Re Mouhamad Al Jalmoud, 2026 CanLII 23892

Re: Mouhamad Al Jalmoud

ORB File No: 8686

Hearing held on: Monday, March 9, 2026

Place of hearing: St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton West 5th Campus, 100 West 5th Street

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

Before:

Alternate Chairperson: Ms. C. Fromstein Members: Dr. S. Bouskill (via Zoom) Dr. P. Wright Mr. M. Garfield Mr. S. Doherty

Parties Appearing:

Accused: Mouhamad Al Jalmoud Counsel: Mr. S. Foda

The Person in charge of Hospital: Counsel: Mr. Stephen O’Brien Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. Cheryl Gzik

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated March 19, 2026)

Introduction:

1On December 4, 2024, Mr. Mohamad Al Jalmoud was found Not Criminally Responsible (NCR) after trial by a jury at the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on charges of Fail to Stop after Accident Causing Death (x2) and Fail to Stop after Accident Cause Bodily Harm.

2On that same date he was found guilty of two counts of Dangerous Driving Causing Death and one count of Dangerous Driving Casing Bodily Harm. He was sentenced on March 7, 2025, by Justice I.R. Smith of the Superior Court of Ontario, to three years and three months custody, having been given credit for two months pre-trial custody.

3Counsel for Mr. Al Jalmoud advised the Board that Mr. Al Jalmoud has appealed against the convictions and sentence to the Ontario Court of Appeal. No date for the appeal has yet been set. He was released from Collins Bay Penitentiary on September 24, 2025, on bail pending appeal. We were advised that his father is Mr. Al Jalmoud’s surety on his bail release.

4On October 10, 2025, the panel of the Ontario Review Board (“ORB” or “Board”) held a hearing to determine preliminary evidentiary issues in advance of the initial ORB hearing. Ms. Gzik, counsel for the Crown, had requested as evidence at the initial ORB hearing the inclusion of Mr. Al Jalmoud’s mother’s testimony at trial, and the parties ultimately consented to the inclusion of the transcripts of her testimony. Ms. Gzik also requested that the penitentiary mental health medical records from the federal institutions in which Mr. Al Jalmoud had been serving sentence be made exhibits and sought to subpoena a witness to bring these from Collins Bay Penitentiary. Mr. Foda objected to the inclusion of the penitentiary records. After hearing evidence on October 10, 2025, the Hospital did not oppose the request.

5On October 20, 2025, Reasons for Decision of this Preliminary Evidentiary Matter were released. The Board Decision granted the Crown application and summonsed the psychiatric and psychological records from the penitentiaries where Mr. Al Jalmoud had been held, Joyceville Institution and Collins Bay Institution, for the period of March 7, 2025 to September 24, 2025. These were received and marked as Exhibits at this hearing.

6On March 9, 2026, Mr. Al Jalmoud’s initial ORB hearing took place before this panel. Mr. Al Jalmoud was present and represented by counsel, Mr. Foda. Mr. Al Jalmoud was assisted throughout the hearing by an Arabic-speaking interpreter whom he indicated he was able to understand and communicate with. She provided full translation to him. Mr. O’Brien was counsel for the Hospital and Ms. Gzik was counsel for the Crown.

7Also in attendance at the hearing were the parents of deceased victim, Mr. Rui Valentim and the wife of deceased victim, Mr. John Wignall. Mr. Al Jalmoud’s father was present in support of his son.

8The purpose of the hearing was for the Board to determine whether, on the three offences for which Mr. Al Jalmoud had been found Not Criminally Responsible, he represents a significant threat to the safety of the public and, if so, to create a disposition that is both necessary and appropriate.

Initial Positions of the Parties:

9At the outset of the hearing, the parties were canvassed as to their initial positions. Mr. O’Brien indicated the hospital’s position that Mr. Al Jalmoud does not pose a significant threat to the safety of the public and should be granted an Absolute Discharge.

