as noted by staff, his mother and Dr. Chan, as well as Mr. Othman himself.

83. Ms. Tom submitted that with respect to Mr. Othman’s current situation, “We’ve been here before.” While Dr. Chan is optimistic, given Mr. Othman’s history, when he is not properly medicated, Mr. Othman’s risk increases. Pushing his co-patient was unpredictable and an escalation. As noted by Dr. Rose in her Report, his behaviour is indiscriminate. He has been in and out of seclusions, with four restrictions of liberty, two of which met the seven-day requirement for a Board hearing. The only way to address the ongoing safety of the public, which includes his co-patients on the ward, is a Detention Order Disposition that includes an order for transfer to Waypoint.

84. Ms. Tom noted that the issue of calling an early Board hearing had been raised, if Mr. Othman does not continue to show progress. Alternatively, Ms. Tom submitted that considering what is current happening, a transfer order to Waypoint could be made. In its letter of January 4, 2026, Waypoint identifies a bottleneck. It is likely that there would be a delay of at least four weeks. Should Mr. Othman continue to show progress over the time between now and whenever Waypoint has a bed available, an early Board hearing could be sought with a request for him to remain at PCH. There is a pattern with Mr. Othman that goes back over ten years outside the forensic system and continuing in the time Mr. Othman has been under the oversight of the Board. Granted it will be an interruption in his relationship with his mother, which is important to Mr. Othman. The alternative of waiting to see if Mr. Othman continues to respond to his current treatment and the possibility of an early Board hearing if he is not successful is also an option, however, it represents an ongoing extended period of significant risk to other patients on the ward, as well as delay in getting Mr. Othman onto the waiting list for Waypoint.

85. Mr. Skerkowski submitted that the reasonableness of the ROL, Mr. Othman’s risk and the need for a Detention Order Disposition was evident from the evidence and not disputed by any of the parties. Regarding the issue of a transfer to Waypoint, the Crown had concerns about Mr. Othman’s conduct, particularly his interactions with women, including co-patients, staff, the public and even his mother. The transfer would present a significant change and challenge for Mr. Othman, especially given his connection to his mother, however, the Crown agreed with the reasons for transfer presented by the hospital. Mr. Othman’s risk to the safety of the public overrides the other concerns.

86. With respect to Mr. Othman’s recent progress, Mr. Skerkowski agreed with the hospital’s continued recommendation for a transfer. In that respect, the Board should consider Mr. Othman’s current presentation. It is early in terms of Mr. Othman’s recent progress and Dr. Chan’s involvement. The incident on December 20, 2025, was a violent act against a female co-patient. If Mr. Othman continues to progress, an early hearing is possible. Given the concerns about wait times for Waypoint, it is preferable to get Mr. Othman onto the waitlist now. An early Board hearing would essentially “cancel” a transfer that would no longer be necessary.

87. Mr. Rodé submitted that he had no dispute with the position of the hospital regarding Mr. Othman’s ROL, or that Mr. Othman’s risk increases when he stops taking his antipsychotic medication. He took issue, however, with the transfer to Waypoint, because of the nature of the restrictions that will be placed on Mr. Othman at Waypoint. Mr. Othman still has room to progress in his privileges; if he is transferred to Waypoint, he will be limited to escorted privileges and, especially in light of his progress, may thereby lose privileges. At best, meeting the requirement for the least onerous and least restrictive Disposition will be problematic if he is transferred to Waypoint.

88. Mr. Rodé noted that treatment is not part of a Disposition, unless Mr. Othman would consent under section 672.55. If the Board sees the necessity of treatment being added, Mr. Rodé had spoken to his client previously and confirmed that Mr. Othman would consent under section 672.55. With respect to the finding that Mr. Othman is incapable with respect to treatment under provincial legislation, with his mother as his SDM, Mr. Rodé submitted that incapacity with respect to treatment is a different application of the concept than under section 672.55 and that the law would still permit Mr. Othman to consent for that purpose.

89. Mr. Rodé summarized that a transfer would restrict the progress Mr. Othman can make beyond exiting seclusion with respect to his privileges. In addition, his relationship with his mother will be significantly constrained. Mr. Rodé asked that the Board weigh these considerations carefully. He did not dispute that an early hearing would be possible.

Analysis

i) ROL

90. The Board finds that the initial restriction of Mr. Othman’s liberty by virtue of his seclusion on December 20, 2025, and the ongoing restriction continuing as of the day of the hearing on January 21, 2026, was necessary and appropriate, as well as the least restrictive and the least onerous intervention.

91. The incident that occurred on December 20, 2025, was unpredictable, unprovoked, violent and gendered. While it is the first incident involving Mr. Othman and a co-patient, in the past, he has violently assaulted a female nurse when inadequately medicated. When he experiences active symptoms, all staff are at risk. While he currently receives an injectable antipsychotic, he now refuses to take oral medication and so is not optimally treated. This is not Mr. Othman’s first restriction of liberty. Dr. Chan commented that the number of times Mr. Othman has been in seclusion is “more often than he should have been”, and that “We’ve hit a bump in recent months.”

92. Mr. Othman is doing better with his new long-acting injectable medication; however, he had only been on that new medication for a week as of the hearing date. It is not clear whether the current progress will continue, or not, or whether optimal treatment will need to include oral medications. Dr. Chan anticipated at the hearing that Mr. Othman would be moved to a high intensity treatment room within a day or two, however, that will still mean he is subject to restrictions of his liberty. Of additional note, given his history in both the forensic and civil psychiatric systems, characterized by violent behaviour that was often sexual in nature, moving him back to the ward would be a concern. Dr. Chan anticipated that the team would need to consider how best to manage Mr. Othman if he is admitted back to the ward, however, it was not clear to the panel what the associated plan or strategy would be to manage Mr. Othman’s risk, or whether that would even be feasible, given his history.

