Re: A. (L.)
ORB File No.: 8354
Hearing held on: Tuesday, January 13, 2026
Place of hearing: Syl Apps Youth Centre
Pursuant to: Sections 672.48(1) and 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. J. Weinstein
Members: Dr. T. Verny Dr. M. Kalia Mr. E. Siebenmorgen Mr. A. Mete
Parties Appearing:
Accused: A. (L.) Counsel: Mr. A. Rai
The person in charge of hospital: Representative: Ms. K. MacFaddyen
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. M. Stevens
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated January 16, 2026)
Introduction:
[1]. On July 20, 2023, Mr. A. (L.) was found unfit to stand trial, on charges of assault, assault with weapon (x4), and possession of a weapon for dangerous purpose, all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (“Criminal Code”). A. (L.) is a Young Person within the meaning of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.
[2]. Upon being found unfit to stand trial, he was remanded to Syl Apps Youth Centre (“Syl Apps”) in Oakville.
[3]. A. (L.) is subject to the terms of a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the “Board”), dated December 3, 2023, which orders that he be detained at Syl Apps. This Disposition provides for a variety of discretionary privileges up to living in the community in accommodation approved by the person in charge (“PIC”). When living in the community, A. (L.) is to report to the PIC, not less than twice per month.
[4]. Paragraph 5 of his current Disposition ordered that a Pre-Hearing Conference be conducted to address A. (L.)’s transfer to an adult facility following his 18th birthday in June of 2025. Several pre-hearing conferences were held in this matter.
[5]. By letter dated December 9, 2025, Syl Apps sent a Rule 13 Notice requesting that A. (L.) be transferred to the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (“CAMH”) as he is currently detained at Syl Apps and he is now 18 years of age.
[6]. By letter dated December 30, 2025, and marked as Exhibit 2, CAMH acknowledged receipt of the Rule 13 Notice and agreed that such a transfer to CAMH would be appropriate.
[7]. On January 13, 2026, the Board convened a hearing at Syl Apps to conduct the annual review of the current Disposition.
[8]. A. (L.) was present, as was his mother, at the hearing and was represented by his counsel, Mr. Rai.
[9]. A Hospital Report, dated October 11, 2025, (the “Hospital Report”) was entered as Exhibit 1. A CAMH Rule 13 response, dated December 30, 2025, was entered as Exhibit 2. An Update to the Hospital Report dated January 5, 2026 (the “Update”), was entered as Exhibit 3.
[10]. In accordance with s. 672.48(1) of the Criminal Code, the Board must decide whether A. (L.) is unfit to stand trial on the day of the hearing, within the meaning of s. 2 of the Criminal Code. Specifically, is A. (L.) unable, on account of mental disorder, to understand the nature of a trial and the possible consequences of the proceedings and to communicate with counsel? The other issues before the Board are whether A. (L.) is permanently unfit, and if so, whether he remains a significant threat to the safety of the public.
[11]. If A. (L.) is found fit, he must be sent back to court. If he is found unfit, but not permanently so, the Board must make a Disposition that is necessary and appropriate, considering the criteria set forth in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code. Similarly, if he is found to be both permanently unfit and a significant threat, the Board must determine the appropriate Disposition. If he is not found to pose a significant threat to public safety, he must be returned to the court.
[12]. The Board declined to find that A. (L.) is permanently unfit for the reasons set out below.
[13]. The Board finds that the necessary, and appropriate Disposition, considering the criteria set forth in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code, to manage A. (L.)’s threat to public safety is a Detention Order Disposition, detaining him at CAMH with residual authority residing with Syl Apps until such time as a bed is available for A. (L.) at CAMH.
Current Psychiatric Diagnoses:
[14]. Autism Spectrum Disorder
Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder – Combined Type
Learning Disorder
Outstanding Charges
[15]. The circumstances of the Outstanding Charges are set out in last year’s Reasons for Disposition, dated December 3, 2024:
“On February 14, 2023, at approximately 11:30 p.m., it is alleged A. (L.) approached a woman and shoved her with his shoulder. He then pointed a knife and gestured at her with it. She ran away and called the police.
A. (L.) allegedly then entered the front of a bus and swung the knife at the driver, who was seated behind a protective barrier. He tried several times to get past the barrier and, not having succeeded, walked away and approached police officers in a vehicle that had responded to 911 calls about his conduct. He stabbed at the windows of the police vehicle and tried to open the doors. Many additional officers attended in response to the 911 call.
