Re: Gloria Kazimoto Masika, 2026 CanLII 21118

Ontario Review Board

Re: Gloria Kazimoto Masika

ORB File No: 8591

Hearing held on: Tuesday, January 13, 2026

Place of Hearing: Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre

Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code

Before: Alternate Chairperson: Ms. M. Labrosse Members: Dr. K. Krasnik Dr. R.B. Cormier Ms. R. Louis Mr. A. Bouvier

Parties Appearing: Accused: Gloria Kazimoto Masika Counsel: Ms. A. Murchison

Person in charge of hospital: Representative: Dr. M. Strike

Attorney-General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. M. Dufort

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated March 5, 2026)

Introduction

1On July 8, 2024, the accused, Gloria Kazimoto Masika, was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on charges of aassault and assault with a weapon, both contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada.

2Ms. Masika is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board (“ORB”) dated December 4, 2024, which detains her at the Secure Forensic Unit of the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre with privileges up to and including to live in the community of Ottawa, Ontario, and Gatineau, Quebec, in accommodation approved by the person in charge.

3On January 13, 2026, the ORB convened at the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre (hereinafter referred to as “the hospital”) to conduct Ms. Masika’s annual review hearing, pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Ms. Masika was present and was represented by counsel, Ms. Amy Murchison. A hospital report dated December 12, 2025, was entered as Exhibit 1 for the hearing.

4The issues for this hearing are whether Ms. Masika continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public, and if so, to determine the necessary and appropriate disposition to manage the risk for the coming year.

5At the outset, the parties provided their preliminary without prejudice positions for this hearing. The hospital indicated that it was recommending the continuation of a detention order with community living in approved accommodation and asking for the addition of travel passes permitting Ms. Masika to travel within Ontario and Quebec for up to seven days, indirectly supervised with an approved itinerary. In addition, the hospital was also recommending a transfer of Ms. Masika to the Province of Quebec, as Ms. Masika is now subject to a disposition of the Tribunal Administratif du Québec (“TAQ”) after being found NCR on further charges in Quebec on September 2, 2025, having had her initial hearing before the TAQ on November 18, 2025.

6Counsel for the Attorney General, Ms. Dufort, indicated that she would likely agree with the hospital’s recommendation, subject to questions for the attending psychiatrist, Dr. Strike.

7Counsel for Ms. Masika, Ms. Murchison, also indicated that she would likely agree with the hospital’s position on both the requested changes to the disposition and the recommendation for the transfer to the Province of Quebec.

8At the conclusion of the hearing, the parties presented a joint position based on the hospital’s recommendation.

9For the reasons set out below, the Board finds that Ms. Masika continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and that a detention order with permission to reside in approved accommodation in the communities of Ottawa, Ontario and Gatineau, Quebec, including at Hôpital Pierre-Janet, with the addition of travel provisions for up to seven days in Ontario and Quebec with an approved itinerary indirectly supervised is the necessary and appropriate disposition. The hearing panel also agrees to recommend the transfer of Ms. Masika to the Province of Quebec.

Index Offences

10The details of the index offences have been extracted from last year’s Reasons for Disposition as follows:

“On December 24, 2023, Ms. Masika and her infant daughter were admitted to the Maison D’Amitié women’s shelter in Ottawa.

On January 13, 2024, Ms. Masika was confronted by one of the women’s shelter workers just before midnight, as Ms. Masika was pacing back and forth demanding that her daughter be returned to her. Ms. Masika tried to hit the worker, resulting in the worker attempting to restrain her while asking another worker to call 911. Ms. Masika pulled away from the worker’s grasp, barged out of the kitchen, and grabbed a knife, resulting in the worker blocking the door for her safety. At this point, Ms. Masika smashed the glass window with the knife and uttered that she was going to kill the three workers that were on scene and then kill herself. She then attempted to break another window and subsequently exited the residence holding the knife in her hand. Once outside, she was observed slashing the tires of a worker’s vehicle. She then walked across the street and began to slash the front tires of two other vehicles. She also returned to one of the vehicles and began smashing the front end of the vehicle with her knife. She held up the knife and yelled at the homeowners, who were standing at their front door, to call 911 or she would kill them. At this point, she walked over to another vehicle parked in the driveway, slashing the front driver side with the knife while holding a soccer ball she stole from the 21 homeowner’s yard. Ms. Masika continued with the mischief and smashed the right-side driver mirror, causing the knife blade to break away from its handle.

