Ontario Review Board
Re: Munir Misk
ORB File No: 8838
Hearing held on: Wednesday, December 10, 2025
Place of hearing: Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care 401 Sunset Drive, St. Thomas
Pursuant to: Section 672.47(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. J. Weinstein
Members: Dr. L.O. Lightfoot Dr. S. Bouskill Ms. C. Murray Ms. C. Plyley
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Munir Misk Counsel: Ms. N.C. Circelli
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. J. Zamprogna
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. D. Rows
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated January 12, 2026)
Introduction:
On July 3, 2025, Mr. Munir Misk was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, on a charge of point firearm, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (“Criminal Code”). That finding was based on an assessment, and related report, by Dr. Duboff, dated January 14, 2025 , (“NCR Report”).
The Court did not make a Disposition and ordered, pursuant to s. 672.47(1) of the Criminal Code, and that Mr. Munir appear before the Ontario Review Board (the “Board”) for an initial Disposition. Mr. Misk is subject to a Release Order and is living in the community.
On December 10, 2025, the Board convened a hearing at the Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care (“Southwest”) to make an initial Disposition.
A Risk assessment, dated December 3, 2025, (“Hospital Report”), was marked as Exhibit 1.
Mr. Misk was present at the hearing and was represented by his counsel, Ms. N. Circelli.
The issues at this hearing were whether Mr. Misk is a significant threat to public safety, as defined in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code, and, if so, what is the necessary and appropriate Disposition in the circumstances, bearing in mind the factors enunciated in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
For the reasons set out below and based on the expert evidence and opinions before us, the Board concluded that Mr. Misk represents a significant threat to the safety of the public. The Board found that the necessary and appropriate Disposition in the circumstances is that Mr. Misk be discharged, subject to certain terms and conditions set out in our formal Disposition. These terms include that he reside at a specified address, while living in the community he report to the person in charge of Southwest not less than twice per month, and on his consent, take such treatment as recommended by the person in charge, pursuant to s. 672.55(1) of the Criminal Code.
Current Psychiatric Diagnoses:
- Bipolar Disorder Type 1, most recent episode manic, currently in remission
Cannabis Use Disorder, in remission.
Position of the Parties:
Counsel for the hospital recommended a Conditional Discharge, upon the terms set out in the Hospital Report, including that Mr. Misk: reside at a specified address, while living in the community, report to the person in charge not less than twice per month, and, on his consent take such treatment as recommended by the person in charge, pursuant to s. 672.55(1) of the Criminal Code. The hospital also recommended the addition of a weapons prohibition.
Counsel for the Attorney General agreed with the hospital’s recommendation, including the weapons prohibition.
Counsel for Mr. Misk advised that her client was seeking an Absolute Discharge, as the test for significant threat had not been met. Alternatively, if this Board found that the threshold for significant threat has been met, she was agreeable to the hospital’s recommendation of a Conditional Discharge, upon the terms set out therein. Furthermore, her client would consent to a treatment clause pursuant to s. 672.55(1) and to reside at the specified address. She inquired whether the weapons prohibition could be modified, to allow an exception for tools of trade through lawful employment, as Mr. Misk hopes to be employed in the construction industry and may have access to a box cutter.
Counsel for the Attorney General advised that this exception was not necessary, as a weapons prohibition would not include such tools.
Index Offence
- The circumstances giving rise to the Index Offence can be summarised as follows:
The point firearm charge against Munir Misk stems from an incident on December 22, 2023, in London, Ontario. While driving his 1993 Ford F250, Misk was witnessed by multiple civilians pointing two handguns, described as black Glock replicas, at other motorists while yelling and acting erratically. He also used one of the firearms to bang on his vehicle's driver-side mirror and window. Witnesses reported feeling fearful and believed the firearms were real.
Police were dispatched and arrested Misk at his residence. Upon searching his vehicle and home, police found two replica firearms in the vehicle and additional imitation firearms, including a BB gun and a paintball gun, at his residence. Testing confirmed that three of the four firearms met the Criminal Code's definition of firearms due to their discharge velocity.
Personal Background
- Mr. Misk’s personal background is set out in detail in the Hospital Report and the NCR Report, both of which can be summarized as follows:
Munir reported experiencing a strict upbringing, with his father enforcing sociopolitical and religious beliefs, which led to familial conflict. His mother described his father as abusive, with incidents of physical punishment and domestic violence. Munir stated that he felt closer to his mother, who was more accepting and supportive of his interests.