As A. (L.) was running away, he was shot with a shotgun that fired hard bean bags, but he continued to run. He was finally cornered in an alcove and was subdued after a conducted energy weapon connected with him and he fell to the ground. While on the ground he was heard to say, “I am immortal ... I can never die… I am God ... I am bulletproof.”
Background Information:
[16]. The Hospital Report contains a great deal of information on A. (L.)’s background and are accurately summarized in last year’s Reasons for Disposition as follows:
“His mother and older siblings had emigrated from Somalia in 1996. He had been residing in the community with his mother, older sister, and two older brothers before his arrest for the outstanding charges. While residing in the community he was enrolled in grade 10 special education classes at Central Tech. His father passed away from a sudden heart attack in 2021.
The Hospital Report indicates that A. (L.) suffered from developmental challenges that had been worsening over the course of time. A. (L.) had reportedly experienced decreasing vocabulary and was becoming more non-verbal. There were incidents of him becoming assaultive to other children at school.
A. (L.) was taken into care in 2018 by the Children’s Aid Society (“CAS”) due to ongoing behavioural concerns that involved aggressive and volatile behaviour. His mother had expressed concerns for her safety, stating that he had become violent toward her and had assaulted other children. He was noted to have been looking around the home for a knife. In May 2018 he threatened his mother with a steak knife.
Dr. Patel was involved with A. (L.)’s care through the Toronto CAS in 2018 and diagnosed him with Autism Spectrum Disorder. He was started on various medications at that time to treat his underlying agitation and aggression. He was followed by Dr. Minaz, who is a developmental pediatrician.
A. (L.) was admitted to Michael Garron Hospital in 2018 for one month after his family called 911 due to his aggressive behaviour. A. (L.) was admitted due to concerns related to psychosis as well as Autism and attention deficit/hyperactivity issues.
A. (L.) resided in a group home in Barrie, Ontario in 2019, and, in 2020, he moved into his mother’s home, subject to a CAS Supervision Order.
Approximately 10 days before the commission of the outstanding charges, on February 3, 2023, Mr. A. (L.) was seen in the ER department at St. Joseph's Health Centre. Concerns were expressed over his worsening behavioral agitation over the course of the preceding month as he had been presenting as impulsive and angry; however, he did not present with frank evidence of psychosis.
A. (L.) has no history of illicit substance use and no involvement prior to the present charges with the criminal justice system.
A. (L.) was admitted to Syl Apps on June 26, 2023.
Position of the Parties:
[17]. Counsel for the hospital, the Attorney General and A. (L.) advise that this was a joint recommendation: A. (L.) is unfit to stand trial; he is permanently unfit and continues to remain a significant threat to the safety of the public. The Board also found that the necessary and appropriate Disposition required to manage the threat posed to the public by A. (L.) is a Detention Order detaining him at the Forensic Service of CAMH, with residual authority remaining at Syl Apps until such time as a bed is available at CAMH.
[18]. The parties also jointly agreed that both his current Disposition and his detention at CAMH should contain a clause requiring him to abstain from substances as well as a submit clause and a weapons prohibition clause. The Detention Disposition at CAMH should also amend his current Disposition to give him appropriate provisions to enter the community of the Greater Toronto Area as opposed to within 250 kilometres of the “hospital” as is contained in his current Disposition.
[19]. Counsel for the Attorney General was not able to provide this Board with the last time a prima facie hearing was held in this matter.
Course Since Last Disposition
[20]. A. (L.)’s course since his last Disposition is set out in detail in the Hospital Report. The following extracted paragraphs are relevant to this hearing:
“As reflected in the Report of Critical Incident Section below, there have only been a small number of threatening, aggressive, potentially dangerous or inappropriate behaviours during this reporting. Liban has for the most part remained engageable and interested in Syl Apps programming. He has continued to have a regular schedule of community passes, which have gone smoothly and without incident, including regular scheduled day visits home to see his mother every second week.
Heading into summer, however, Liban began to demonstrate some deterioration, making statements suggesting both a worsening of his mood and a negative orientation, becoming suspicious of his peers (i.e., paranoid threats to his thinking). He began expressing aggressive thoughts towards peers and sometimes the staff. He began to make comments about wanting to access knives to protect himself and he would ask staff and myself “what would happen” if he hurt someone. For the most part, Liban remained directable by staff, and he would usually respond to reassurance These difficulties, led to the clinical decision (after discussion with Liban's mother) to increase his aripiprazole from 20 to 25 mg on June 10, 2025.
