Re: James Mousaly
ORB File No: 8887 Hearing held on: Friday, December 12, 2025 Place of hearing: Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Services 700 Gordon Street, Whitby, Ontario Pursuant to: Section 672.47(1) of the Criminal Code
Before: Alternate Chairperson: Mr. P. Capelle Members: Dr. S. Lessard Dr. M. Kalia Ms. J. Ferguson Mr. A. Mete
Parties Appearing: Accused: James Mousaly Counsel: Ms. J. Boissonneault The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. J. Szabo Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. M. Feindel
AMENDED REASONS FOR DISPOSITION (Dated January 12, 2026)
Please see underlined changes to original reasons made February 2, 2026:
Reasons of the Majority
(Mr. P. Capelle, Dr. S. Lessard, Dr. M. Kalia and Ms. J. Ferguson)
Introduction:
1On October 9, 2025, James Mousaly was found not criminally responsible (NCR) on a charge of intentionally and without lawful authority communicating to a foreign entity or terrorist group safeguarded information knowing that or being reckless as to whether the communication would increase the capacity of a foreign entity or terrorist group to harm Canadian interests, contrary to section 16(1) of the Security of Information Act.
2A Warrant of Committal was ordered detaining Mr. Mousaly at Ontario Shores Centre until a bed became available. On October 16, 2025, Mr. Mousaly was admitted to Ontario Shores on the secure Forensic Assessment Unit (FAU) to await his Initial Hearing before the Ontario Review Board.
3On December 12, 2025, December 15, 2025 and December 17, 2025, the Ontario Review Board convened the Initial Hearing.
Initial Positions
4At the outset of the proceedings, all parties were canvassed as to their positions on the two issues to be determined by the Board: whether Mr. Mousaly continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public, and if so, the necessary and appropriate disposition having regard to the criteria set out in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
5Ms. Szabo, on behalf of the hospital, took the position that Mr. Mousaly does not represent a significant threat to the public and should be granted an absolute discharge.
6Mr. Feindel, on behalf of the Attorney General, submitted that Mr. Mousaly should be found to be a significant threat to the public and that the appropriate disposition would be a detention order with privileges up to and including community living. This would include a prohibition against the use of substances and possibly a prohibition against the use of the internet.
7Ms. Boissonneault, on behalf of Mr. Mousaly, agreed with the position of the hospital, that her client did not represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and therefore should be granted an absolute discharge. In the alternative, Ms. Boissonneault submitted that if the Board found that Mr. Mousaly was a significant threat to the safety of the public, a conditional discharge would be the appropriate order.
The Index Offence
8The following is a summary of the Index Offence, which was obtained from the Superior Court of Justice (Central West Region) Agreed Statement of Facts for Trial and which bears being set out at some length here given the rather unusual facts of this offence:
“On January 30, 2024, James Mousaly was employed as a Nuclear Operator at a nuclear power plant operated by Ontario Power Generation (OPG); he had been employed by Ontario Power Generation since 2015. However, in December 2023, Mousaly’s site and information technology access was revoked, and he was directed not to attend at any Ontario Power Generation site.
“On January 30th, Mousaly livestreamed an approximately 22-minute video on his personal YouTube channel from his home. In the video, Mousaly identified potential vulnerabilities of an Ontario Power Generation nuclear power plant and told viewers specific partial details, which were unknown to the general public. Mousaly provided instruction on how to cause damage to nuclear power plants locally and globally. Mousaly gave the video a title that expressed his intention to reveal information that could endanger both the particular power plant and the broader nuclear power industry. Mousaly offered safeguarded information about the nuclear power plant to any foreign entity (including Russia, the Ukraine, Israel or Palestine) or terrorist group, if they reached out to him. Beyond what was communicated in the video, there is no evidence that Mousaly was ever in direct contact with any foreign entity or terrorist group.
“At the time, Mousaly’s YouTube account had over 7,000 subscribers. It is not known how many of the 7,000 “subscribers” were actual people, nor can it be precisely determined how many people actually watched the 22-minute video, other than his family members, before it was taken down.
“Mousaly’s YouTube account had posted more than 300 videos, which varied from Mousaly singing songs, self-discussions including angry rants, expressing distrust and disappointment with authority, and self-disappointment. Mousaly, who was visible in the video, identified himself by showing his Ontario Power Generation credentials and pass to the camera.
“On the evening of January 30, 2024, a manager from Ontario Power Generation left a message for security investigator Shane Hill about concerning content on Mousaly’s You Tube Channel.
When Hill received the message on January 31, 2024, he took on the investigation, located Mousaly’s YouTube channel, and identified the YouTube video created and posted by Mousaly on or about January 30, 2024. Hill was familiar with Mousaly as he knew Mousaly to have been a nuclear operator for Ontario Power Generation since 2015. Hill used his cell phone on January 31, 2024, to record the 22-minute audio of Mousaly’s video and partial video recordings.
“On January 31, 2024, attempts were made to fully copy the video in question, but these attempts failed due to the removal of all related videos by the uploader. On January 31, 2024, OPG contacted Durham Regional Police Service about Mousaly’s video and behaviour, who contacted the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Integrated National Security Enforcement Team.
RCMP later obtained a copy of Hill’s audio recording of this YouTube video, as well as the partial video recordings of the video. A USB containing the audio recording, as well as the excerpts of the video recordings and transcripts of those excerpts, is attached to this Agreed Statement of Facts as Exhibit A.
“A redacted transcript of the YouTube video is attached as Exhibit B. The following are direct quotes from the transcripts, with the word “REDACTED” in square brackets denoting that sensitive or potentially injurious information as defined in section 38 of the Canada Evidence Act has been redacted from this document:
“Time 01:55
“…[REDACTED] I don't fucking care I will drop the link to this video where I have offered my help to fucking any terrorist or any non terrorist organization [REDACTED] If you want to destroy this plant because you’re a fucking maniac, I will tell you [REDACTED]…”
“Time 02:56
“Here it is, here is a secret, I will just give it away, forget it [REDACTED]. There you go, there you go. Nuclear power is not safe. I just made it so. Because it always seems appropriate, and since I'm on the clock, and I'm getting paid to do your fucking job. I may as well wear my fucking badge in my fucking house. You are stupid fucking idiots if you don't understand. I am fucking brilliant and you are fucking stupid. And that is the only problem here. There is no maniac, there was no panic attack. Other than the one in your head. I am perfectly lucid perfectly fucking sober. I don't care what you fucking think.”
“I’ll do one better instead of fucking over [REDACTED]. Fuck the whole nuclear industry. I have job security [REDACTED]. They just spent however many billion dollars refurbishing that plant. Fucking shut down because anyone could now [REDACTED] or wherever the fuck. You are fucking doomed. You don’t know what you’re doing? You can’t use this energy source. It is fucking hopeless. And if you give me a lick of grief, I will shout you into oblivion. I will fucking stop you in your fucking heart, in your fucking mind….”
“Time 18:16
“okay, again, no one's here helping so I'm going to help the terrorists here are the terrorists if you want to destroy any nuclear power station in the fucking world [REDACTED]. You can just wait and the place will fucking die anyway. You don’t have to do anything. [REDACTED] If you are Russia or Ukraine or fucking Israel or Palestine [REDACTED].”
“B. Ontario Power Generation confirmed the information in Mousaly’s YouTube video is safeguarded information that could harm Canadian interests
“Mousaly was employed as a Nuclear Operator by Ontario Power Generation, though at the time he posted the YouTube video he was at home and was no longer performing the duties of a nuclear operator. Ontario Power Generation operates nuclear power plants under licence from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.
“Mousaly’s employer, Ontario Power Generation confirmed that they take steps to safeguard the information disclosed by Mousaly. Ontario Power Generation also confirmed that Mousaly did not have lawful authority to communicate this safeguarded information. Notably, Ontario Power Generation confirmed that public disclosure of this information could pose a threat to nuclear safety in Canada and abroad Ontario Power Generation employs a number of other safety measures and redundancies at all times to prevent any harmful effects to the public and the environment.
“Greg Groves, senior manager of investigations at Ontario Power Generation, advised that all Ontario Power Generation employees must adhere to the Ontario Power Generation Code of Business Conduct. Section 6 of the Code of Business Conduct concerns sensitive information and states: “Sensitive information includes information that is proprietary, technical, business, financial, personal or otherwise requires confidentiality. Sensitive information is owned by or has been entrusted to OPG and must be kept confidential to preserve OPG’s competitive advantage or commercial interests.” “Except as required by law and only with prior written approval of the accountable manager, do not disclose sensitive information to anyone outside OPG. This applies even after you have left OPG’s employment.”
“Andy Owen, Vice President of Ontario Power Generation’s Security and Emergency Services Department, confirmed that the information provided by Mousaly was sensitive information that was outside the knowledge of a layperson but that nuclear stations are protected by multiple safety and security measures. Such information would allow an adversary to optimize an attack on a nuclear power plant in Canada or abroad. Owen confirmed that an attack of the nature described by Mousaly, if successful, could cause significant harm on site and in the area. However, Owen also advised that some of the other information provided by Mousaly was factually incorrect. Owen advised that Mousaly was trained and employed by Ontario Power Generation as a nuclear operator. Mousaly has the knowledge and training of some of the systems and operation of Ontario Power Generation’s nuclear reactors.
“C. The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission has confirmed the information is safeguarded and could harm Canadian interests.
“Eric Lemoine, PEng, Director and Designated Officer, Point Lepreau Regulatory Program Division of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, provided an expert report and a supplementary report on nuclear safety and security in Canada. Lemoine is a past Director of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission Nuclear Security Division. His responsibilities have included supporting the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission mission by providing leadership in the subject of security, intelligence and physical protection for nuclear facilities and nuclear materials, and the development and implementation of policies, regulations and regulatory documents. A copy of Lemoine’s CV is attached at Exhibit B. Lemoine’s primary Report is at Exhibit C. His supplementary report is at Exhibit D.