10Ms. Gzik, reserved her position until after hearing the evidence but voiced concern regarding significant threat.

11Mr. Foda indicated that there is insufficient evidence that his client poses a significant threat and that Mr. Al Jalmoud should be granted an Absolute Discharge.

Finding of the Board:

12This hearing represented a very unique set of circumstances wherein Mr. Al Jalmoud was convicted at trial of the three much more serious offences for which he had been tried, Dangerous Driving causing Death (x2) and Dangerous Driving Causing Bodily Harm (x1) and sentenced to a penitentiary term. Both convictions and sentences have been appealed and are presently awaiting hearing before the Ontario Court of Appeal. Mr. Al Jalmoud was released in September 2025 on bail pending appeal and remains on a house arrest release with his father as surety.

13This hearing was restricted only to the determination of significant threat and possible disposition on the three offences of Fail to Stop after Accident Causing Death (x2) and Fail to Stop after Accident Causing bodily Harm (x1) for which Mr. Al Jalmoud had been found NCR.

14At the conclusion of the hearing and deliberation this panel was unanimous in finding that on the three offences for which Mr. Al Jalmoud was found NCR that Mr. Al Jalmoud does not at this time meet the threshold of Significant Threat to the Safety of the Public as set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in R v Winko. In that result he must be granted an Absolute Discharge. Our reasons for this finding follow.

Index Offences:

15The details of the offences both those for which Mr. Al Jalmoud was convicted by the jury and those for which he was found NCR must, for context, be set out. Because it was a jury verdict, we cannot state the detailed findings of fact that support the NCR verdict but rely on the facts set out in the Hospital Report, Exhibit 6, which is summarized as follows:

On Sunday September 26, 2022, at some time between 10:30 – 11:00 p.m. Mr. Al Jalmoud was the driver of a Black 2012 Ford Escape, a small SUV vehicle. He did not at this time have a valid driver’s license nor had he ever driven a vehicle in Canada since his arrival in 2018. The Ford Escape was observed by two police officers travelling northbound on Arledun Avenue (Jolley Cut) described to be a winding road, to be swerving in and out of lanes and repeatedly increasing/decreasing the rate of speed. The Escape came to a stop for a red light at the intersection of John Street South and Charlton Avenue East. When the light turned green, the Escape vehicle remained in the stop position. The police officers at this time got out of their unmarked vehicle, in uniform, to check on the driver based on their concerns that he might be distracted or impaired. As the police officers stepped out of their vehicle Mr. Al Jalmoud took off in the Escape, continuing northbound on John Street South and entered the intersection of John Street South and Young Street, failing to stop for a red light and as a result collided the Huynda Sonata vehicle which Hardik Patel was driving westbound on Young Street.

The impact of both vehicles caused Mr. Patel’s Hyundai Sonata to spin out of control. One of the two male passengers in the back seat of the Hyundai, Mr. Wignall, was ejected out of the rear window into a building on the west side of John Street and was pronounced dead on scene at 23:10. Mr. Valentim, the other passenger, was transported by EMS to St. Josephs’s hospital with non-survivable blunt force injury and pronounced dead at 23:30 hours. Mr. Patel suffered very serious but not life-threatening injury and was transported to Hamilton General Hospital.

Immediately after the accident Mr. Al Jalmoud took off on foot leaving the scene. Mr. Al Jalmoud returned to the scene sometime later and collapsed. Mr. Al Jalmoud was also transported to Hamilton General Hospital.

16We emphasize that it is only on the three criminal offences of Fail to Stop After Accident that Mr. Al Jalmoud has been found Not Criminally Responsible and which are the subject matter of this hearing.

Evidence at the Hearing:

17Before evidence was called the panel advised the parties that we had not received as evidence a transcript of the evidence or findings of the trial court, but only a transcript of Mr. Al Jalmoud’s mother’s testimony. We were advised that these would be provided. They were not received, however, until after the panel had completed its deliberations so were not considered by the panel in reaching our decision and have not been made an exhibit. The parties were asked, further, about the details of Mr. Al Jalmoud’s release on bail pending appeal. A copy of his bail order was sent to the Board and made an exhibit to these proceedings.