Munir attended several schools in London, achieving grades ranging from the 60s to high 80s. He graduated from high school and later obtained an undergraduate degree in Media, Information, and Technoculture from Western University. He worked part-time in customer service roles during high school and university and later pursued various jobs, including construction and audio/visual work. He has been financially supported by the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) since 2022.
Substance Abuse History
- Mr. Misk has a history of substance use, primarily cannabis, with occasional use of other intoxicants. His use has significantly impacted his mental health and contributed to his psychiatric symptoms. Full details of his substance abuse history are set out in the Hospital Report and the NCR Report, and they can be summarized as follows:
a) Mr. Misk began using cannabis on a casual basis, at age 15. His use escalated during his time at university. In 2024, he consumed 0.5 to 1.5 grams daily, using a vaping device and dry leaf forms, with THC concentrations of 70 percent.
b) Cannabis use exacerbated his psychiatric symptoms, including paranoia, psychosis and manic episodes.
c) His last reported use of cannabis was in April 2024, and he has been abstinent since then.
Psychiatric History
- Mr. Misk’s psychiatric history is outlined in detail in the Hospital Report and the NCR Report, and it can be summarized as follows:
“Munir Misk has a longstanding psychiatric history primarily characterized by Bipolar Disorder Type 1 with psychotic features and Cannabis Use Disorder. His mental health challenges began around 2013 during his time at Western University, where he experienced paranoia, anxiety, and psychotic symptoms such as delusions and thought disorganization. He was diagnosed with Schizoaffective Disorder initially but later confirmed to have Bipolar Disorder Type 1.”
- Key points of Mr. Misk’s psychiatric history include:
a) His first mental health concerns appeared in 2013, when he sought help at Western University’s Student Health Services for paranoia, anxiety, and academic struggles. He was referred to the Prevention and Early Intervention Program for Psychosis (“PEPP”) and diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder.
b) Mr. Misk had inpatient admissions in November 2016, from December 2018 to February 2019, January 2021, November 2023 and February 2024. During his various admissions, he was prescribed antipsychotic medications, including aripiprazole, risperidone, and lithium. His adherence to medication was inconsistent, often because of his low insight into his illness and the medications’ side effects.
Criminal History
- Mr. Misk does not have a prior criminal record.
Course Since Report by Dr. Jonathan Duboff dated January 14, 2025 -NCR Report
Mr. Misk has been on house arrest since being released from Elgin Middlesex Detention Centre, at approximately the end of December 2023.
Mr. Misk identified his mother as being his main personal support at this time. He stated that their rapport had improved and added, “We [now] have a very good relationship.”
When asked about their relationship over the last six months, Mr. Misk’s mother responded, “Perfect...I am eternally grateful I have my son back.”
Mr. Misk stated that he was supported by Dr. Mohamad Elfakhani, a psychiatrist at London Health Sciences Centre.
Overall, Mr. Misk’s mother stated that Lithium was a major factor in the return of her son’s mental stability, adding that her son’s abstention from cannabis was also likely a contributor. When asked about Mr. Misk’s cannabis use, Mr. Misk’s mother believed he had not used in the last two years, nor had he disclosed cravings. She stated, “He basically said, many times, [ that he] would not go back to it [cannabis use], and life is good without it.
Mr. Misk attended follow-up appointments on February 21, March 11, May 16, September 16, and October 22, 2024, and on January 13, and June 10, 2025. He missed an appointment on November 10, 2025. His next appointment has been scheduled for January 13, 2026.
Evidence at the Hearing
- The Board had available to it the evidence and documents forming the Record, the Exhibits, and oral evidence from Dr. Ajay Prakash, who is the assessing psychiatrist. Dr. Prakash authored the Hospital Report and testified as follows:
a) Exhibit 1 is a Risk Assessment and is not a Hospital Report per se.
b) He has been in touch with Mr. Misk’s non-forensic psychiatrist, Dr. Mohamad Elfakhani. Dr. Elfakhani is happy to continue following Mr. Misk whether or not he remains in the forensic system.
c) Mr. Misk missed his last appointment with Dr. Elfakhani on November 10, 2025, and his next appointment is January 13, 2026. The cause of this missed appointment is unknown.