“Lemoine’s reports explain that the mandate of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission is to regulate the use of nuclear energy in Canada to protect health, safety, security and the environment. Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission is the federal regulator responsible for nuclear safety, security and safeguards. Canada’s legal framework includes the Nuclear Safety and Control Act and its subordinate regulations and regulatory documents, which apply to all nuclear facilities operating under license from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, including Ontario Power Generation.
“Lemoine’s reports explain that the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission follows the Government of Canada Security Classification Framework for handling, storing and transmitting Protected and Classified information. Classified information is information which could reasonably be expected to cause injury to Canada’s national interest.
“The information that Mousaly disclosed in his YouTube video of January 30, 2024 (and which has been redacted from the audio and video recordings and transcripts of those recordings, and as excerpted above), is Classified Secret information. Lemoine’s supplementary report explains that this YouTube video included “at least one vulnerability” of a Canadian nuclear power plant. Such vulnerabilities are Classified as Secret, as is the information associated with those vulnerabilities, such as the vulnerability itself or any associated protection measures. The reason for treating this information as Classified Secret is that it has the potential to harm the Canadian national interest. Damage and harm could result if a threat actor successfully exploited the vulnerability described in the YouTube video.
“Lemoine’s primary report explains that the unauthorized public disclosure of Classified information about nuclear power plants in Canada “could directly lead to threat actors acquiring information” that would allow them to interfere with “measures that are in place at nuclear power plants in Canada.” However, the physical and digital security measures in place are robust and are in place at all times in order to protect public safety. Further, the public disclosure of Classified information about nuclear power plants could “erode public confidence [and] jeopardize Canada’s compliance with international obligations for the peaceful use of nuclear energy….”
“Lemoine’s report also explains that such disclosure could also negatively impact or harm Canada’s international reputation for protecting Classified information. Trusted allies may be less inclined to share Classified information with Canada. This impact may extend beyond Canada’s nuclear industry and impact information relating to Canada’s other national interests.”
Evidence
9The Hospital Report, authored by Dr. A. Wang and dated November 28, 2025 was entered in evidence as Exhibit 1. An Amended cover page of the Hospital Report also dated November 28, 2025, was entered into evidence as Exhibit 2. Dr. Wang gave oral evidence, as did Ms. Rosa Mousaly, Mr. Mousaly’s mother.
10Dr. Wang began by testifying that he had no material clinical updates and that Mr. Mousaly remains quite well and is co-operative. Dr. Wang had one update with respect to Mr. Mousaly’s finances being that Mr. Mousaly is in discussions with his union now that he has been found NCR and may be eligible for his former employer’s long term disability plan, which, if eligible, would help his financial situation going forward.
11Regarding his risk assessment of Mr. Mousaly, Dr. Wang testified that he had spoken to Mr. Mousaly’s fiancée the week prior to the hearing and found her to be a very supportive person in Mr. Mousaly’s life. Dr. Wang also gave evidence that he conducted a PCL (Psychopathy Checklist) screening and that Mr. Mousaly scored a “3” on that tool, which is quite low for psychopathy traits and that therefore, Mr. Mousaly is not a significant concern re: psychopathy.
12In response to a question about the index offence, Dr. Wang testified that a lot of information about the index offence had been redacted so he didn’t know what was specifically disclosed by Mr. Mousaly. Dr. Wang testified that Mr. Mousaly understands that he is not supposed to talk about what he disclosed. Dr. Wang gave evidence that it was unclear to him, based on the information he has read as to what harm came as result of that disclosure by Mr. Mousaly. Dr. Wang testified that much of what Mr. Mousaly said during the video was concerning and sounded concerning to Dr. Wang and many other people when he mentioned terrorists and terrorist groups but it was not clear to Dr. Wang that there was identifiable harm to anyone as a result of that video. Dr. Wang gave evidence that, in Mr. Mousaly’s view, much of what he disclosed is, while confidential, not particularly sensitive, and that Mr. Mousaly said he was speaking about the infrastructure of the plant, which, in his view, is outdated, most of which is available to the public, and none of it amounts to nuclear secrets. Dr. Wang testified that while all of what Mr. Mousaly disclosed is confidential, , Dr. Wang found it difficult to conclude that Mr. Mousaly’s disclosure of that information had caused harm.
13When asked how he concluded that Mr. Mousaly was not a significant threat, Dr. Wang testified that he had reviewed the material from court, both reports and assessments from Dr. Ramshaw and Dr. Klassen and has seen Mr. Mousaly several times in the last several weeks.
14Dr. Wang testified that he agrees with the diagnosis of Bipolar 1 disorder and that it was quite clear that it began to be expressed in and around 2021, that Mr. Mousaly has been manic and that this has led to hospitalizations and trouble with his family, in the community and finally with these charges.
15Dr. Wang testified that Mr. Mousaly has no history of violence or physical aggression and no criminal history. Dr. Wang gave evidence that substance use was an issue, especially cannabis use, which contributed to decompensation and mania. In addition, Dr. Wang testified that Mr. Mousaly has used psilocybin which poses a potential risk for decompensation.
16Dr. Wang gave evidence that Mr. Mousaly’s main issue is Bipolar 1 disorder, that there was no evidence of a personality disorder and it was not clear to Dr. Wang as to how another doctor concluded that Mr. Mousaly has a personality disorder. Dr. Wang testified that it is the Bipolar 1 diagnosis and the impact of substance use on that illness that is the concern. Dr. Wang testified that during manic periods, Mr. Mousaly has done regrettable things and acted impulsively but caused no physical harm to anyone. Dr. Wang testified that Mr. Mousaly’s family became concerned about him and got him to hospital but didn’t feel threatened by him in any way. Dr. Wang gave evidence that when Mr. Mousaly was manic and unwell he spent money unwisely and gave away money unwisely and was more of a risk of harm to himself than to others. Dr. Wang testified that Mr. Mousaly was admitted to hospital shortly after his arrest, but that as Mr. Mousaly didn’t meet the criteria for involuntary admission despite still being manic and unwell, he did not pose a threat to the safety of the public and was discharged.
17Dr. Wang testified that Mr. Mousaly has been quite stable since psychotropic treatment began, that there is no evidence of psychosis or symptoms of his mental illness, and that Mr. Mousaly is very polite and easy to work with. Dr. Wang gave evidence that Mr. Mousaly’s insight has fluctuated, that it was poor when he was unwell, that it has improved but that it is not perfect. Dr. Wang testified that perfect insight is not required, that Mr. Mousaly has acknowledged that he was manic and did things he shouldn’t have, although he underestimates what he did. Dr. Wang testified that Mr. Mousaly’s insight into substance use has improved, Mr. Mousaly is determined to remain abstinent, and Mr. Mousaly’s family is very much against substance use as this is a line in the sand that they are very clear about.
18Dr. Wang concluded his testimony by saying that all of these factors inform his assessment regarding risk and leads to his conclusion that Mr. Mousaly is not a significant risk to the safety of the public.
19In response to a question from Mr. Feindel referencing the information in Dr. Klassen’s report that Mr. Mousaly’s Bipolar 1 disorder was the main concern and that once an individual has experienced two episodes of mania or depression, future episodes are virtually inevitable, especially if the episodes are mania, Dr. Wang testified that that Mr. Mousaly has experienced at least two episodes of mania and is at risk of future manic episodes.
20Mr. Feindel pointed out that in Dr. Klassens’ report it states that two-thirds of patients with Bipolar 1 disorder do well but that one-third do not and asked Dr. Wang if he was concerned that Mr. Mousaly fell into the latter category given he has limited insight, a history of rejecting medication and the possibility that his illness may evolve into schizoaffective disorder and grandiose delusions could crystallize. Dr. Wang testified that he did not agree or disagree that Mr. Mousaly was in the group of one-third of Bipolar 1 patients who do not do well as Mr. Mousaly doesn’t necessarily fit into either camp. Dr. Wang testified that Mr. Mousaly’s history regarding non-compliance with medication is concerning, but in the last six months, Mr. Mousaly has been very stable, medication compliant, medication responsive, and his medications have been effective in lessening his symptoms. Dr. Wang testified that since Dr. Klassen’s assessment in July, things have evolved and Mr. Mousaly is better now than Dr. Klassen was anticipating.
21Dr. Wang testified that Mr. Mousaly was admitted October 12, 2025 and has been at Ontario Shores for two months and that his treatment over the last six months includes treatment while detained in custody.
22Dr. Feindel pointed out that on page seven of Dr. Klassen’s report it sets out that Mr. Mousaly was asked if his medications helped him and he replied “not really” and that he doesn’t feel they have any impact, that “it’s entirely in my head and I can change my mood at will”, that the medications, though prescribed, are “not really working”. Dr. Wang testified that Mr. Mousaly’s perspective has improved quite a bit since that report was written and that he has now expressed that he recognizes he was manic and acknowledges his medication is necessary. Dr. Wang testified that Mr. Mousaly’s insight is not 100% which is very common in Bipolar 1 patients. Dr. Wang gave evidence that it is very hard for Mr. Mousaly to say medications work because when he is euthymic and well it’s difficult to recognize that the medications are responsible and that it is only when the medications are removed that a patient realizes how much they help. Dr. Wang gave evidence that at the present time, Mr. Mousaly is unsure as to how much the medication helps and underestimates the risk of stopping medication, but that when Dr. Klassen wrote his report Mr. Mousaly was quite dismissive of the effectiveness of medication which is not the case now.
23Dr. Wang confirmed Mr. Feindel’s contention that Mr. Mousaly has a history of non-compliance with taking medication for his mental illness, and that, as set out in Dr. Klassen’s report, after his first admission, Mr. Mousaly discontinued his medications, fell away from care and became unwell. Dr. Wang also confirmed that during the assessment with Dr. Ramshaw Mr. Mousaly was mildly unwell and still had symptoms as a result of his treatment regimen was still being adjusted.
24In response to a question from Mr. Feindel as to whether or not Mr. Mousaly has internalized motivation, Dr. Wang testified that, in the early days, Mr. Mousaly’s motivation was mixed – with respect to substance use, it was a blend of internal and external motivation. Dr. Wang testified that being in hospital does give Mr. Mousaly some external motivation despite the fact that there is no requirement that he take medication, and yet he does comply, which suggests some internal motivation.