With the handle in her hand, she continued to break the mirror while punching and ripping apart the lens from its casing. The incident was captured on the homeowner’s surveillance video. Police arrived on the scene just as Ms. Masika was walking away from the vehicle and still holding the broken knife handle in her hand. Ms. Masika saw the fully marked police vehicle pull up, resulting in her approaching the vehicle and yelling at the officers as they exited. She threw the knife handle at one of the officers, striking him in the upper chest area. She was then placed under arrest, but not before resisting the arrest and assaulting assisting officers.”

Background History

11The details of Ms. Masika’s personal, legal and psychiatric history are contained in the hospital report. Briefly summarized, Ms. Masika is 24 years of age and is from the Democratic Republic of Congo (“DRC”) where she lived until moving to Canada in 2019.

12Ms. Masika experienced various traumatic events and abuse throughout her childhood. The instability and intermittent conflict in her home nation affected her and her entire community. She also experienced physical abuse, from her father and others, and sexual abuse from her uncle when she was 13 to 14 years old.

13Ms. Masika was educated in French in the DRC, where she obtained her high school diploma. She completed one year of college at la Cité Collégiale in Ottawa in early childhood education, before leaving school in 2020 to work full-time for financial reasons.

14Ms. Masika resided with her brother in Gatineau from the time of her arrival in Canada until May 2023. She described a healthy relationship with her brother, who has been very supportive. She also has a sister, a cousin and a few life-long friends in the Ottawa-Gatineau area. In 2021, Ms. Masika entered a relationship with a man named Aaron, originally from Jamaica. She became pregnant and gave birth to a daughter in 2023.

Criminal History

15Ms. Masika does not have any known history of charges or convictions prior to January 2024, according to CPIC. She denied a history of illegal or violent behaviours or criminal involvement in or outside of Canada.

Psychiatric History

16In June 2021, Ms. Masika’s father died in Congo. This was a tremendous loss for her. She described significant grief and depressive symptoms that progressively worsened over the next three years in response to his passing. She started using cannabis to avoid thinking about her father. She had difficulty sleeping; however, she was still functioning well enough to work.

17In 2022, she suffered from low energy and extreme fatigue. At some point in the late summer or early fall of 2022, she took a pregnancy test and discovered that she was pregnant. She was advised to stop working immediately and rest at home. She followed these directions and went on medical leave from her job. She has not worked since then.

18In May 2023, Ms. Masika experienced a brief episode of psychotic symptoms induced by cannabis that resulted in a two or three-day psychiatric admission at the Gatineau Hospital.

19Though little is known about this, Ms. Masika stated that she left the relationship with her child’s father, with her one-year-old daughter, in November 2023 to reside at a women’s shelter in Gatineau, to escape his abusive behaviour. On December 19, 2023, she relocated to the Maison d’Amitié shelter in Ottawa to better protect herself and her baby from potential abuse.

20The Children’s Aid Society subsequently intervened and her daughter was placed with the father early in January 2024, before the first alleged offences. The staff from Maison d’Amitié advised that Ms. Masika appeared to consistently provide appropriate care to her baby, even when she was behaving in a bizarre manner.

21Ms. Masika’s current diagnoses are:

• Schizoaffective disorder, depressive type, first episode, in partial remission

• Cannabis use disorder

Evidence at the Hearing

22The hospital’s evidence was presented through its report and through the oral testimony of Dr. M. Strike, who is the attending psychiatrist for Ms. Masika at the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre.

23Ms. Masika had a difficult last year. She was readmitted to hospital on January 14, 2025, in the context of medication non-compliance and subsequent decompensation. She had a restriction of liberty hearing on April 14, 2025. Ms. Masika was discharged from the hospital on August 5, 2025, to an apartment in Gatineau, where she lives with her sister, Ms. Muke.

24Ms. Masika was found NCR of new charges in the Province of Quebec. She is now subject to a disposition of the TAQ which was ordered in November 2025, though a copy of the disposition was not provided to the Board. The disposition reportedly requires her to live in approved housing in Gatineau, to follow the recommendations of her treatment team, to abstain from substances, and not to communicate with the victim. Ms. Masika is seen at the Hôpital Pierre-Janet by Dr. Mouli-Pela.

25Dr. Strike testified that Ms. Masika works well with both her treatment team at Pierre-Janet and at the Royal Ottawa. It has been somewhat onerous for her to have to report to two hospitals and two treatment teams; however, she is handling it quite well.