d) Mr. Misk has a significant pattern of relapsing, even during times he was adherent to his medication regimen, so a relapse of his major mental illness is still possible. As noted on page 11 of the Hospital Report, further development of Mr. Misk’s insight is necessary, into his mental condition, his need for treatment, and the impact that cannabis use has on his mental stability.
e) Mr. Misk picks up his medication from the pharmacy with his mother and is given a 30-day supply.
f) His medication regimen is considered optimized for now.
g) Mr. Misk has self-reported that he has been adherent to his medication regimen. It does appear that he has been stable while in the community.
h) Page 11 of the Hospital Report states that Mr. Misk has been bound by court conditions. He has not yet been truly assessed while living in the community.
i) Mr. Misk has had multiple admissions to hospital, as well as a history of medication non-adherence; however, to his credit, it does appear that he has adhered to his medication regimen since February 2024.
j) According to his self report, Mr. Misk’s last use of cannabis was in April 2024. He was outside, observing the solar eclipse, and someone passed him a joint. He accepted it and took two puffs.
k) Mr. Misk now indicates that he has no desire to use cannabis and that the probability that he will never use it again is “95 to 99 percent.”
l) Mr. Misk’s current living conditions, including strict bail restrictions and a curfew, are stressors that could have caused him to turn to cannabis. To his credit, he has not used any cannabis, other than consuming once in April.
m) Mr. Misk remains a low-to-moderate risk while under a Conditional Discharge Disposition.
n) Mr. Misk’s re-offence scenario is similar to what has happened in the past. He has been readmitted to hospital on multiple occasions. The most likely causes of re-offence would be non-adherence to his medication regimen or a return to cannabis use.
o) Mr. Misk’s goal is to find gainful employment, which the treatment team would support.
p) The Mental Health Act would be sufficient to protect the safety of the public, as his mother has used it in the past.
q) To Mr. Misk’s credit, he is intelligent and cooperative with the treatment team. He has a good rapport with his non-forensic community psychiatrist.
r) Mr. Misk also appreciates the benefits of his current medication.
s) Mr. Misk is motivated to do well in life.
- In response to questions from counsel for Mr. Misk, Dr. Prakash testified:
a) There have been no positive symptoms of Mr. Misk’s mental disorder, nor any decompensation in his mental state since the Index Offences.
b) Mr. Misk’s outpatient psychiatrist believes that Mr. Misk is compliant with his medication.
c) In the past, Mr. Misk’s mother has been able to recognize signs of her son’s decompensation and accessed the civil mental health system.
d) Except for Mr. Misk’s self-report of using cannabis on April 8, 2024, there is no other evidence of substance use, specifically marijuana.
e) Mr. Misk has not re-offended since the Index Offence, and he does not have a criminal record.
f) Mr. Misk requires regular monitoring, at least twice monthly, and a treatment team to provide appropriate psychoeducation, to help him develop insight across all domains. This level of support is not available to him in the community. Mr. Misk met with his non-forensic psychiatrist less often than once per month, specifically on February 21, March 11, May 16, September 16, and October 22, 2024, and on January 13, and June 10, 2025.
g) Mr. Misk continues to question whether he suffers from a primary bipolar disorder or if his diagnosis and symptoms are drug related.
h) Mr. Misk had the opportunity to obtain cannabis in the community while on the release order, but he refrained from doing so. Mr. Misk remains vulnerable to relapsing to cannabis use.
- In response to questions from the panel, Dr. Prakash testified:
a) His attention was drawn to the following paragraph from the Hospital Report:
“When asked if stopping his medications would result in any consequences, Mr. Misk stated, “it might affect my sleep or appetite.” When asked if there would be any other consequences, Mr. Misk stated, “not sure,” then added that his “routine may become disrupted.” When asked again Mr. Misk stated, “like I mentioned, the time I have had from sitting at home evaluating my past, it’s as valuable as the medication routine. I don’t think my mind would race off like in the past to unreasonable conclusions, and this is related to the time I have spent reflecting.” “I would be able to use the level of calmness during this time to use as a reference point in any moment...When you go to the hospital you think about going home.” Mr. Misk stated that his situation at present is different as he has had a lengthy period of time at home which has allowed him to “think and grow as a person, mature.” Overall, Mr. Misk believed that his bipolar would not return given his new growth, even without medications.”