25Mr. Feindel commented that Mr. Mousaly is obviously a very intelligent individual and then asked Dr. Wang if the doctor thinks Mr. Mousaly could make the intellectual connection that if he doesn’t take his medication, the Board will not recommend his release. Dr. Wang testified that he had no reason to think that Mr. Mousaly could not make that connection but pointed out that up until the previous week, Mr. Mousaly fully expected to remain in hospital and perhaps be moved to a general unit after the ORB hearing, and yet he continued to take his medications. Dr. Wang testified that as of the date of the hearing, Mr. Mousaly was still taking his medications and it did not appear to Dr. Wang that Mr. Mousaly was being medication compliant to convince the Board that he should be discharged.
26Mr. Feindel then asked Dr. Wang whether, even if Mr. Mousaly was expecting continued detention, if stopping taking his medications would be looked upon unfavourably by the treatment team, and if so, wouldn’t that still be an external motivator for Mr. Mousaly? Dr. Wang responded that Mr. Mousaly had not expressed that reasoning and Mr. Wang had no reason to believe that Mr. Mousaly was thinking along these lines.
27In response to Mr. Feindel’s question that the evidence showed that Mr. Mousaly didn’t think he needed medication and that such reasoning by Mr. Mousaly would suggest there’s a significant risk, Dr. Wang testified that there is a risk of medication non-adherence because of the history of non-compliance, that there is not a zero risk, but in the last six months, and while under Dr. Wang’s care for the last 2 months, Mr. Mousaly has been medication compliant. When asked by Mr. Feindel if that risk would be elevated if Mr. Mousaly was not under the Ontario Shores treatment team’s supervision, Dr. Wang replied that this may be true.
28Mr. Feindel asked several questions about cannabis use by Mr. Mousaly and pointed out that in Dr. Ramshaw’s report it was noted that Mr. Mousaly has a long history of embracing cannabis, and describes him as having a romance with cannabis, which was the “key to the lock” for Mr. Mousaly. In response, Dr. Wang confirmed the opinion of Dr. Ramshaw that cannabis use by Mr. Mousaly could trigger and enhance Mr. Mousaly’s chance of relapse, and that heavy use of cannabis by Mr. Mousaly on critical occasions was a concerning activity. Dr. Wang testified that although Mr. Mousaly has been abstaining from cannabis use while in hospital, Mr. Mousaly does like using cannabis and underestimates his problematic use of cannabis.
29In response to a question from Mr. Feindel in which it was pointed out that between June of 2022 and June of 2023, Mr. Mousaly’s cannabis use was being monitored by his employer and he consistently tested negative, Dr. Wang testified that while it is possible to dodge testing, cannabis does remain in one’s system for a long time after use, and in Dr. Wang’s opinion, Mr. Mousaly was abstinent during that one-year period. When Mr. Feindel pointed out that after that one-year period of abstinence, Mr. Mousaly’s partner reported that Mr. Mousaly began to use cannabis heavily, Dr. Wang testified that it was clear that the external motivation of testing was successful in deterring Mr. Mousaly from cannabis use. Dr. Wang opined that Mr. Mousaly remains somewhat externally motivated by the pressure exerted by his family not to use substances.
30In response to a question from Ms. Boissoneault, Dr. Wang reiterated that Mr. Mousaly’s family is a protective factor and testified that Mr. Mousaly’s fiancée won’t tolerate substance use. Dr. Wang gave evidence that he is not aware of any substance use by Mr. Mousaly since the index offence. Dr. Wang also testified that, although substances are readily available in jail, he is not aware of any substance use by Mr. Mousaly while in custody.
31In response to a question from Mr. Feindel pointing out that in Dr. Ramshaw’s report, there was a suggestion that the use of cannabis could trigger Mr. Mousaly’s Bipolar 1 disorder into developing into schizoaffective disorder, Dr. Wang testified that, in his clinical opinion, he was unsure that such a transition was possible. However, Dr. Wang conceded that it is possible that Mr. Mousaly has been misdiagnosed and that Mr. Mousaly could be given the diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder in the future. Dr. Wang further testified that cannabis use if not more concerning or triggering if schizoaffective disorder is the diagnosis as opposed to Bipolar 1 disorder.
32Mr. Feindel asked for Dr. Wang’s opinion regarding the likelihood that Mr. Mousaly would reoffend by starting to stream and disclosing confidential information about his former place of employment or the nuclear industry given that Mr. Mousaly seems to continue to endorse the mission he was on. In response, Dr. Wang testified that there is a possibility that Mr. Mousaly goes back to streaming of content concerning to others and disclosing info he should not disclose, but that without knowing the content of what Mr. Mousaly streamed during the index offence, it is hard to say. Dr. Wang gave evidence that Mr. Mousaly is no longer employed at the nuclear power plant and Dr. Wang does not know what information he still has in his mind or how concerning that information might be, whether it is benign information or information that might reach the level of criminality, or how it would be received by viewers now that he no longer works at the power plant. Dr. Wang gave evidence that, nonetheless, it was certainly possible that Mr. Mousaly could start streaming again.
33Mr. Feindel asked Dr. Wang about whether Mr. Mousaly has poor insight into the index offence given that Mr. Mousaly has characterized the information as not being confidential or able to do harm whereas the court made the opposite finding. Dr. Wang testified that he agreed that Mr. Mousaly has poor insight and has underestimated the severity of his actions and their impact, but Dr. Wang added that with the limited information he has it is hard to assess how sensitive the information was that Mr. Mousaly disclosed.
34In response to a question as to whether Mr. Mousaly characterized his actions as a joke, Dr. Wang testified that Mr. Mousaly had characterized his actions as shedding light on certain things he considered very problematic.
35Mr. Feindel read out parts of the streamed information into the record including the following comments: “Here it is. Here is a secret”. I will just give it away. …There you go. Nuclear power is not safe. I just gave it away.” Mr. Feindel then asked how, in light of such comments, Mr. Mousaly could take the position that the information disclosed was not confidential, to which Dr. Wang testified that Mr. Mousaly has acknowledged that some of the information was confidential, but that some of it was accessible by the public, and Mr. Mousaly had acknowledged that posting the information online was stupid and had cost him everything. Dr. Wang further testified that Mr. Mousaly has graded the level of confidentiality from top secret to that which is confidential but not that critically sensitive information so that, in his mind, much of the information was not that confidential even though he understands that, at law, it is all confidential. Dr. Wang testified that Mr. Mousaly had told Dr. Wang that, in his streamed video, he talked about pipes in the walls of the nuclear plant, and that every building has pipes in the walls, but because it is a nuclear plant such information is confidential, but it is really general knowledge that one would assume of any building, and therefore it is not truly confidential.
36In response to a question from Mr. Feindel, Dr. Wang reiterated that it was unclear to him if the index offence resulted in physical or psychological harm to anyone given its atypical nature. Dr. Wang testified that although further streaming activity like that which occurred during the index offence does not necessarily have a victim, it is possible that someone peripheral could experience distress, and therefore harm could occur indirectly, although he has seen no evidence of that.
37Mr. Feindel made an analogy to people who start fires without the intention of hurting anyone but which result in harm being done and asked if Mr. Mousaly’s offence could not cause the same kind of harm and be dangerous to the public given that it was brought about by disorganization of his mental state. Dr. Wang testified that he agreed in principal but opined that Mr. Mousaly’s behaviour is less likely to reoccur than that of someone starting a fire for example.
38Dr. Wang testified, in response to a question from Mr. Feindel, that while Mr. Mousaly was at risk of streaming again, but opined that it would be different, based on Mr. Mousaly’s self-reports, and by the fact that Mr. Mousaly’s equipment had been confiscated, but Dr. Wang admitted he has no idea as to how much information Mr. Mousaly remembers. Dr. Wang agreed with Mr. Feindel that the court found that Mr. Mousaly’s information could compromise the nuclear facility.
39Mr. Feindel pointed out that, contained in the supplementary part of Mr. Lemoine’s report, was information confirming that the information streamed by Mr. Mousaly included at least one vulnerability of the power plant, which is classified information because of the potential for harm to the national interest, and that if someone was successful in exploiting this information, it could result in the leak of radioactive materials. On the basis of this information, Mr. Feindel asked Dr. Wang how he measured significant threat, and whether it would be necessary to have to wait for something like that to happen, before Dr. Wang found that Mr. Mousaly was a significant threat to the safety of the public. In response, Dr. Wang testified that it was difficult for him to conclude that harm was derived from the index offence because nothing has happened, but that in his mind the risk that Mr. Mousaly poses is primarily a risk to himself. Dr. Wang reiterated that it was not clear to him where the threat to the public lay given that there was no direct victim or direct harm caused by the index offence.
40In response to a question by Mr. Feindel as to whether he considers Mr. Mousaly not to be a significant threat to the safety of the public because of the limitation in Dr. Wang’s knowledge of the contents streamed during the index offence, or because the index offence did not result in harm, Dr. Wang gave evidence that his assessment of significant threat is not based exclusively on the nature of the index offence and the consequences thereof. Dr. Wang testified that Mr. Mousaly is at risk of manic episodes in the future and what happens then is very questionable, and it is possible that Mr. Mousaly starts streaming or hurts himself or his family, but Dr. Wang opined that he could not conclusively say that one outcome was more likely than another, or that any of the outcomes would cause harm or be threatening.
41Ms. Boissoneault asked Dr. Wang about information in the Hospital report indicating that Mr. Mousaly is calm and settled in hospital, is interacting with others and is able to tolerate various peer presentations. Dr. Wang testified that some of the patients in rooms near Mr. Mousaly are very symptomatic, disruptive and disturb his sleep, and that while Mr. Mousaly has expressed frustration with this, he has tolerated it well and has not decompensated due to these stressors.
42Dr. Wang agreed with Mr. Boissoneault that it was his understanding that Mr. Mousaly is stable, is in remission and has no past criminal record, nor has he engaged in similar conduct to that of the index offence, either before or after the offence, which was an isolated event which caused no physical or psychological harm to anyone.
43Dr. Wang testified that the contents of the trial transcript which set out that Mr. Mousaly was frustrated with his employment and wanted to be a whistle blower and highlight problems at the plant, but had no intent to cause harm, fits with his understanding of Mr. Mousaly’s motivation at the time of the index offence.