18The documentary evidence at this hearing included the following Exhibits:

a) Summons to Witness Collins Bay Penitentiary b) Summons to Witness Joyceville Penitentiary c) Corrections Canada Letter and Records March 7-Stptember 24, 2025 d) Release Package or Records from the Penitentiaries e) Transcripts of Testimony of Myassa Al Jalmoud Mr. Al Jalmoud’s mother at trial Superior Court November 18, 2024 f) Hospital risk Assessment report of Dr. Chaimowitz, September 17, 2025 g) Victim Impact Statements regarding deceased victim John Wignall: (i) Pam Mulholland, Mr. Wignall’s wife (ii) Gail Habre, sister of Mr. Wignall (iii) Diane MacLean, sister of Mr. Wignall (iv) Katryn McKinlay, niece of Mr. Wignall h) Victim Impact Statements regarding deceased victim Ryan Valentin (i) Luisa and Rui Valentim, mother and father of Ryan Valentin (ii) Almerinda Medeors, grandmother of Ryan Valentim (iii) Mr. Valentim’s brother (iv) Ralph del Prado, friend of Ryan Valentim i) Victim Impact Statement of victim of bodily harm, Mr. Hardik Patel

19Dr. Chaimowitz gave expert testimony for the hospital.

20Ms. Gzik, for the Crown, read into evidence the victim impact statement of Mr. Valentin’s parents, Exhibit 8 (i). The Board indicated that it would disabuse its mind of the final two sentences which referred to sentence.

21Ms. Gzik also read into evidence the victim impact statement of Mr. Wignall’s wife, Exhibit 7 (i).

22No other evidence was called.

Testimony of Dr. Chaimowitz:

23Dr. Chaimowitz is the forensic psychiatrist who completed the risk assessment report, Exhibit 6, dated September 17, 2025. In preparation for the report, he met with Mr. Al Jalmoud twice, for a total of 270 minutes and his report sets out the materials that he reviewed and thoroughly considered. Dr. Chaimowitz, after considering the court case and background history sought to formulate a diagnosis and risk assessment.

24Dr. Chaimowitz noted that Mr. Al Jalmoud has a history of being diagnosed by two psychiatrists with having Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), and those were the opinions testified to at trial.

25Dr. Chaimowitz also considered whether he agreed with those diagnoses, notwithstanding the verdicts and whether or not he found that Mr. Al Jalmoud did or did not have symptoms of PTSD leading to the tragic events. He testified that when he saw Mr. Al Jalmoud he appeared to be psychiatrically stable without active symptoms of moderate to severe PTSD.

26Dr. Chaimowitz expressed that regardless of his view of the diagnosis it did not change the opinion he reached regarding significant threat. Notwithstanding the convictions and his need to face the penalties the court determined, for the purpose of significant threat as defined for the ORB his opinion is that Mr. Al Jalmoud does not meet the threshold of significant threat.

27The significant factors that underpin that opinion are that:

(i) The likelihood of the same series of events happening in the future and of his reoffending in a similar manner would be very low, (ii) Mr. Al Jalmoud does not have an Antisocial Personal Disorder or Anti-Social Traits. He had no prior criminal record and has not reoffended while released on bail pending appeal. In fact, he is prosocial in that he wishes to work, be part of society and further himself, has very strong family support and maintains attachment to them. (iii) Mr. Al Jalmoud does not abuse drugs or alcohol. (iv) Mr. Al Jalmoud does not have a major mental illness that is likely to contribute to significant harm to members of the public.

28Dr. Chaimowitz noted the verdict at trial was split between NCR and guilty findings. The offences for which he was found guilty are the ones that led to the deaths and bodily harm and in Dr. Chaimowitz’s opinion those are best dealt with in the criminal justice system outside of the jurisdiction of the Review Board. The charges for which he was found NCR carry very little weight in terms of significant risk which is based on Mr. Al Jalmoud’s entire background and not limited to the index offences.