This belief demonstrates that Mr. Misk lacks insight into his diagnosis, which is of significant concern to the treatment team.
b) Pages 4 and 5 of the Hospital Report contain an in-depth explanation about Mr. Misk’s insight, to highlight the concern about his lack of insight into his need for medication. Mr. Misk remains ambivalent about his need for medication.
c) The treatment team would like to address this lack of insight by engaging Mr. Misk in appropriate programming, which would not be available if he were granted an Absolute Discharge.
d) Mr. Misk has not engaged in any substance abuse relapse programming, which is recommended going forward.
e) Mr. Misk’s primary risk factor is his lack of insight with respect to his diagnosis. This lack of insight does represent a risk to the safety of the public. His secondary risk is uncertainty about his ability to remain abstinent from substances. Medication nonadherence is also still a real risk to the safety of the public.
f) Mr. Misk still need to be assessed as he reintegrates into society, starts working and experiences new stressors.
g) Mr. Misk’s risk is not small or trivial. It may be described as a real, foreseeable, substantial and significant risk of serious physical, or psychological, harm that would be criminal in nature.
h) The risk is not speculative; it is likely to happen if Mr. Misk were to stop his medication regimen or use substances.
i) There is a real potential for harm even though there have been no violent instances since the Index Offence.
j) The Mental Health Act (“MHA”) would be appropriate to manage Mr. Misk’s risk to public safety while he is on a Conditional Discharge Disposition . Mr. Misk currently lives with his mother who has appropriately used the MHA before. He believes she would contact the forensic team if she were to see symptoms of Mr. Misk’s mental state decompensating.
- No other evidence was called.
Analysis and Conclusions
Having heard and considered the entirety of the evidence as well as the submissions from the parties, the Board finds that Mr. Misk is a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the appropriate and necessary Disposition is a Conditional Discharge.
In Winko, the Supreme Court outlined that, in coming to the conclusion on the issue of significant risk, a Review Board should 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; the NCR accused’s own plans for the future; the support existing for the NCR accused in the community; and most importantly, the recommendations provided by experts who examined the NCR accused. In coming to our conclusion in this matter, the Board relies on the uncontroverted expert evidence of Dr. Prakash, in addition to the documentary evidence before us.
Multiple experts, including Dr. Prakash, emphasized that Mr. Misk continues to lack full insight into his bipolar disorder. He has made statements suggesting that he doubts the legitimacy of his diagnosis, and he is ambivalent about the need for ongoing medication. This lack of insight is seen as a significant risk factor because it increases the likelihood of non-adherence to treatment, which has previously led to relapse and violence. Mr. Misk has a documented history of not taking his medication as prescribed, and of using cannabis, both of which contributed to past episodes of violence.
Although Mr. Misk has been abstinent from cannabis, this behaviour has occurred under strict, court-imposed conditions, including house arrest, curfew and close supervision by his mother. There are realistic concerns that he may relapse without these controls.
While Mr. Misk has been stable for nearly two years, he has not been fully assessed while living in the community, without the strict conditions he is currently subject to. Neither has he faced the kinds of stressors, nor experienced the independence, that previously triggered his substance use and illness. Mr. Misk’s risk cannot be fully assessed until he is exposed to more typical life challenges.
The evidence is quite clear, as outlined in paragraphs 26 (d-i) of these Reasons, that Mr. Misk meets all the criteria of a significant threat to the public safety. The doctor’s evidence is that there is a real and foreseeable risk of serious harm to the public, should Mr. Misk stop his medication or resume substance use. This risk is not considered trivial or speculative; it is based on Mr. Misk’s past behaviour and the nature of his illness. Mr. Misk’s ongoing stability is attributed to the intensive oversight that he is getting. He still needs the support of a treatment team, which his community psychiatrist cannot provide.
Mr. Misk’s plans are also uncertain, as he may wish to seek independent accommodation or live with his brother. There is no non-forensic team in place if he were to move from this jurisdiction or out of the province. The Board is very aware of how difficult it is to find a psychiatrist in the community.