44In response to a question from Ms. Boissoneault about whether Mr. Mousaly continues to perseverate about workplace concerns, Dr. Wang testified that Mr. Mousaly has told Dr. Wang that he doesn’t want to think about his past employment, and Dr. Wang sees Mr. Mousaly as more forward thinking and goal directed.
45In response to a question from Ms. Boissoneault, Dr. Wang testified that although Mr. Mousaly has underestimated the severity of his actions, he has expressed remorse about the index offence, regrets his actions and understands that he has brought grief to his family and loved ones.
46When asked by Ms. Boissoneault if Mr. Mousaly’s insight was developing, Dr. Wang testified that although Dr. Klassen, in his report, did not find that Mr. Mousaly’s insight had developed since the commission of the index offence, Dr. Wang, in his clinical opinion, has found that it has improved since July, 2025 when Mr. Mousaly met with Dr. Klassen.
47In response to a question by Ms. Boissoneault, Dr. Wang gave evidence that he had spoken briefly with Dr. Klassen the week prior to the hearing but not about changes he had seen in Mr. Mousaly since July. Dr. Wang testified that Dr. Klassen hasn’t met with Mr. Mousaly since he wrote his report. With respect to the issue of significant threat, Dr. Wang testified that Dr. Klassen advised him that Dr. Klassen had found Mr. Mousaly to be a significant threat because Mr. Mousaly lacked insight and was manic. Dr. Wang testified that he told Dr. Klassen that Mr. Mousaly’s insight had improved and that he was doing well on the unit, and Dr. Klassen commented that clearly things had changed since Dr. Klassen had seen Mr. Mousaly. Dr. Wang testified that he told Dr. Klassen about his assessment of significant threat and that Dr. Klassen understood and didn’t disagree with Dr. Wang’s position, although he did not actually endorse it.
48In response to a question, Dr. Wang elaborated on Mr. Mousaly’s mental illness. Dr. Wang testified that with respect to the diagnosis of Bipolar 1 disorder, substance abuse aside, he agreed with that diagnosis and confirmed that three other doctors have made the same diagnosis and opined that Mr. Mousaly does not suffer from any other major mental illness. Despite the diagnosis by Dr. Bender that Mr. Mousaly suffers from a personality disorder, Dr. Wang testified that he does not see evidence of personality disorder traits in Mr. Mousaly. Dr. Wang also testified that none of the four other psychiatrists who have seen Mr. Mousaly have diagnosed him with schizoaffective disorder.
49In response to a question, with respect to Mr. Mousaly’s history with respect to medication compliance, Dr. Wang testified that Mr. Mousaly has, in the past, questioned the need to take medication and that his insight was not always as good as it is today. Dr. Wang gave evidence that Mr. Mousaly received psychoeducation from a nurse while in jail and has since been medication compliant and that, at present, Mr. Mousaly tolerates medications well.
50In response to a question from a panel member, Dr. Wang testified that by late summer, 2025, Mr. Mousaly had become stable and that as far as he could tell, Mr. Mousaly’s medication regimen had been stabilized. Dr. Wang testified that all of the medications taken by Mr. Mousaly are oral and that the medication he takes are not available in long acting injectables, that he is stable on the current regimen, but that if he has episode, his treatment provider will have to rethink his medication regimen.
51In response to a question from a panel member, Dr. Wang opined that he would have more confidence with respect to compliance if Mr. Mousaly was receiving an injectable, but not necessarily with respect to effectiveness, and that another medication would need to be as effective as those he is currently taking.
52Dr. Wang gave evidence that Mr. Mousaly’s family comes to visit regularly, that his family understands the need for Mr. Mousaly to have ongoing treatment, that his family is a strong protective factor and motivator with the caveat that his parents live in Windsor so although they cannot provide direct supervision they will be supportive despite being far away. Dr. Wang also testified that Mr. Mousaly’s fiancée is supportive and that Mr. Mousaly would be living with her in Thornhill, which is within our catchment area.
53When asked if the short term during which Dr. Wang has treated Mr. Mousaly and found him stable gave Dr. Wang cause for concern, Dr. Wang testified that he has met Mr. Mousaly on four occasions and that treatment teams conduct risk assessments based on a single interaction over several hours and still make risk conclusions so that while Dr. Wang opined that longitudinal observation would help and add to the opinion arrived at,, such observation is not absolutely necessary. Dr. Wang added that psychiatrists can arrive at conclusions based on relatively brief assessments.
54When asked by Mr. Feindel if Mr. Mousaly is he aware that he must take medication for his mental illness for the rest of his life, Dr. Wang reiterated that Mr. Mousaly’s insight is partially developed, not 100% robust as is usual in Bipolar 1 patients, which Dr. Wang testified was a risk factor for reoffending for Mr. Mousaly.
55When asked by Mr. Feindel what other triggers could put Mr. Mousaly in a position to decompensate, Dr. Wang testified that there were some financial issues Mr. Mousaly needs to resolve and that Mr. Mousaly would like to return to work, though not the same kind of work. Dr. Wang gave evidence that risk of decompensation is present, especially in the face of significant stressors.
56Mr. Feindel asked Dr. Wang would it be enough for Mr. Mousaly to decompensate if one of his supports fell away, and, if so, how long would it take. Dr. Wang gave evidence that if Mr. Mousaly stops taking his medications, that would lead to decompensation, but that how long it would take is difficult to say given that Mr. Mousaly’s illness is relatively new and Dr. Wang does not have a lot of data to review, but he opined that, depending on how fragile Mr. Mousaly’s mental state was, decompensation could happen in a matter of weeks, but that if cannabis use was added, that time frame could be accelerated. However, Dr. Wang testified, in his opinion, it would not be in the order of hours to days. Dr. Wang testified that taking into consideration all of the relevant factors, Dr. Wang was of the opinion that his risk assessment for Mr. Mousaly was the same whether he was in or out of hospital and he considered Mr. Mousaly a very low risk for violence.
57In response to a question as to whether Dr. Wang had explored the possibility of Mr. Mousaly working with a psychologist given that access to a psychiatrist in the community is limited, Dr. Wang gave evidence that he had not explored that possibility because the disposition of the ORB hearing was unknown, Mr. Mousaly does not have a steady source of income and Dr. Wang did not know if Mr. Mousaly could afford it.
58In response to a question from Mr. Feindel as to whether Mr. Mousaly currently enjoyed any privileges off the unit, Dr. Wang testified that he did not and agreed that Mr. Mousaly has not yet been tested off the unit. Dr. Wang testified that Mr. Mousaly has been calm and cooperative in hospital and that he is not aware of any concerns about Mr. Mousaly’s conduct when he was in jail.
59In response to a question from Mr. Feindel as to how much interaction Dr. Wang had had with Mr. Mousaly’s family Dr. Wang testified that it was very little, that he had spoken to Mr. Mousaly’s fiancée over the phone the week prior to the hearing and met with his family the morning of the hearing.
60When asked why Dr. Wang was of the opinion that the significant threat threshold had previously been met, Dr. Wang testified that the risk he sees is in decompensation, and whether or not it would lead to threats to others, directly or indirectly, is unclear to Dr. Wang. Dr. Wang testified further that while he acknowledges that Mr. Mousaly’s manic episode resulted in the index offence, the likelihood of Mr. Mousaly having another manic episode and causing harm was not clear to him and had formed the basis of his opinion. Dr. Wang gave evidence that the conclusion in the Hospital Report is his alone, and that typically a psychologist is also involved, but that was not the case in this instance.
61In response to a question from a panel member asking on which date Mr. Mousaly was advised that the hospital would be recommending an absolute discharge, Dr. Wang testified that he and Mr. Mousaly met for the first time in early November, 2025 and that they have met a total of four times, and Dr. Wang concluded that he would be recommending an absolute discharge within two weeks of meeting Mr. Mousaly and having the first few meetings with him. Dr. Wang further testified that he told Mr. Mousaly that he did not consider Mr. Mousaly a significant threat the week prior to the ORB hearing while preparing him(Mr. Mousaly) for what was expected to be a challenging hearing.
62Dr. Wang gave evidence about follow up care for Mr. Mousaly if absolutely discharged. Dr. Wang testified that such care is available in the community and could be provided by Mr. Mousaly’s new family doctor in Bowmanville who has not yet seen Mr. Mousaly. Dr. Wang testified that an alternative option is the family doctor of Mr. Mousaly’s parents in Windsor who has agreed to accept Mr. Mousaly as a patient and would see him virtually. Dr. Wang testified that there is a third option, namely a doctor near Mr. Mousaly’s condominium in Thornhill, who has agreed in theory to take Mr. Mousaly on as a patient but wants to assess him first. Dr. Wang testified that the treatment team would clarify which family doctor makes the most sense and he would send all of the materials to that doctor and make sure the new family doctor was aware of Mr. Mousaly’s medications history and other particulars to ensure what Dr. Wang referred to as a “warm handover”. Dr. Wang testified that he thought that either the family doctor in Bowmanville or one closer to Mr. Mousaly’s home would be preferable.
63In response to a question from counsel for the hospital Ms. Szabo, Dr. Wang testified that in order to help Mr. Mousaly transition into the community if given an absolute discharge, the treatment team, in quick succession, would identify which family doctor is most agreeable and easiest to see Mr. Mousaly soon, would give him a prescription for his medications, ensure he could live with his fiancée, liaise with the family doctor to arrange an appointment for Mr. Mousaly and work closely with Mr. Mousaly to accomplish these ends. Dr. Wang testified that he would continue to follow Mr. Mousaly until a family physician took over his care.
64Dr. Wang also testified that, in his clinical opinion, anyone with a major mental illness should have a psychiatrist and that in an ideal world, the hospital would connect him to a psychiatrist in the community but that this may not be possible. Dr. Wang also testified that he did not know if any of the three family doctors who Mr. Mousaly might see had any knowledge of psychiatry.
65In response to a question about Mr. Mousaly’s housing should he be discharged into the community, Dr. Wang testified that if discharged, he would expect that Mr. Mousaly would reside with his partner in Thornhill and that he would visit his parents in Windsor who have been very supportive.