Despite the aripiprazole increase, there was a critical incident on June 22nd where Liban became aggressive with a staff member and a peer. Over the course of the next few weeks, Liban seemed to improve and return to a more positive baseline, and then from late August until early to mid-September, once again Liban appeared to become more anxious and suspicious, and there were two further critical incidents on September 6th and September 16th.
Additionally, Liban continues to have regular visits at his mother's home in Toronto, where he spends quality time with his family. These home visits have gradually increased in duration, from two hours to six hours. Notably, Liban has shown improvement in managing car rides, which were previously identified as a trigger for him.
“December 17, 2025 - Liban was dysregulated and crying saying he wanted to kill everyone. Liban was unable to be redirected by staff. Liban then stood up and charged at staff, once this was evaded, he entered another staff’s space and attempted to grab her. Liban was then placed in a physical containment where he was scratching, kicking, spitting and attempting to bite staff.
January 4, 2026 - Liban became dysregulated when given the iPad use guidelines. Liban was previously looking at inappropriate videos on YouTube, and was told that he could play chess on his iPad. This frustrated Liban which then led him to grab onto a staff’s wrist. Liban was placed in a physical containment. During this time, Liban was aggressive and trying to break out by attempting to kick, bite and spit at staff.”
Evidence at the Hearing:
[21]. The Board had available to it the evidence and documents forming the Record, the Exhibits, and oral evidence from Dr. Scharf. Dr. Scharf co-authored the Hospital Report. He testified as follows:
a) He is A. (L.)’s primary psychiatrist and has been his primary psychiatrist for approximately two years while A. (L.) has been detained at Syl Apps. He sees A. (L.) on a weekly basis and accordingly, he estimates that he has had 90 to 100 clinical contacts with A. (L.) over the past reporting period. He last assessed A. (L.)’s fitness to stand trial one week prior to this hearing.
b) A. (L.)’s primary diagnosis is autism spectrum disorder which has been long-standing and is a life-long condition. He does not expect A. (L.)’s autism spectrum disorder to show any signs of improvement and thus he feels he is permanently unfit.
c) A. (L.) did have an historical diagnosis of obsessive compulsive disorder by Dr. Patel, however, he has found no clinical evidence supporting this OCD diagnosis. He has reduced A. (L.)’s Prozac from 120 mg to 40 mg without any emergence of any OCD symptoms.
d) A. (L.) does suffer from persistent waxing and waning psychotic episodes. A. (L.) does have periodic delusional thinking including ideas of A. (L.) have a special purpose or an immunity from consequences of actions as well as paranoid beliefs about staff or peers who are persecuting him. A. (L.)’s paranoia does sometimes lead to violent ideations such as wanting access to knives.
e) A. (L.) does require PRN antipsychotic medication approximately once per week to manage his behaviour and risk. Sometimes A. (L.) requires this PRN medication once or two times per month but in December he required it eight times.
f) A. (L.) has experienced episodes of behavioural dysregulation, sometimes resulting in assaultive behaviour. This behavioural dysregulation is often caused by his paranoid ideation, internal preoccupation, or his perceived threats.
g) A. (L.) has an ongoing preoccupation with knives for aggression or self-defence. A. (L.)’s index offences involved threatening with a weapon. For the reasons set out above, a weapons prohibition is clinically appropriate.
h) While A. (L.) has no history of substance misuse he has expressed interest in intoxication, and particularly with alcohol. He supports an abstinence clause in A. (L.)’s Disposition as should A. (L.) use alcohol or other substances it would negatively interact with his medication regimen and likely lead to a worsening of A. (L.)’s judgment and increase his risk to the safety of the public.
i) He has increased A. (L.)’s antipsychotic medication from 20 mg to 25 mg due to A. (L.) experiencing an escalation in his psychotic episodes. This recent increase has had a moderating effect on A. (L.)’s psychotic symptoms. He has introduced a non-stimulant medication, guanfacine, three months ago to address A. (L.)’s ADHD symptoms and irritability. He has noticed, since the introduction of this medication, A. (L.) does have improved focus and reduced motor restlessness. He has also notice that there is a possible unintended effect as a result of A. (L.) being less distracted; this may allow paranoid thoughts to persist longer with A. (L.) thus increasing his dysregulation.