The Board has no difficulty in coming to the decision that Mr. Misk satisfies the test set out in Marmolejo (Re), 2021 ONCA 130, in which Justice Tulloch reviewed the relevant test at paragraph 37:
"The threshold for significant risk is "onerous": Carrick (Re) (2015), 128 O.R. (3d) 209, [2015] O.J. No. 6524, 2015 ONCA 866, at para. 17. A significant threat to the safety of the public means a foreseeable and substantial risk of physical or psychological [page195] harm to members of the public: R. v. Ferguson, [2010] O.J. No. 5138, 2010 ONCA 810, at para. 8. The conduct must be of a serious criminal nature: Ferguson, at para. 8. A very small risk of grave harm will not suffice, nor will a high risk of trivial harm: Ferguson, at para. 8. The threat must be more than speculative in nature; it must be supported by evidence: Winko, at p. 665 S.C.R.; Pellett (Re) (2017), 139 O.R. (3d) 651, [2017] O.J. No. 5025, 2017 ONCA 753, at para. 21.”
- The Court of Appeal in Osawe (Re), 2020 ONCA 715 (paragraph 18), in upholding the Board's finding that significant threat was real in the circumstances, found that:
"The Board’s conclusion on significant risk is grounded in the expert testimony of Mr. Osawe’s treating psychiatrist that a less structured living situation in which Mr. Osawe will enjoy a decreased level of support will increase his risk to the public safety.”
The evidence before us is that Mr. Misk needs the supervision and monitoring provided by his mother, which is why the treatment team has requested a specific clause that he reside with her.
We note that Mr. Misk has been under very strict conditions imposed by the courts.
In Mott (Re), 2019 ONCA 568, at para. 10, the Court of Appeal indicated that the absence of offending behaviour alone is not determinative of whether there is a significant threat to the safety of the public. Significant threat must be considered in the context of other factors. The evidence before us is that Mr. Misk still does not have full insight into his diagnosis and is at risk of becoming non-adherent to his medication. He has not yet been assessed without the extreme oversight afforded first by his release conditions and now by his mother. He now needs to be assessed while still under the auspices of the Board. Mr. Misk needs ongoing psychoeducation to improve his insight, which is necessary to protect public safety. This education would not be available, should he receive an Absolute Discharge.
In particular, the Board relies on the Current Clinical Assessment of Risk, set out on pages 9 to 12 of the Hospital Report, marked as Exhibit 1. Dr. Prakash’s evidence is that this is still relevant and applicable today.
Mr. Misk’s history demonstrates a clear pattern of violence and threatening behaviour occurring exclusively during periods of manic decompensation, typically in the context of medication non‑compliance and cannabis use. Since 2014, incidents have included physical aggression toward family members, property destruction, threats involving knives, and dangerous behaviour such as steering his vehicle into other cars. His episodes escalated over time, culminating in threats to kill family members, threats to kill a psychiatrist during a 2018 admission, and multiple weapon‑related behaviours in late 2023, including an assault with a weapon charge, threats to strangle his brother, threats to shoot his father with a pellet gun, and the index offence of pointing a handgun. These events consistently required police intervention, repeated hospitalizations, and at times psychiatric intensive care. While his recent stability is notable, the documented pattern establishes that untreated or destabilized illness has previously resulted in significant risk of serious physical or psychological harm.
Mr. Misk’s stability is conditional on strict treatment adherence and supervision. His history shows rapid escalation to violence when unwell, often involving weapons. Given his repeated non-adherences, partial insight, and reliance on external supports, this Board finds that he does pose a significant threat to public safety. The Board agrees that a Conditional Discharge is appropriate, as it is accompanied with close monitoring of his medication adherence, psychiatric follow-up and substance abstinence. Mr. Misk’s protective factors include strong maternal support, improved family relations, stable housing, a structured routine, and abstinence from cannabis since 2024, except for one lapse.
Mr. Misk has had multiple admissions to hospital, often requiring police intervention and/or use of the Mental Health Act.
Mr. Misk also has a history of treatment non-adherence; as recently as 2023, he stopped taking his Abilify, and in January 2024, he failed to follow-up with his psychiatrist.
Mr. Misk has repeatedly used cannabis, despite the negative consequences of it destabilizing his mental condition and leading to violence.
In November 2023 (two days after his assault charge), Mr. Misk was noted to be in a decompensated state, and he had been using cannabis daily. Again, on February 1, 2024, one month after his recent charges, Mr. Misk had been consuming “large amount of cannabis”.
In consideration of all the evidence, submissions of the parties and the criteria set forth in s. 672.54, the paramount consideration being the safety of the public, in addition to the mental condition of Mr. Misk, his reintegration into society and his other needs, the necessary and appropriate Disposition a Conditional Discharge Order.
DATED this 12^th^ day of January 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.
Mr. J. Weinstein
Alternate Chairperson
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board