66Mr. Mousaly’s mother, Ms. Rosa Mousaly gave evidence at the hearing. Ms. Mousaly was asked to describe her relationship with her son and how it has evolved over the past two years. Ms. Mousaly testified that she and Mr. Mousaly have had ups and downs, that most of the downs involved his cannabis use, but that his cannabis use did not result in the withdrawal of the support given to him. Ms. Mousaly gave evidence that when Mr. Mousaly had his first manic episode her husband (Mr. Mousaly sr.) and Ms. Mousaly moved in with Mr. Mousaly until he was OK. Ms. Mousaly testified that Mr. Mousaly had told her that the one good thing that had come out of this was that he and Ms. Mousaly now speak to each other every day and sometimes multiple times per day. Ms. Mousaly gave evidence that she and Mr. Mousaly sr. visit Mr. Mousaly often, even though they live far away in Windsor, Ontario. Ms. Mousaly testified that she wants to keep Mr. Mousaly close so she has started writing him letters while he was in jail, sometimes multiple pages long, and sending him pictures, because a lot has been happening and she wants him to be part of that. Ms. Mousaly testified that she and Mr. Mousaly have disagreements but that they work through them. Ms. Mousaly testified that Mr. Mousaly Sr. is a perfect dad, that he is an industrial electrician, and that Mr. Mousaly Sr. and Mr. Mousaly had that in common.
67Ms. Mousaly testified that Mr. Mousaly’s fiancée, Carolina and Mr. Mousaly have been together almost 4 years and that their relationship is remarkable, and that Carolina hasn’t missed a week of visiting Mr. Mousaly. Ms. Mousaly testified that when Mr. Mousaly was detained and went to Lindsay, he asked Carolina to leave him and move on but she refused. Ms. Mousaly gave evidence that Carolina and Mr. Mousaly have difficult conversations, most importantly, they talk about their future together and are very committed to one another. Ms. Mousaly gave evidence that Carolina is the daughter she and her husband never had, and that very early on Carolina and her young daughter asked if they could call Ms. Mousaly “Mom” and “Bubba”. Ms. Mousaly testified that she speaks and texts with Carolina every day, that she is family and that the Mousaly’s love her. Ms. Mousaly testified that if Carolina had not been here for the past 23 months it would have been much difficult. Ms. Mousaly gave evidence that she comes from a big Italian and Arabic family on both sides, and that she receives texts and calls every day from members of her extended family, all of whom are waiting for the day Mr. Mousaly can come home.
68Ms. Mousaly testified that, at first, she thought Mr. Mousaly’s difficulties were a one-off since when he stopped smoking cannabis he was fine, but then the mania started creeping in. Ms. Mousaly testified that in mid-December, 2023 she became alarmed by Mr. Mousaly’s behaviour and she and her husband received a call from Carolina on December 21, 2023 at 7 a.m. that Mr. Mousaly’s behaviour was out of control so Mr. Mousaly sr. drove to Bowmanville and he and Carolina called the police. Ms. Mousaly testified that Mr. Mousaly’s union steward at work came and tried to convince Mr. Mousaly to go to hospital. Ms. Mousaly gave evidence that Mr. Mousaly ended up in a locked room in the emergency department but was released three days later and came home with a friend with no prescriptions, no treatment plan and no follow up. Ms. Mousaly testified that the friend who signed him out is no longer a friend and is no longer welcome.
69Ms. Mousaly testified that over the next four weeks, Mr. Mousaly was up and down, that Carolina called the doctor many times, and that Ms. Mousaly and Mr. Mousaly sr. came down from Windsor many times. Ms. Mousaly gave evidence that, by the third week of January, 2024, Mr. Mousaly seemed OK and told Ms. Mousaly and Mr. Mousaly sr. to go on their planned vacation, which they did. However, Ms. Mousaly testified that while they were away, Mr. Mousaly decompensated and that his progression was alarming, and that on January 30,2024, she and Mr. Mousaly got on plane and flew home. Ms. Mousaly testified that, at that time, she knew Mr. Mousaly wasn’t taking his medications, and that he admitted he wasn’t, and was smoking cannabis. Ms. Mousaly testified that Carolina advised her that Mr. Mousaly wasn’t sleeping, his speech was like a motor and his thoughts were scattered and that he would go up to Carolina crying, and that she would hold him for hours.
70Ms. Mousaly testified that she couldn’t get help right away and that it took about six weeks to get the help Mr. Mousaly needed. Ms. Mousaly testified that she found some of the videos questionable, that she was afraid that Mr. Mousaly would hurt himself or someone else, and she would be unable to deal with that. Ms. Mousaly testified that she and Carolina went to a Justice of the Peace to get Mr. Mousaly help and that she wouldn’t hesitate to do that again if Mr. Mousaly decompensated.
71Ms. Mousaly testified that she understands that Mr. Mousaly has Bipolar 1 disorder and has to take his medications, and that this has been proven over the past two years, but that he is still the son they have always had, someone who is kind and compassionate.
72In response to a question about Mr. Mousaly’s insight, Ms. Mousaly testified that, in the beginning it was clouded by his intent, and as he had no intent to do harm, he thought that what he did could not be bad. Ms. Mousaly testified that Mr. Mousaly was never violent as a child, not even with his brother. Ms. Mousaly gave evidence that she has seen improvement in his insight but acknowledged that he still has a way to go.
73In response to a question as to whether Carolina has a similar understanding of Mr. Mousaly’s illness, Ms. Mousaly testified that she did, and that Carolina works in the medical industry, and has understood from the beginning what was happening.
74In response to a question as to whether Ms. Mousaly discussed Mr. Mousaly’s insight with him, Ms. Mousaly testified that she did, that it was not always an easy conversation but that it had become easier. Ms. Mousaly continued that, at first, Mr. Mousaly’s insight was coming from our reaction to what he had done and that her family considers what happened to be a tragedy. Ms. Mousaly testified that at first, Mr. Mousaly didn’t understand the seriousness of what happened. Ms. Mousaly testified that she is enrolled in an online forensic program which starts in January at Ontario Shores and lasts four sessions and that other members of her family are also enrolled. Ms. Mousaly also testified that she sees a psychologist to help her deal with these issues and see things from Mr. Mousaly’s perspective.
75Ms. Mousaly testified with respect to steps she has taken with respect to follow up care for Mr. Mousaly if he receives an absolute discharge. Ms. Mousaly testified that she and Mr. Mousaly sr. became Mr. Mousaly’s power of attorney regarding property and through that authority sold Mr. Mousaly’s home in Bowmanville, which she thought would be best for Mr. Mousaly and the community, and so that he wouldn’t have to face neighbours or be in shadow of the power plant. Ms. Mousaly also testified that they have two doctors “waiting in the wings” and she also has psychologists in mind. In response to a question as to whether the Mousaly family could afford such care, Ms. Mousaly testified that they did the best they could to save some of Mr. Mousaly’s money, that she has a health plan and that if Mr. Mousaly marries Carolina, she also has a health plan.
76Mr. Mousaly testified that Mr. Mousaly’s cannabis use was “the rock in the road” and that she has interviewed a rehabilitation centre in the GTA which has a cannabis use disorder program and has paid that centre $1500 so that there is a bed waiting for Mr. Mousaly should the need arise, as in the case of a relapse.
77Ms. Mousaly testified that in the beginning Mr. Mousaly was of the opinion that he had to post the video, but that there is a line in the sand, and that although Mr. Mousaly lost a lot in 22 minutes, he did not lose his family.
78Ms. Mousaly testified that there is a family practice in Windsor which Mr. Mousaly could use by video conferencing, and that the family doctor at that clinic is very good with referrals, and that if there was need for a psychiatrist, she was confident that there would be a timely referral to one. Ms. Mousaly further testified that the family doctor who took over Dr. Tetford’s practice has an excellent academic background, is a drummer like Mr. Mousaly, and would be a good fit for Mr. Mousaly, but she would like to hear from Dr. Wang as to which family doctor he thinks is the best option.
79With respect to how confident she is that Mr. Mousaly will take advantage of follow up care, Ms. Mousaly testified that “it goes back to what he has lost” and that Ms. Mousaly thinks that her son’s rationale is because he wants to do it, because he doesn’t want to go back to what happened, because he has significant remorse and guilt about the pain he has caused and the significant financial burden Mr. Mousaly sr. and Ms. Mousaly have taken on as a result of his actions, and because no one in the family is going to put up with this happening again.
80In response to a question from Mr. Feindel about the high level of support that Mr. Mousaly’s family has provided since 2021, Ms. Mousaly testified that a high level of support has been in place since 2017 when Mr. Mousaly had his accident at work, which was very disturbing for Mr. Mousaly and which led to him suffering PTSD. Ms. Mousaly added that Mr. Mousaly’s first manic episode was in 2021.
81When asked about the incident at the power plant in 2021, following which Mr. Mousaly was sent home from his job and worked from home for the next one and a half years, Ms. Mousaly testified that Mr. Mousaly subsequently returned to work at Ontario Power Generation in a clerical position in the engineering building, which job was considered a promotion for Mr. Mousaly, but that it was also stressful as the training for a new job wasn’t what it should have been, which created a level of stress for Mr. Mousaly. Ms. Mousaly gave evidence that, after Mr. Mousaly returned to work, his employer monitored his cannabis use for a year.
82Ms. Mousaly testified that after being sent home on May 16, 2021, no one at work contacted Mr. Mousaly for six weeks, and that during that period, Mr. Mousaly’s sleep habits deteriorated, he started to self-medicate. and his partner at the time, who was a nurse, had him admitted to hospital, from which he was released in two weeks. Ms. Mousaly testified that Mr. Mousaly’s job was very stressful, and that after his accident at work in 2017, he became hyper-vigilant. Ms. Mousaly also testified that Mr. Mousaly obtained the immediate help he needed at Lakeridge Health.