j) A. (L.) attends modified school programs. A. (L.) has interest in inventions, science, writing and chess. A. (L.) writes exclusively but his handwriting is difficult to read.
k) A. (L.)’s most recent psychological testing in 2023 showed a deterioration in A. (L.)’s global functioning since 2017. This last psychological testing indicated very low reading comprehension and written expression. It did not confirm a diagnosis of intellectual disability but A. (L.) does remain with learning disabilities.
l) With respect to A. (L.)’s fitness to stand trial, A. (L.) is assessed informally every six weeks and more recently. A. (L.) has no meaningful improvement in his understanding and ability to participate in a trial. A. (L.) cannot explain the nature or consequences of a trial, describe the roles of a judge, Crown or defence counsel nor understand the meaning of guilt, innocence or trial process nor retain or integrate information provided to him.
m) A. (L.) is unable to meaningfully communicate with counsel as his autism and learning disability and psychotic symptoms collectively impair his capacity to participate in a trial. The hospital requires a Detention Disposition as a result of A. (L.)’s persistent psychosis, behavioural dysregulation and the risk associated with A. (L.)’s weapons’ preoccupation.
n) He agrees that a transfer to CAMH is appropriate due to A. (L.)’s age (aging out of Syl Apps Youth facility). A. (L.)’s family lives in the GTA and for continuation of his care.
o) A. (L.) is clinically stable only with the high structure provided to him by Syl Apps. A. (L.) continues to exhibit ongoing psychotic symptoms, paranoia and risk-related behaviours.
[22]. In response to questions from the panel, Dr. Scharf testified:
a) A. (L.) does participate in regular programming and does attend school; however, he cannot opine as to what grade he is equivalent to.
b) A. (L.) is very interested in researching information about his inventions and he writes extensively about his interest in inventing. A. (L.) is doing some science and mathematics curriculum. A. (L.) continues to be able to do research on his interests and ideas about inventions. He agreed A. (L.) is able to read up to a certain level as exhibited by his interest in science and possible inventions.
c) A. (L.) does use his iPad to play chess with others. He cannot opine as to A. (L.)’s skills. He agreed that as A. (L.) does play chess, he is to some extent able to demonstrate some capacity, at least in the context of chess, of making a move and then appreciating the consequences of what flows from that move.
d) There has not been a more recent update to A. (L.)’s psychological testing as it should be done every two years and the last one was done in July of 2023. The most recent psychological testing indicated average verbal skills and fluid reasoning with respect to working memory and processing speed.
e) Since A. (L.)’s trial on new ADHD medication, he has known that A. (L.) is not as restless as he used to be and no longer wanders off when he is asked questions. It appears that one of the benefits of his new medication has decreased A. (L.)’s irritability. A. (L.) now appears much more able to sit without excessive movement for extended periods of time.
f) Staff have also observed that when he is journaling he is able to stay at the task for extended periods. What the treatment team has noticed is that with the introduction of his ADHD medication, A. (L.) has increased his use of PRNs. It is hard to know at this stage whether or not as A. (L.) has been able to be more focused it is hard for him to be distracted from his paranoid thoughts. He has spoken with the staff but not directly with the teachers and the staff at Syl Apps confirm that A. (L.) does seem to be able to focus and his attention and concentration is much better since the introduction of his ADHD medication.
g) He has conducted 1:1 assessment with A. (L.) with respect to the Taylor test but he has found that A. (L.) is not really able to tolerate discussions with him without losing interest in the meetings for more than 10 minutes at a time. When he does question A. (L.) as to the roles of the various parties at a trial, he tends to echo or repeat back what Dr. Scharf’s words are to him.
h) He agreed that A. (L.)’s history does not indicate any prior court involvements and as such A. (L.) has never had to appear before a court prior to the outstanding charges.
i) He agreed, as set out in the Hospital Report, there has actually been no effort undertaken to actually educate or coach A. (L.) with the court process. However, he does believe despite his efforts meeting with A. (L.) and providing information about the Taylor type questions, A. (L.) does not demonstrate any meaningful capacity to integrate the information or retain information that he provides to A. (L.). A. (L.) did understand that his lawyer’s role is to help A. (L.) get off. He had difficulty explaining to A. (L.) that there were other lawyers in the process whose job it was to present evidence against A. (L.).
j) The treatment team has not used an iPad or other form of technology to perhaps give A. (L.) a visual level of comprehension of what a court process is.
k) A. (L.) has not had an expert in the areas of fitness issues to try to instruct him about the Criminal Code in a very structured and targeted manner on an ongoing basis.