29When asked if Mr. Al Jalmoud requires further psychiatric treatment, Dr. Chaimowitz noted that he last saw him eight-nine months ago. Mr. Al Jalmoud has been in custody and on bail for the charges for which he was convicted. He had not had his initial ORB hearing until today. In these circumstances Mr. Al Jalmoud had not become a client of St. Joseph’s Hospital nor received any care or oversight from them resulting from the NCR finding. Dr. Chaimowitz testified that, overall, he is of the view that there is nothing that a Disposition or a hospital could do that would change the risk that Mr. Al Jalmoud poses.

30Dr. Chaimowitz was asked whether he agreed with the evidence at trial that the sound of the collision could have triggered PTSD. He responded that while anything is possible just the sound would not lead to a PTSD response that would have led Mr. Al Jalmoud to fleeing the scene. In response to further questions Dr. Chaimowitz testified that he was not asked to form an opinion on criminal responsibility regarding the charges. He expressed that he would have come to a different conclusion than the two psychiatric assessors at trial; that this was a young man who made an unbelievably unwise decision to drive given his skill set and panicked when he saw the police, knowing he was driving without a license and possibly without knowing how to drive. He accelerated, colliding with another vehicle, panicked, took off and came back.

31Dr. Chaimowitz clarified that while he may have had a different opinion than that of the two psychiatrists at the trial, he accepts the findings of the trial court in forming his opinion on risk relating to the charges of Fail to Remain.

32With respect to risk, which is the consideration of the ORB, Dr. Chaimowitz emphasized that it is extraordinarily unlikely that similar set of circumstances would recur.

Evidence of Crown Victim Impact Statements:

33Ms. Gzik read aloud the victim impact statements of the parents of Ryan Valentin, Luisa and Rui Valentim whose ongoing pain was evident. Ms. Gzik also read aloud the victim impact statement of Mr. Wignall’s wife regarding her immeasurable loss.

34The Board considered all of the victim impact statements that were made evidence at the hearing regarding the suffering caused from the tragic loss of life and injury.

Submissions:

35Mr. O’Brien maintained his initial position that Mr. Al Jalmoud does not pose a significant threat and must be absolutely discharged. In submissions, Mr. O’Brien suggested that there must be an active mental health condition impacting Mr. Al Jalmoud’s behaviour which the Board must consider to take jurisdiction over the person. We disagree with and do not accept that submission. Once an individual is found NCR the only issue for the ORB is whether that person represents a significant risk of harm, and not whether the person has an active mental disorder. Notwithstanding that, we accept the submission that there is insufficient evidence to support significant threat.

36Ms. Gzik, having heard the evidence, submitted that significant risk was made out. She asserted that Mr. Al Jalmoud exhibited an antisocial trait evidenced by his decision to drive without a license. While Mr. Al Jalmoud’s driving was unlawful and thereby an anti-social act, Dr. Chaimowitz was clear that there was no evidence of Mr. Al Jalmoud exhibiting antisocial traits. Mr. O’Brien made reply submissions to note that. We accept and rely on Dr. Chaimowitz’s evidence of the lack of antisocial traits.

37Ms. Gzik relied on the fact that there is no evidence that Mr. Al Jalmoud is receiving any current treatment. Despite the evidence that it is highly unlikely that the same circumstance will reoccur she submitted that without the current restrictions in place on Mr. Al Jalmoud’s liberty “the public could still be at risk”.

38Mr. Foda maintained his initial position. He submitted that “could be a risk” is not “significant threat to the safety of the public”. He submitted that, on the evidence, Mr. Al Jalmoud only ever presented risk when making one isolated unwise and catastrophic decision to operate a vehicle. There is not evidence of a pattern of him not following the law, substance use or violence. Whether or not Mr. Al Jalmoud suffers from PTSD the Board must find that there is sufficient evidence of significant threat at this time or absolutely discharge Mr. Al Jalmoud.