83Ms. Mousaly testified that after Mr. Mousaly’s discharge from Lakeridge, Mr. Mousaly was weaned off his medications under the supervision of a doctor, and he experienced no problems until 2023. Ms. Mousaly also gave evidence that Mr. Mousaly went back to using cannabis once the one-year monitoring period at work ended, and that Ms. Mousaly was very disappointed with this. Ms. Mousaly testified that she clearly remembers a discussion at the dinner table in which she questioned Mr. Mousaly about his cannabis use and asked him why he was starting now after a year of abstinence, and that she couldn’t reconcile such use.
84In response to a question as to whether she is aware of Mr. Mousaly’s triggers, Ms. Mousaly testified that she understands his triggers now, and that one trigger is lack of sleep, and that agitation is a sign that Mr. Mousaly’s family needs to seek help immediately.
85With respect to Mr. Mousaly’s cannabis use, Ms. Mousaly was asked why she thinks Mr. Mousaly will abstain from its use, given that she has asked Mr. Mousaly to stop in past and he’s gone back to using. In response, Mr. Mousaly testified that this time is different, that the family has called the authorities repeatedly to get help, that they came to the house repeatedly, and when nothing was working, she and Carolina went to the Justice of the Peace. Ms. Mousaly testified that their family love Mr. Mousaly very much, and their love is not a hindrance to getting him help, that the family “means business”, are not “fooling around”, and Mr. Mousaly has a bed ready to go to at a cannabis use disorder program if necessary.
86When asked whether Mr. Mousaly improved while in custody, Ms. Mousaly testified that Mr. Mousaly improved significantly, that as time progressed there was almost a metamorphosis, that sometimes his understanding “blew me away”, and that he showed such resilience and often supported the family. Ms. Mousaly also testified that they saw quite a progression, quite a clarity developing in Mr. Mousaly and that she often left in tears. Ms. Mousaly testified that she and her husband visited Mr. Mousaly every second or third week but that someone from the family visited every week.
87When asked if Mr. Mousaly had ever disclosed any information about his job except the 22-minute video, Ms. Mousaly replied “never” and added that Mr. Mousaly was only a supervisor in the engineering building. Ms. Mousaly testified that Mr. Mousaly was trained as paramedic. and that one time she knew that he attended to a medical emergency at work but wouldn’t talk about it. Ms. Mousaly also testified that Mr. Mousaly received praise from a supervisor with respect to a presentation he had made but Mr. Mousaly wouldn’t discuss it, as he always kept work-related information confidential.
88When asked about Mr. Mousaly’s YouTube channel, Ms. Mousaly testified that Mr. Mousaly is a musician, that he would perform with other musicians and that his livestream was a great place, until it wasn’t because of his manic behaviour. Ms. Mousaly testified that she monitored his livestream, as did other family members, and that nothing confidential was disclosed on that channel until the 22-minute video. Ms. Mousaly gave evidence that Carolina took down the 22-minute video with the help of a friend she had called on the phone.
89When it was pointed out that the agreed statement of facts mentions that Mr. Mousaly had about 7000 YouTube followers, Ms. Mousaly testified that Mr. Mousaly had about 100 followers for many years up until mid-December, 2023 and she questioned how many of the 7,000 followers were actually people and not bots, given that Mr. Mousaly had had a bot created for him, which created fake accounts, to make his site appear more popular.
90With respect to how many people watched the 22-minute video, Ms. Mousaly testified that, when the 22-minute video was playing and she was watching it, she could see how many people were watching it, and the number of viewers never exceeded five, and that she knows that Mr. Mousaly was a viewer as were her niece and nephew. Ms. Mousaly also testified that they contacted YouTube to try to get the 22-minute video taken down, but were unsuccessful, as it did not contravene community standards.
91In response to a question from Mr. Feindel as to why she monitored Mr. Mousaly’s YouTube channel, Ms. Mousaly testified that she was concerned about Mr. Mousaly’s manic behaviour, that she tried to discuss things with Mr. Mousaly, but that it wasn’t an easy time and she didn’t want to see anything like the 22-minute video posted again. Ms. Mousaly also testified that the content of Mr. Mousaly’s streaming in January 2024 was sometimes ridiculous, sometimes sexual, and sometimes included disturbing language.
92In response to a question from Mr. Feindel asking Ms. Mousaly how she could take the position that Mr. Mousaly didn’t intend what happened on Jan. 31st. given the language he used, which doesn’t sound unintentional, including comments indicating nuclear safety isn’t guaranteed and he had just made it so, Ms. Mousaly testified that a comment like that was just one part of the video and had to be put in context, and that the video invited people to ask questions and Mr. Mousaly would answer them in front of the entire world.
Final Submissions
93Ms. Szabo, on behalf of the hospital, reiterated the hospital’s initial position that Mr. Mousaly does not represent a significant threat to the safety of the public, and therefore, must be granted an absolute discharge. Ms. Szabo acknowledged the position taken by the Crown that this is an atypical charge, but submitted that the test for significant threat is clear and doesn’t change regardless of the charge. Ms. Szabo submitted that in order to make a finding of significant threat, the Board must make a positive finding of real risk, which must be more than speculative, it must be real, foreseeable, it must be criminal in nature, and a small risk of grave harm does not suffice.
94Ms. Szabo referred to the Court of Appeal decision in Winko which held that the significant threat threshold is an onerous standard and is meant to be onerous. Ms. Szabo submitted that, at the time of the index offence, Mr. Mousaly was not sleeping or eating and was in a manic state. Ms. Szabo submitted that Mr. Mousaly has Bipolar 1 disorder, no criminal record, and that his risk of reoffending was speculative.
95Ms. Szabo submitted that the analogy made by the Crown to arson was not an apt comparison, as starting a fire is an easily repeatable act, and the actions that comprised the index offence are not, and the likelihood of Mr. Mousaly engaging in the kind of behaviour that he engaged in during the index offence is low given that he is now treated, optimized and stable, is easy to work with, and has the benefit of improved insight, which, although not perfect, perfection is not expected and is not the test.
96Ms. Szabo also submitted that much has changed since Dr. Ramshaw and Dr. Klassen’s reports and that the Board should be careful about accepting hearsay evidence.
97Ms. Szabo submitted that if the Board is labouring under any notion that because Mr. Mousaly is smart and making connections, that he has to act a certain way or is gaming the system in order to obtain an absolute discharge, the evidence of Dr. Wang was clear that he is not doing this.
98Ms. Szabo further submitted that for a real risk of serious harm to be found, multiple steps must be made, and she then set out those independent steps, which would all need to be present, in order for there to be a real risk of harm caused by Mr. Mousaly. Ms. Szabo also submitted that each step is speculative or does not otherwise meet the high standard required for the Board to find a significant risk. As a result, she concluded, the risk is speculative. Those steps are as follows:
Mr. Mousaly must stop taking his medications, which Dr. Wang testified was unlikely given Mr. Mousaly’s supportive factors, and despite his limited but developing insight; and
Mr. Mousaly would have to decompensate and become manic on some speculative future date; and
Mr. Mousaly would have to start streaming again, which he did both when he was well and unwell. Dr. Wang testified that this was “possible” but never said “likely” to happen.
Mr. Mousaly would have to re-stream the same type of content as he did during the index offence. Ms. Szabo submitted that in the Agreed s of Facts, Mr. Mousaly streamed more than 300 videos and only once did he stream the kind of content that led to the index offence. Ms. Szabo pointed out that streaming itself is not criminal, but acknowledged that the kind of streaming that led to the index offence is. However, Mr. Mousaly has expressed remorse, has said he doesn’t want to talk about his work ever again, and is not perseverating on it, nor does he want anything to do with his former employer. Ms. Szabo submitted that Dr. Wang did not testify that he didn’t believe Mr. Mousaly on this point and there is no reason to discount this. Further, Dr. Wang said it’s a possibility, but pointed out that the 22-minute video was part of Mr. Mousaly’s “mission” at the time of the index offence, which is no longer the case.
If Mr. Mousaly was to start streaming the kind of information contained in the 22-minute video, the information contained therein would have to be seen and acted upon by a third party. Ms. Szabo submitted that most of Mr. Mousaly’s subscribers are bots and there is no evidence that third party actors saw or would have acted on the video. Ms. Szabo submitted that such a video would have to be seen and acted on and that further, there is no evidence that Mr. Mousaly tried to exploit these vulnerabilities streamed about the power plant and the nuclear industry himself. Mr. Mousaly hasn’t worked at the power plant in a number of years, and that even if Mr. Mousaly did stream in this way, Dr. Wang thought it speculative to know how viewers would see it, especially now that Mr. Mousaly no longer works at the power plant and doesn’t have his employee credentials; and
Streaming confidential information gained from his employment at OPG would have to cause serious physical or psychological harm , and such information must the likely to cause physical or psychological harm. Ms. Szabo cited the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in Pellett which set out that a finding that harm “could” occur does not meet the significant harm threshold, and the word “could” appears in the federal government document which forms part of the record, not the work “likely”; and
Ontario Power Generation has built-in redundancies and multiple safety features which are robust and being updated regularly to protect the safety of the public, as set out in the Agreed Statement of Facts.
99Ms. Szabo also submitted that the idea that Dr. Wang was opining on the issue of significant threat by taking into consideration only the significant threat of violence is mistaken. Ms. Szabo took the position that Dr. Wang had a much more nuanced approach, and considered the possibility of streaming reoffences as well, and concluded that the likelihood of that was low. Ms. Szabo pointed out that Dr. Wang went through an assessment and that, while Mr. Mousaly is at risk of another manic episode, Dr. Wang could not conclude that anything would happen during that manic episode that would cause harm, directly or indirectly, to anyone.
100Ms. Szabo submitted that the crime which occurred during the index offence was not inherently violent, Mr. Mousaly’s family and fiancée are very supportive, he has somewhere to live, and the hospital will bridge his care if he is in the community. While the index offence was atypical, Ms. Szabo submitted that the Board must find a real risk of physical or psychological harm, and that a small risk of grave harm doesn’t suffice to meet the threshold test of significant threat.
101Ms. Szabo cited paragraph 21 of the recent Court of Appeal decision in Ramos which sets out that Board decisions require an individualized assessment, and that while public safety is the primary concern, the Board should focus on the current situation of the accused rather than the offence, and that past behaviour may not be reliable indicator of future risk, especially where effective treatment and supports are in place.