26Ms. Masika has been experiencing side effects from her long-acting injectable (“LAI”) antipsychotic, Invega, and is in the process of switching to the LAI Abilify which she has started taking in an oral format.

27Ms. Masika is receiving intensive follow-up through Pierre-Janet Hospital with Dr. Mouli-Pela. At the Royal Ottawa, she sees Dr. Strike, her case manager, Mr. Steve Su, and the social worker, Jean Michel Frechette, who is licensed to work in both Ontario and Quebec.

28Dr. Strike explained that Ms. Masika’s daughter is currently in Jamaica with her daughter’s father but is supposed to soon return to the Ottawa-Gatineau area. Ms. Masika does not currently have a plan of care for her daughter, but she hopes to pursue one to ensure that her daughter remains in the Gatineau area. She has had some concerns about the father deciding to remain in Jamaica, but he is reportedly returning to Gatineau. Ms. Masika is currently managing her mental health very well and hoping to have her daughter in her care three nights per week.

29Ms. Masika is supported financially by the Social Solidarité Program in Quebec which is adequate for her housing, food, and personal needs.

30The plan for the next year is to carefully transition Ms. Masika to Pierre-Janet where she will have an intensive treatment team, similar to an ACT Team, where she is currently seen two to three times a week.

31Ms. Masika continues to reside with her sister. The members of her treatment team visit her at her home. Ms. Masika has no plans to move from the rental unit where she and her sister co-lease at this time. According to Dr. Strike, Ms. Masika’s home is appropriate for her to exercise her parenting time with her daughter but may become inadequate in the future as her daughter grows up and needs more space.

32In response to questions posed to her by counsel for the Attorney General, Ms. Dufort, Dr. Strike testified as follows:

(a) Ms. Masika has been participating in therapeutic groups and has already completed some. It takes her approximately one hour and a half to travel to the hospital to attend her groups.

(b) Ms. Masika would like to obtain employment and could soon be ready to. It would probably be easier for her to work in Gatineau, but she will need to have flexibility to be able to attend her appointments. She understands that her priority must be maintaining her stable mental health so that she is able to care for herself and her daughter.

(c) Ms. Masika’s sister, Ms. Muke, is well informed of her sister’s situation and diagnosis. Ms. Masika’s brother was not aware of his sister’s diagnosis but has since been informed. According to Dr. Strike, Ms. Masika tends to hide her symptoms but has gradually become more open with her treatment team about what she is experiencing.

33In response to questions posed to her by counsel for Ms. Masika, Ms. Murchison, Dr. Strike testified as follows:

(a) The hospital is seeking to maintain the current disposition dated December 4, 2024. When asked why the disposition in Ontario is more onerous than the one in Quebec, where Ms. Masika has a conditional discharge, Dr. Strike stated that a conditional discharge would not be appropriate for her Ontario disposition as the hospital needs to approve accommodation and be able to exercise the Form 49 if needed to readmit her, as was done in the last year.

(b) Dr. Strike confirmed that the hospital is seeking the transfer of Ms. Masika to the Province of Quebec but that there is no indication how long this might take.

(c) Dr. Strike confirmed that the hospital does not know the exact conditions of Ms. Masika’s disposition under the TAQ, other than it is a conditional discharge with permission to live in approved accommodation, which is permissible under a conditional discharge in Quebec.

(d) With respect to Ms. Masika’s daughter’s father, Dr. Strike believes that he is aware of her situation and that he has been cooperative.

(e) Dr. Strike confirmed that the plan of care for the coming year is to ensure that Ms. Masika maintains her stability. Her progress has been excellent. She is proactive, continues with follow-up and is compliant with the terms of her disposition and with treatment. She has recently demonstrated a better ability to manage the stressors in her life.

34In response to questions from the members of the Board hearing panel, Dr. Strike testified as follows:

(a) Ms. Masika had her first LAI antipsychotic injection in January of 2025. She has good insight into her mental health and is receiving intensive follow-up from her Quebec and Ontario treatment teams.

(b) Dr. Strike agrees that it would be preferrable for Ms. Masika to be under one province’s jurisdiction but that until then there will be a continuation of the shared care model to maintain coordinated follow-up. The hospital does not have the power to accelerate the transfer to Quebec.

(c) Currently, Ms. Masika has indicated a willingness to continue working with her treatment team as it is not too demanding on her to attend appointments in Ottawa. She has had some difficulty developing therapeutic relationships with her Quebec intensive care team due to frequent staff turnover.

(d) Dr. Strike confirmed that while her daughter has been in Jamaica, Ms. Masika has had contact with her by videoconference every two days.