[23]. No other evidence was called.
Analysis and Conclusions:
Fitness to Stand Trial
[24]. The first issue for the Board to decide is whether A. (L.) remains unfit to stand trial.
Applicable Law
[25]. The Supreme Court of Canada addressed the fitness test, most recently in R v Bharwani, 2025 SCC 26 (“Bharwani”). In this decision, the Supreme Court emphasized the following with respect to the fitness test:
a) Fitness to stand trial does not require an accused to make decisions in their best interests. Instead, “it requires making decisions based on an understanding of reality that is not overwhelmed by delusions, hallucinations, or other symptoms of their mental disorder.”1
b) The accused is fit to stand trial if they can “make and communicate reality-based decisions in the conduct of their defence or instruct counsel to do so”2 and “intelligibly communicate these decisions to counsel or the court.”3
c) Conducting a defence involves “making decisions that an accused must always make personally and those which relate to the exercise of their right to full answer and defence, such as decisions about pleas, the mode of trial, selection of counsel, whether to testify, whether to call or cross-examine witnesses, and closing submissions, among others.”4
d) The “capacity” required to make these decisions includes “a reality-based understanding of the nature or object of the proceedings and their possible consequences, an ability to understand the available options and their consequences, and an ability to select between those options when making decisions.”5
e) “Transient” mental health symptoms do not necessarily compromise an accused’s ability to conduct a defence. The focus is “always on assessing the extent to which an accused’s mental disorder impairs their understanding of reality when making and communicating decisions in their defence.”6
f) The fitness to stand trial test is “contextual,” and the inquiry “focuses on the decisions that form part of an accused’s defence in a specific case, and not in the abstract.”7
g) The same test for fitness to stand trial applies to all accused, whether they are represented by counsel or not.8
The Court further stated at paragraph 67 in Bharwani the following:
“The text of the statutory definition of “unfit to stand trial” provides some guidance on the requisite capacity threshold that an accused must possess. The definition notes “in particular” that an accused is unfit if they are unable to (1) understand the nature or object of the proceedings, (2) understand the possible consequences of the proceedings, or (3) communicate with counsel. The use of “or” between these requirements suggests that if the court is satisfied that the accused is unable to meet one of them, they are unfit to stand trial, as they lack the capacity to “conduct” a defence.”
Determination on Fitness
[26]. Having heard and considered all of the evidence and submissions from the parties, the Board agrees with the joint submissions of the parties, that A. (L.) is unfit to stand trial. A. (L.) is unable to understand the nature and object of the proceedings; understand the possible consequences of the proceedings, or communicate meaningfully with counsel, meaningfully participate and instruct counsel in a criminal proceeding. A. (L.)’s mental health symptoms cannot be described as transient.
[27]. A. (L.)’s mental health disorder does compromise his ability to conduct a defence and would impair his understanding of reality when making or communicating decisions in his defence.
[28]. In particular, the Board relies on the following extracted paragraphs from the Hospital Report and Dr. Scharf’s evidence as to why it finds A. (L.) unfit:
“Liban remains unable to answer Taylor Test questions. I asked him if he knew what a “trial” was, and he did not answer. I asked if he knew what a lawyer was and he responded “they make things”. Liban was able to say that “guilty” in relation to one's actions was “when you did something” and “not guilty” was “when you do not”. Liban stated in regard to his offences that he “did not kill anyone” but “he had a knife on a bus”. I asked him why, and he responded “I was black” but when I asked what that meant, he made a reference to “angels”, but it was unclear how he viewed angels as being connected to his actions.
I continue to feel that Liban remains unfit to stand trial; not understanding the nature of criminal justice proceedings or the nature of his actions and charges to be able to advise counsel He is unable to understand possible legal consequences of a plea in court proceedings related to his charges. This is the result of the combined effects of his cognitive limitations secondary to his neurodevelopmental disorder, possibly exacerbated by a chronic psychotic illness or primitive, magical thinking.