102Ms. Szabo further submitted that if the Board finds that Mr. Mousaly continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public, the least onerous and least restrictive disposition is a conditional discharge.
103Mr. Feindel, on behalf of the Attorney General, submitted that the most appropriate, least onerous and least restrictive disposition is a conditional discharge. He submitted that there were three parts to his submissions: 1) the irreconcilability between the reports of Dr. Klassen and Dr. Wang; and 2) Parliament’s intent to criminalize the conduct exhibited in the index offence; and 3) what is the necessary and appropriate disposition.
104Mr. Feindel submitted the following: Dr. Klassen and Dr. Wang did not use the same approach with respect to the issue of significant threat; and, Dr. Wang opined that the main risk is relapse leading to medication non-compliance, coupled with heavy cannabis use; and Dr. Wang also opined that Mr. Mousaly’s insight into his illness and his need for medication is better, but not 100%, and is still developing; Dr. Wang clearly indicated that decompensation doesn’t pose a threat to public safety because the index offence didn’t cause harm to the public as set out in page 26 of his report; and the index offence isn’t one that can cause significant harm according to Dr. Wang, and even though Dr. Wang has serious concerns about Mr. Mousaly, he still concludes that there is no likelihood that Mr. Mousaly will cause harm; and Dr. Wang’s opinion is that Mr. Mousaly is not a significant threat today, last Friday or when he came into hospital in August, or last July when assessed, and was not a threat to public safety when the index offence happened, because it is not clear to Dr. Wang that any harm resulted from the index offence.
105On the contrary, Mr. Feindel submitted, Dr. Klassen opined that Mr. Mousaly did pose a significant threat to the safety of the public. Mr. Feindel asked rhetorically that if significant threat cannot be found because of the nature of the index offence, then how could Dr. Klassen have found significant threat? Mr. Feindel submitted that, according to Dr. Wang, even re-engaging in the same behaviour that characterized the index offence would not pose a significant threat, and this cannot be reconciled with Dr. Klassen’s perspective. Mr. Feindel submitted that, according to Dr. Klassen, the threat of Mr. Mousaly re-offending could meet the threshold but, according to Dr. Wang, it could never meet the significant threat threshold, and each clinician is applying different concepts of significant threat to this case. Mr. Feindel submitted that Dr. Wang’s concept of significant threat does not conform to the law.
106Mr. Feindel submitted that, with all due respect to Dr. Wang, Parliament has criminalized the conduct of the index offence precisely because of the risk to the public. Mr. Feindel submitted that in Justice Cameron’s ruling with respect to the index offence, Mr. Mousaly provided information which could endanger the particular power plant in which Mr. Mousaly was employed and nuclear power plants in general. Mr. Mousaly agreed to provide information to terrorist groups if they reached out to him, and he disclosed particular vulnerabilities of the nuclear power plant. The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, at page 22 of their report, confirmed that the information shared by Mr. Mousaly could harm and lead to threats to the nuclear facility. At page 23, the Report concluded that the information provided by Mr. Mousaly could harm the reputation of the nuclear industry and be a threat to public safety.
107Mr. Feindel further submitted that Mr. Mousaly had limited insight and denies the severity of his mental health issues, that his delusions included beliefs about being a prophet and whistle blower. Mr. Feindel submitted that criminal law is grounded in public safety, that the index offence was very serious, a straight indictable offence, of which there are very few, and would have warranted a guilty finding, for which the maximum sentence is life in prison. Mr. Feindel submitted that Parliament considers this type of offence extremely serious as it could compromise a nuclear facility by inviting bad actors to harm the public, and that it is not open to Dr. Wang to second guess Parliament. Mr. Feindel submitted that the risk in this case is far greater than simple assault, and that to insist that damage had to result for it to be a significant threat is preposterous and thwarts Parliament’s intention. Mr. Feindel cited Mr. Justice Binney in R. v. Owen 2003 SCC 33, [2003] 1 SCR 779, at paragraph 65 that measures are put in place by Parliament to protect the public before harm occurs, and not to punish after it occurs.
108Mr. Feindel submitted that Mr. Mousaly was not found otherwise guilty of almost harming, but was found otherwise guilty of causing harm, and reiterated that Dr. Wang’s view is based on the idea that the index offence didn’t cause harm. Mr. Feindel made an analogy to arson, and submitted that the person who sets the fire doesn’t cause harm, but the fire does, and we prosecute the person holding the match, even if the fire goes out before causing harm.
109Mr. Feindel submitted that as set out on page 26 of Dr. Wang’s report, Mr. Mousaly is motivated by a mix of internal and external factors, and all of the doctors who have worked with Mr. Mousaly agree that Mr. Mousaly has a significant history of non-compliance, heavy cannabis use, that his insight is still developing and that he needs to take his medications and abstain from substance use. Mr. Mousaly has had at least two manic episodes, in 2021 and 2023-2024, that there is a high risk of another manic episode, which could develop into schizoaffective disorder, as set out at page 21 of Dr. Wang’s report, and that it is too early to rule this out.
110Mr. Feindel cited the ruling in the recent Court of Appeal decision in Ramos (Re) 2025 ONCA 820 (“Ramos”) and submitted that Mr. Mousaly’s risk could best be managed by a conditional discharge including the following conditions: 1) that Mr. Mousaly reside at a specific address with his fiancée; and 2) that he abstain from substances; and 3) that he be required to provide urine samples as required; and 4) that the Board seek consent to treatment pursuant to Criminal Code section 672.55; that he report at least once every two weeks and immediately attend at the hospital when requested; and 5) and that he be allowed to travel with the consent of the person in charge.
111Mr. Feindel submitted that Mr. Mousaly has been under a high level of security for the past two years, that the next step for him is a big transition, and the benefits of a conditional discharge is that it provides Mr. Mousaly with much greater supports which include psychiatric support from the hospital, along with psychological support if appropriate. Further, a conditional discharge disposition alleviates the need for his family to be a complete monitoring system, and is therefore a much better plan than an absolute discharge.
112Ms. Boissoneault, counsel for Mr. Mousaly submitted that the Supreme Court of Canada in Winko v. British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute), 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625 (“Winko”) established the test for a finding of significant threat and that, failing such a finding, an NCR accused must be absolutely discharged. She submitted that this was reiterated recently by the Ontario Court of Appeal in Ramos. Ms. Boissoneault submitted that Winko also stands for the proposition that individuals with mental illness are not inherently dangerous, that no assumption of dangerousness should be made by the Board, and the Board must do an individual assessment and evaluate Mr. Mousaly’s personal clinical and other circumstances.
113Ms. Boissoneault submitted that subsection 672.5401 of the Criminal Code codifies this test after Winko and that Winko made it clear that a high risk of trivial harm or a low risk of grievous harm doesn’t meet threshold test of significant harm.
114Ms. Boissoneault submitted that there is no doubt that the index offence is serious but there is no evidence that it resulted in physical or psychological harm to the public because of protective factors which are still in place and have been strengthened.
115Ms. Boissoneault submitted that, as set out in the Agreed Statement of Facts, Mr. Mousaly had 7000 YouTube followers, but it is not known how many were actual people, because subscribers had been purchased and many were bots, apart from which very few people were watching, and only seven watched during the 22-minute video, and six of them were family members.
116Ms. Boissoneault submitted that many protective factors were in place at the time of the index offence, including the robust safety measures of nuclear industry, which include redundancies and sophisticated safety measures to keep communities safe, and those measures remain in place.
117Ms. Boissoneault submitted that Mr. Mousaly has strong protective factors, including a very strong and supportive family with an excellent understanding of Mr. Mousaly’s mental illness, who worked together to protect him and the public at the time of the index offence, and who will take those steps again if Mr. Mousaly decompensates.
118Ms. Boissoneault submitted that Mr. Mousaly also has new protective factors in place, including the progress he has made in handling the stress of detention and of being on a secure unit at a hospital, without further decompensation, which underscores his resilience. Ms. Boissoneault submitted that Mr. Mousaly is now stable, medication compliant, remorseful, has no job stressors, is not perseverating about the OPG or the nuclear industry and he has expressed a commitment to never stream such content again, his insight has improved over last two years. There is no evidence of cannabis use for at least two years, and it is clear that it is his intention to remain abstinent. Mr. Mousaly also has the strong external motivation from his family, a safe place to live with his fiancée who is committed to his recovery. Finally, he has access to three family doctors, and his family will work with Dr. Wang to choose the most appropriate family doctor to ensure a smooth transition to community care
119Ms. Boissoneault also submitted that Mr. Feindel’s interpretation of Dr. Wang’s understanding of the concept of significant risk is not correct.
120Ms. Boissoneault also cited the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Gibson (Re) 2022 ONCA 527 (“Gibson”) at paragraph 9 and submitted that the significant threat test is stringent and that it must be made as of the day of the hearing, not based on the past or the speculative future. Ms. Boissoneault submitted that the Board must review the current circumstances and presentation of the person as set out in Ramos. Ms. Boissoneault submitted that a finding that Mr. Mousaly will stream confidential and dangerous content in the future is purely speculative and that, even more speculative is that harm will occur in the future given that harm didn’t occur in 2024, and it is less likely that it will occur in the future for the reasons given.
121Ms. Boissoneault also relied on the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in Kalra (Re) 2018 OCA 833 which held that a lack of insight doesn’t constitute a significant threat and shouldn’t dominate the significant test analysis. Ms. Boissoneault also submitted that the fact that Parliament treats the index offence seriously is irrelevant to the significant threat test.
122Ms. Boissoneault ended her submissions by saying that if the Board finds that the significant threat threshold has been met, a conditional discharge is the most appropriate, least onerous and least restrictive disposition and recognizes Mr. Mousaly’s support and the evidence at the hearing. She also submitted that there is no need for a Young clause as Mr. Mousaly is prosocial, has no criminal record and there is no evidence that he would ignore lawful conditions. Ms. Boissoneault did not object to any of the other conditions suggested by Mr. Feindel.