(e) Dr. Strike confirmed that Ms. Masika is receiving her injection at Pierre-Janet and that the transfer of psychiatric care to Pierre-Janet has been completed, pending the actual transfer to the Province of Quebec.

(f) Dr. Strike believes that the hospital continues to require the ability to admit Ms. Masika to hospital with the Form 49. Ms. Masika continues to be at risk of relapse and decompensation. Ms. Masika has previously demonstrated acute violent behaviour when not compliant with treatment and experiencing symptoms.

35In response to questions arising from Ms. Murchison, Dr. Strike acknowledged that if the hospital was forced to exercise the Form 49, Ms. Masika would normally be admitted to the Royal Ottawa, however the Board could consider adding a condition in the disposition which recognizes Hôpital Pierre-Janet as approved accommodation.

36The hospital’s risk assessment is found on pages 45 and 46 of the hospital report and the possible reoffence scenario is summarized as follows:

“In assessing Ms. Masika’s risk of future violence, I have used the HCR-20, version 3, which is a structured clinical judgment instrument. After conducting this assessment and considering the level of violence of her previous aggressive behaviours and other established violence risk factors from the medical literature, it is my current opinion that Ms. Masika presents a moderate risk of future violence, meaning any aggressive or other criminal behaviours that she exhibited in the past, including assault, assault with a weapon, and uttering threats of physical harm.

Ms. Masika’s most likely re-offence scenario is assaultive behaviour driven by delusional thinking, which could occur in response to stopping her medication, use of cannabis or other substance, and possibly in response to psychosocial stress alone. From the information available to me, Ms. Masika is unlikely to engage in behaviour of a criminal nature when psychiatrically well, as she is presently.

37No further evidence was presented.

Submissions of the Parties

38The parties confirmed a joint submission that Ms. Masika continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and that a detention order remains the necessary and appropriate disposition, with a request to transfer Ms. Masika’s care to the Province of Quebec.

39The parties also agreed with changes to the community living provisions to include Hôpital Pierre-Janet, as well as the inclusion of travel passes allowing for indirectly supervised travel within Ontario and Quebec for a period of up to seven days with a pre-approved itinerary.

Analysis and Conclusion

40Having considered all of the evidence tendered at the hearing, and the submissions of the parties, the Board finds that Ms. Masika continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public as defined in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code of Canada and as further defined in the Supreme Court of Canada decision Winko v. British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute), 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625.

41According to R. v. Winko, a significant threat to the safety of the public means 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. The conduct giving rise to the harm must be criminal in nature.

42Our finding that Ms. Masika remains a significant threat to the safety of the public is based on the uncontroverted evidence of the hospital that Ms. Masika’s schizoaffective disorder has only recently remitted. A little over a year ago she stopped medications, and while in a decompensated state, she threatened her brother with a knife and assaulted a nurse at the Gatineau Hospital, leading to further criminal charges and a second NCR finding, and a subsequent disposition by the TAQ.

43Despite having a difficult year, Ms. Masika is accepting treatment and has made significant progress since being discharged from the hospital in early August 2025. Moreover, Ms. Masika is currently demonstrating good insight into her mental illness and wishes to avoid further episodes of decompensation. Ms. Masika’s recent progress is promising.

44We agree with the joint submission of the parties that detention order continues to be required to manage the risk. We also agree with the proposed changes which include to add Hôpital Pierre-Janet as approved accommodation, to facilitate admission if needed. We find that this is consistent not only with the duty to public safety but that it is also in Ms. Masika’s rehabilitative interests, as well as consistent with her other needs, both of which are factors under s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code, to be admitted there in the event of further decompensation.

45The transfer to the Province of Quebec is also necessary and appropriate in our view as Ms. Masika’s life is clearly established in the community of Gatineau, where she and other family members reside. Ms. Masika is also currently supported by Quebec social assistance and is followed by a forensic psychiatrist and intensive care team from Pierre-Janet.

46Given the uncertainty surrounding how long a transfer to Quebec might take, the Board must exercise its jurisdiction in the case of Ms. Masika and maintain the Form 49 as it cannot abdicate jurisdiction to the TAQ at this stage.

47We have taken into consideration the factors at s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code of Canada, namely the protection of the public, which is the paramount consideration, the mental condition of the accused, her reintegration into society and her other needs in coming to the unanimous finding that a detention order on the terms and conditions described above is the necessary and appropriate and least onerous and least restrictive disposition in all of the circumstances.