Since February 2024, I continue to meet with Liban three to four times per month. I have never had the clear sense that Liban had a meaningful understanding of the reason for my meeting with him or any interest in my role relating to his treatment, although I have repeatedly introduced myself to him as his doctor/psychiatrist responsible for managing his medications.”
Necessary and Appropriate Disposition
[29]. The Board, despite the joint recommendation, does not agree that it is appropriate at this time to find A. (L.) permanently unfit. We note this does not change the necessary and appropriateness of a Detention Order Disposition.
[30]. The Board is an investigative tribunal and is required to ensure that joint submissions meet the requirements of the Criminal Code (Osawe (Re), 2015 ONCA 280 at paragraph 33). Furthermore, as set out in Clayton (Re), 2025 ONCA 308, paragraph 22, the Board should not make a fitness finding based on joint submissions that do not have support in the evidentiary record before the Board. In this regard, we note that A. (L.) is able to play chess against others which requires a level of thinking to anticipate moves and the consequences of moves on a board. A. (L.) is engaged in science and math classes and journals extensively. As well, Dr. Scharf was not optimistic about A. (L.) being able to be educated and undergo fitness training. We do note that A. (L.) has not had a therapist who is expert in autism issues nor someone who has been specifically to help persons in A. (L.)’s situation to become fit for trial. The doctor agreed there would be no downside to having more focused fitness therapy in education perhaps.
[31]. The Board does not believe that a complete and fulness fitness assessment has been provided to A. (L.) in a form that takes into consideration his learning disabilities and cognitive issues. Fitness training should be more fully investigated before a Board finds someone permanently unfit.
[32]. The Board also notes at paragraph 25 of Re Clayton that the Court of Appeal agreed while there is no prejudicial legal effect of a permanent unfitness finding that such a finding does carry some risk of prejudice. As the Court of Appeal noted in Re Clayton, “there is a real reason for concern that a prior determination of permanent unfitness could have a dampening effect on future claims of fitness”.
[33]. Finally, as to why this Board is unwilling to make a finding of permanent unfitness, we note that under s. 672.851(1)(b), findings “that the accused ... is not likely to ever become fit to stand trial” (i.e., that they are permanently unfit), are to be made (on the basis of any relevant information). As we do not feel that A. (L.) has undergone appropriate fitness training to meet his need and accommodations necessary to perhaps render him fit to stand trial, that we cannot say at this point in time that he is not likely ever to become fit to stand trial and accordingly for the reasons set out above, we do not find him permanently unit.
[34]. A. (L.) has been diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, and Learning Disorder, with a possible underlying psychotic illness. These conditions significantly impair his cognitive abilities, insight and social judgment, making him unable to understand the consequences of his actions. His risk of engaging in harmful behaviours remains significant, particularly if he is not under close supervision and treatment.
[35]. Full details of these incidents are set out in the Hospital Report.
[36]. In light of the Board's finding of significant threat, it is charged with shaping a Disposition for the coming year. It is clear from the Hospital Report that the hospital needs to approve A. (L.)’s housing, to maintain oversight to ensure that he is provided an appropriate degree of structure, support, monitoring and supervision to safely manage his risk.
[37]. In the past reporting year, A. (L.) has engaged in 10 serious incidents as set out in the Hospital Report and the Update. In particular we note the incident of December 17, 2025, when A. (L.) had to be placed in physical containment and again on January 4, 2026, as a result of his aggressive and threatening behaviour.
[38]. For all the above reasons, the Board finds that the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a Detention Order.
[39]. In particular, the Board relies on the following extracted paragraph from the Hospital Report:
“It is recommended by the treatment team that Liban continue to engage in ongoing treatment of his psychiatric illnesses to best provide proper prophylaxis against increasing thought disorder or psychosis, this would include the administered and monitored use of antipsychotic medication. Liban is not expected to have the needed self-care and basic living skills to support himself independently and would be best supported and managed in a facility that can provide age-appropriate support and supervision.”
[40]. In consideration of all the evidence, submissions of the parties and criteria set forth in s. 672.54, the paramount consideration being the safety of the public, in addition to the mental condition of A. (L.), his reintegration into society and his other needs, the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a Detention Order at CAMH upon the terms set out in our formal Disposition.
DATED this 16th 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
Footnotes
- Bharwani, supra, at para. 6.
- Ibid.
- Ibid at para. 77.
- Ibid at para. 6.
- Ibid.
- Ibid.
- Ibid at para. 65.
- Ibid at para. 82.