93. In summary, given the violent nature of the incident on December 20, 2025, as well as the gendered nature of the attack, which is consistent with past violent incidents perpetrated by Mr. Othman, the Board found that the ROL was warranted, as well as the least onerous and least restrictive approach; being in the high intensity treatment room will permit Mr. Othman more space and the amenities of a television and washroom, while keeping him separate from co-patients and allowing the team to monitor his progress.

ii) Significant Threat to the Safety of the Public

94. The term “significant threat” is defined in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code as “a risk of serious physical or psychological harm to a member of the public … resulting from conduct that is criminal in nature but not necessarily violent.” A finding of significant threat cannot be speculative. It requires positive findings, supported by the evidence, that the threat that a person would engage in criminal conduct is a “real” threat, and that the harm this conduct would cause would be “serious.” Both findings are required: Neither a miniscule risk of grave harm, nor a high risk of trivial harm, is sufficient to find a real threat of serious harm.

95. Having considered all of the evidence tendered at the hearing and the submissions of the parties, the Board does find that Mr. Othman meets the threshold of significant threat to the safety of the public as defined in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code, and as further defined in Winko v. British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute), 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625. As noted by Ms. Tom in her submissions, “we’ve been here before.” Mr. Othman’s behaviour during the incident on December 20, 2025, is part of a pattern, including that it was violent and directed at a female. His index offence was also sexual in nature and directed at a female and also happened in the context of Mr. Othman not being optimally medicated.

96. Being optimally medicated would currently require Mr. Othman to agree to take oral medications to supplement his long-acting injectable antipsychotic. He has been better in the past when he was similarly medicated. Although Dr. Chan stated that Mr. Othman might not need oral medication if he continues to experience improvements on his new long-acting injectable antipsychotic, Clopixol, given it has only been one week since that was started, the panel found that not enough time has passed to be confident that Mr. Othman’s progress will continue. As his historical pattern indicates, his risk is directly related to not being optimally medicated. His mental illness and related treatment are his primary challenge, as his behaviours—whether violent, sexual in nature, or both—flow from that.

97. In addition, Mr. Othman’s insight continues to be poor. His medical history notes his opposition to both Dr. Selhi’s and Dr. Chan’s accounts of the reasons for his behaviour, the link to his major mental illness and his need to be optimally medicated, which in turn goes to his risk.

98. In summary, the factors in finding that Mr. Othman continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public include his ongoing pattern of behaviours resulting in violence (most often towards females in his vicinity), not being optimally medicated (as in the context of a current treatment impasse) and his insight.

iii) Disposition

99. Having found that Mr. Othman continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public, the Board determined that the appropriate Disposition is a Detention Order. Given the factors underlying the finding of significant risk, an absolute discharge is not appropriate. The only way to manage Mr. Othman’s risk and to continue to work with him to stabilize his illness and behaviours is to detain him in hospital. As part of the Detention Order Disposition, the panel found that a transfer of Mr. Othman to Waypoint is warranted.

100. In deciding to include the transfer in the Disposition, the panel considered both the restriction of liberty and the finding that Mr. Othman poses a significant threat to the safety of the public. The panel took into account the circumstances that have resulted in Mr. Othman’s current and past seclusions, the limitations of the hospital’s physical environment as a small forensic unit, and the challenges in maintaining his stability in relation to his optimal medication regimen. The panel also noted the absence of a clear strategy for managing Mr. Othman’s behaviour once he returns to the company of co-patients. In these circumstances, it was not clear to the panel when, or if, Mr. Othman would be able to come out of seclusion.

101. Waypoint is a high-security environment with more amenities and generally higher staffing levels. As a result, Mr. Othman’s risk can be better managed there. Although his privileges would require an escort, his overall freedoms would be greater, as he would have a realistic opportunity to come out of seclusion. Accordingly, a Detention Order Disposition that includes a transfer to Waypoint represents the least onerous and least restrictive approach.

102. The Board acknowledges that a transfer to Waypoint will likely be a strain on Mr. Othman’s relationship with his mother, given it will be more challenging for her to travel the distance to Waypoint to visit. However, the Board also notes that these visits are also not possible when Mr. Othman is in seclusion. The best approach to restart visits is for Mr. Othman to continue to make progress. In the meantime, the impact on visits, while unfortunate, is warranted, given Mr. Othman’s current level of risk.

103. In light of the reasons already stated for including a transfer to Waypoint in the Detention Order Disposition, the panel did not consider the issues related to ordering a transfer as a strategy for getting Mr. Othman onto a wait list for Waypoint, or the related discussion at the hearing.

Conclusion

104. The Board finds that the initial restriction of Mr. Othman’s liberty by virtue of his seclusion on December 20, 2025, and the ongoing restriction continuing as of the day of the hearing on January 21, 2026, was necessary and appropriate, as well as the least restrictive and the least onerous intervention.

105. Having considered the four factors at 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 came to the unanimous conclusion that Mr. Othman meets the threshold for significant threat and that the necessary and appropriate Disposition in the circumstances is a Detention Order, as set out in the Board’s formal order.

106. The panel wishes Mr. Othman well for the year ahead.

DATED this 24th day of February 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.

Ms. K. Weisbaum Legal Member

Office of the Registrar

Ontario Review Board