Analysis and Disposition
123Based on the Hospital Report and the evidence presented at the hearing, including the oral testimony of Dr. Wang and Ms. Mousaly, the majority of the panel concluded that Mr. Mousaly no longer represents a significant threat to the safety of the public for the reasons set out below. Mr. Mousaly was therefore granted an Absolute Discharge.
124In coming to this conclusion, the panel was guided by and carefully considered the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Winko. In that case, the Court held that a significant threat to the safety of the public must be: more than speculative in nature and supported by the evidence; significant, in the sense of there being a “real risk of physical or psychological harm to members of the public that is serious in the sense of going beyond the merely trivial or annoying”; and the conduct giving rise to the harm must be criminal in nature. Further, the Court stated that there must be a positive finding of a significant threat to the safety of the public in order to support restrictions on an accused’s liberty. Anything else, for example uncertainty, cannot suffice.
125In Winko, the Supreme Court of Canada also stated that in coming to a conclusion on the issue of significant threat, 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 accused’s mental condition, and the accused’s own plans for the future, the support services existing for the accused in the community, and the recommendations provided by experts who have examined the accused.
126The Board is cognizant of its duty to consider the circumstances and presentation of Mr. Mousaly as of the date of the hearing as set out in Ramos and Gibson and not base its decision on historical factors that are no longer present. As of the date of the hearing, Mr. Mousaly was doing very well, was medication compliant, he was abstinent from the use of substances and had been for some time, his insight was improving, he was remorseful, he had withstood significant stressors while incarcerated and in secure custody in hospital without decompensating, his medications were optimized, he had an impressive support system in place, not the least of which was his extended family, and he expressed what was described by Dr. Wang as a sincere desire to remain on his medications and abstinent from substances going forward and not to stream any content regarding his former employer or the nuclear industry.
127In addition, the Board considered whether the risk of re-offending by Mr. Mousaly, which Dr. Wang testified was not zero, coupled with Dr. Wang’s testimony that the chance of Mr. Mousaly having another manic episode was likely along with Mr. Mousaly’s diagnosis of a major mental disorder, Bipolar 1, along with all of the other evidence, met the significant risk threshold. In doing so, the Board considered the reasoning of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Ferguson (Re) 2010 ONCA 810 which followed Winko and which held that a very small risk of even a grave harm will not suffice and a very high risk of relatively trivial harm will also not meet the substantial harm threshold. The Board finds that the said reasoning in Winko and Ferguson applies to the herein matter.
128The Board considered the history of medication non-compliance by Mr. Mousaly as a risk factor when deciding on the issue of significant threat and although Mr. Mousaly has a history of medication non-compliance, he is currently medication compliant, stable, his medications are optimized, and he benefits from the protective factor of an impressive support system. The Board also takes into consideration the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision in Pellett (Re) 2017 ONCA 753 which holds that non-compliance with medication should not be improperly extrapolated by the Board to support a conclusion of significant risk to the safety of the public where there is otherwise insufficient evidence to support such a conclusion. The Board finds that this is such a case.
129While the majority of the Board agrees with the analysis of the Crown in that it appeared from the testimony of Dr. Wang that he focused on whether or not there was a significant risk of Mr. Mousaly causing physical or psychological violence in the future, as opposed to considering a broader definition of harm to include physical or psychological harm to the public, which may or may not include violence. The crime of arson is a useful analogy argued by the Crown, given that the act of starting a fire is not, in and of itself, a violent act, but the results of a fire can be deadly and destructive. However, despite his view of the significant threat test, and although Dr. Wang admitted that Mr. Mousaly’s chance of having a manic episode in the future was somewhat likely, Dr. Wang nevertheless opined that, even in the event of a manic episode, the chance that Mr. Mousaly reoffending was low for behaviour similar in nature and seriousness to the index offence. The majority of the Board found Dr. Wang’s testimony with respect to Mr. Mousaly’s progress and current state of mind compelling.
130The majority of the Board also considered the analysis of counsel for the hospital which posited that a series of seven factors (as set out above) would all have to occur before any harm would result to any person, and concluded that the likelihood of all seven steps occurring was remote at best. As the case law so abundantly set out, even a small risk of a grave harm does not meet the significant threat threshold. The majority of the Board finds that this is such a case.
131The Board considered all of the factors relevant to Mr. Mousaly and a finding of significant threat, which factors can be summarized as follows: 1) Mr. Mousaly is likely to suffer a further manic episode; and 2) Ms. Mousaly has a history of medication non-compliance; and 3) Mr. Mousaly has a history of heavy cannabis use; and 4) Mr. Mousaly’s mental state is currently stable, his medication regimen is optimized and he no longer suffers any symptoms of his major mental illness, Bipolar 1 disorder; and 5) Mr. Mousaly’s insight is developing; and 6) Mr. Mousaly is intelligent; and 7) Mr. Mousaly has significant protective factors including an extensive support system, most notably his very actively involved family; and 8) a treatment team which will ensure a smooth transition to community care and the established family doctors in the community who are willing to take on Mr. Mousaly as a patient; and 9) Mr. Mousaly has a stable home to return to with his fiancée; and 10) Mr. Mousaly’s stated intention to remain substance abstinent and medication compliant and refrain from streaming any content related to the nuclear industry.
132For the reasons set out above, the Board has granted Mr. Mousaly an absolute discharge and wishes him well as he returns to life in the community.
Reasons of the Minority
Mr. A. Mete
133The Index Offence is most serious. Justice Cameron in her October 9, 2025 oral ruling stated that based on the Agreed Statement of Facts “I am satisfied that by publicly sharing the information, Mr. Mousaly committed the act of intentionally communicating safeguarded information to foreign entities or terrorist groups.” In the YouTube video created and publicly posted by Mr. Mousaly he offered information to foreign entities and terrorist groups that could threaten nuclear safety both domestically and globally.
134At the time of the offence, Mr. Mousaly was in a manic state for the first time in his life. When an individual has experienced one manic episode, the risk of a future manic episode is high and while the timeframe between the manic episodes is impossible to determine, the likelihood that it will occur remains high. This is supported by Dr. Klassen’s testimony at the NCR trial and comments made by Dr. Wang, Mr. Mousaly’s attending psychiatrist in response to questions during the hearing.
135Since receiving treatment while in custody and in hospital, Mr. Mousaly has done very well and presents as calm, settled and clinically stable. Medication and abstinence from cannabis in a controlled and supervised setting have been key to this.
136Dr. Wang during the hearing stated that Mr. Mousaly’s insight remains limited and is still evolving. Dr Klassen provided his expert opinions on risk management during the NCR trial for Mr. Mouslay and concluded “based on Mr. Mousaly’s recurrent illness, historical discontinuance of medication, and poor insight into his disease, as well as his offending while manic and psychotic, that Mr. Mousaly currently represents a significant threat to public safety.”
137It is clear that insight is a concern as raised by both Dr. Wang and Dr. Klassen and it remains a concern for the minority. It was a concern at the time of Mr. Mousaly’s trial and remains a concern today.
138Dr. Wang, in the hospital report noted that, “with respect to future problems, the relevant risk factors would include: future problems with professional services/plans and treatment/supervision. Of particular concern to the minority is Dr. Wang's testimony that "there were some recent problems with insight. He remained uncertain about the role of medications and whether they were meaningfully effective for him.” Dr. Klassen in his report stated that “Non-compliance with psychiatric treatment is by far the most significant of these factors in promoting relapse into either mania or depression.” At the time of the index offence, Mr. Mousaly was non-compliant with his medication and was using cannabis.
139Dr. Wang recognizes that Mr. Mousaly “had a history of regular cannabis use and intermittent psilocybin use, and he lacked insight into the risks associated with cannabis use. It was noted that cannabis had contributed to emerging mania for Mr. Mousaly in the past. He had stopped his medications in the past, against medical advice, as he also lacked insight into his symptoms and need for treatment.” While this may have been his past thinking and now the recent ambivalence about the need for antipsychotic treatment raises a real concern that he may discontinue treatment again. This concern would have been better addressed via ongoing treatment compliance with a long acting injectable rather than reliance on daily oral compliance.
140While lack of insight alone does not meet the significant threat threshold, when viewed in the context of concerns over discontinuing medication and a long history of untreated cannabis use which could result in decompensation, and a subsequent manic episode, a significant threat finding can be met.
141Mr. Mousaly’s long history of substance use is concerning. Considering Mr. Mousaly’s long use of substances, he has participated in minimal counselling to address this issue, and during his short time in hospital this was not provided. In 2021, he was not open to attending Pinewood Centre to receive treatment and counselling for his substance use, stating that his use of cannabis as being a “source of joy and nothing but.” While he has strong family supports, and a very dedicated fiancée, it would seem that all these supports were in place prior to the index offence, and despite this, Mr. Mousaly continued to use substances, sometimes in “copious” amounts and was non-compliant with his medication. There is no question that cannabis use can trigger a decompensation of an individual’s mental state, and in in Mr. Mousaly's case specifically, cannabis use is directly tied to his discontinuing medication.
142Discontinuing medication has historically led Mr. Mousaly to experience mania, as at the time of the index offence. This would, based on the evidence before the Board, certainly result in him experiencing another manic episode, thus once again putting public safety at risk.
143The issue of decompensation was raised during the hearing, and Dr. Wang could not comment on how quickly this would occur should Mr. Mousaly use substances and stop taking his oral medications, but he did confirm that this would occur as it had in the past.
144The minority also notes that an empirically based risk assessment (EBRA) was not conducted by the hospital as this could have been used to help predict the likelihood of a future negative outcome like recidivism and perhaps outline what supports he would need when living in the community.
145The minority finally notes that Mr. Mousaly’s discharge plan is not confirmed and has not been thoroughly investigated by the hospital. During the hearing the Board heard evidence of a plan in place, but substantive details about the plan, and specifically how it will address Mr. Mousaly’s risk factors were not solidified and therefore did not provide the level of confidence required to ensure public safety is not jeopardized.
146For these reasons, the minority does not support an absolute discharge, and instead supports a conditional discharge, which would allow Mr. Mousaly to live in the community, while still having the support of the hospital team.
DATED this 12th day of January 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.
Ms. J. Ferguson Legal Member Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board