Analysis and Conclusion:

39In this unique set of circumstances the role of this panel is solely to determine whether on the three charges of Fail to Stop After Accident, commonly known as Fail to Remain at the Scene of the Accident, on which Mr. Al Jalmoud was found NCR he meets the threshold test of significant threat. Mr. Al Jalmoud has been found guilty of the three much more serious criminal charges of Dangerous Driving Causing Death (x2) and Causing Bodily Harm (x1). Those matters are before the court and outside our jurisdiction. While the overall circumstances of the event may be considered in assessing significant threat, our decision is strictly limited to the NCR findings.

40We accept the evidence of Dr. Chaimowitz who conducted a risk assessment of Mr. Al Jalmoud eight to nine months previous to the hearing. We accept his evidence that Mr. Al Jalmoud does not have risk factors including having a major mental illness, antisocial traits or antisocial personality disorder or substance use that would enhance risk. He, further, has a history of pro-social behaviour including family ties, and future goals. The evidence is that he has remorse for the tragic events he caused.

41In assessing the issue of significant threat, the panel has carefully considered the decision of the Supreme Court in Winko v. British Columbia. In that case, the Court identified a significant risk as 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". The Board is also aware of a series of decisions from the Ontario Court of Appeal including: Wall (Re), 2017 ONCA 713; Pellett (Re), 2017 ONCA 753; Marchese (Re), 2018 ONCA 307; Abdikarim (Re), 2017 ONCA 793, Medcof (Re), 2018 ONCA 299. The risk must not be speculative but must be a real risk of serious physical or psychological harm arising from a criminal offence.

42In Winko, the Supreme Court also outlined that in coming to a conclusion on the issue of significant risk, a Review Board should closely examine a range of evidence including the circumstances of the original offence, the past and expected course of the accused's treatment, the present state of the NCR accused's medical condition and the NCR accused's own plans for the future, the support services existing for the NCR accused in the community and, perhaps most importantly, the recommendations provided by experts who have examined the NCR accused.

43There must be a positive finding by the Board of a significant risk to the safety of the public to engage the provisions of the Code and to support restrictions on an NCR accused’s liberty. Something else, for example uncertainty, cannot suffice. If the Board cannot resolve the question of whether or not the NCR accused constitutes a significant threat to public safety, it must grant the accused an Absolute Discharge.

44Dr. Chaimowitz gave clear evidence that Mr. Al Jalmoud, having been found not criminally responsible for leaving the scene of the accident in which he caused the death of two men and the very serious physical injury of the third man does not at this time pose a significant threat to the safety of the public. Dr. Chaimowitz assessed Mr. Al Jalmoud as not having a major mental illness nor Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. There is no evidence of anti-social personality disorder or traits. Mr. Al Jalmoud, who was 20 years of age at the time of the index offence and is now turning 24 years of age, instead exhibits pro-social values of family connection, no substance use and pro-social future goals. While his behaviour on the date of the index offences included the anti-social act of driving illegally without a valid license and knowing, this being his first time ever driving in Canada, he was lacking driving skills, the evidence before us which we accept is that the likelihood of similar circumstances ever arising in the future is very remote and unlikely.

45At the highest Ms. Gzik, on behalf of the Crown, asserted that without restrictions on his liberty Mr. Al Jalmoud “could still be a risk” to the public. We agree with the submission of Mr. Foda that that does not meet the high threshold as set out in Winko. The risk must not be speculative but must be a real risk of serious physical or psychological harm arising from a criminal offence. The evidence before us does not support that finding.

46We make no comment or findings on any of the issues that remain before the court concerning his criminal convictions.

Order:

47For these reasons the Board must order on the charges for which Mr. Al Jalmoud has been found Not Criminally Responsible that he be absolutely discharged, and we so order.