Ontario Review Board
Re: T.K. (M.A.)
ORB File No: 8517/8893
Hearing held on: Friday, February 13, 2026
Place of hearing: Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre
Pursuant to: Section 672.47(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Ms. M. Labrosse
Members: Dr. S. Lessard Dr. R. Cormier Ms. T. Mann Ms. B. Naegele
Parties Appearing:
Accused: T.K. (M.A.)
Counsel: Ms. M. McMahon
Person in charge of hospital: Representative: Dr. J. Hwang
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. M. Dufort
AMENDED REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated March 20, 2026)
*Pursuant to s. 672.501(1) of the Criminal Code, the Ontario Review Board prohibits the publication, broadcasting, or other transmission of any information that could identify a victim in this matter or a witness under 18 years of age.
Please see underlined change to original reasons made April 23, 2026.
Introduction:
1On March 18, 2024, T.K. (M.A.) was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder of sexual assault contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (“Criminal Code”). [This index offence occurred on June 17, 2023 (Ontario Review Board File No. 8517).] The matter of a disposition was deferred to the Ontario Review Board (“the ORB” or “the Board”).
2Following an initial hearing, a disposition Order was granted detaining T.K. (M.A.) within the Secure Forensic Unit at the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre (“the Hospital” or “ROMHC”). On September 11, 2025, the annual review of T.K. (M.A.)’s disposition was held. At that time, he was found to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public and further to Reasons for Disposition dated October 15, 2025, a detention disposition Order was granted.
3On October 16, 2025, while subject to the above noted disposition, T.K. (M.A.) was again found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (Ontario Review Board File 8893) on a charge of sexual assault, contrary to the Criminal Code. This offence occurred on April 4, 2023. [As noted on page 26 of the Hospital Report, the official account of the index offence indicates that the incident occurred on April 4, 2024, but since T.K. (M.A.) was arrested and charged on March 20, 2024, this must be an error.] The Court ordered, pursuant to s. 672.47(1) of the Criminal Code, that the matter of a disposition be referred to the ORB for an initial hearing.1
4On February 13, 2026, the Board convened this panel for a hearing at ROMHC to conduct T.K. (M.A.)’s initial hearing. T.K. (M.A.) was present at the hearing and represented by counsel, Ms. M. McMahon. Also in attendance in support of T.K. (M.A.) were his father and sister.
5The issue at this hearing is whether T.K. (M.A.) represents a significant threat to public safety as defined in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code. If so, the necessary and appropriate disposition in the circumstances must be determined, bearing in mind the factors enunciated in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
6For the reasons set out below and based on the expert evidence and opinions before it, this panel of the Board concluded that T.K. (M.A.) represents a significant threat to the safety of the public, and that the necessary and appropriate, least onerous and least restrictive disposition is that of a detention disposition Order.
Current Psychiatric Diagnoses:
7T.K. (M.A.) is diagnosed with Schizoaffective Disorder, Bipolar Type, which is prone to decompensation following cannabis use or medication non- adherence. He is currently in remission. He also meets the criteria for cannabis use disorder, mild severity.
Index Offence:
The circumstances giving rise to the index offences are taken from the Hospital Report dated January 20, 2026, which was made an exhibit at the hearing, as follows:
The 15-year-old victim [victim no. 1] and her mother [victim no. 2] were shopping at the South Keys Walmart. Upon exiting the Walmart, the two waited for their Para Transpo ride to pick them up in front of the store. At approximately 4:17 p.m., the accused, T.K. (M.A.), walked up to [victim no. 1] and asked her if he could have a hug. Reluctantly, and not wanting to offend the accused, [victim no. 1] said yes. The accused proceeded to place his arms around [victim no. 1], and they exchanged a hug. While the accused was hugging [victim no. 1], he took his left hand and grabbed [her] right buttock while squeezing it firmly. [Victim no. 1] was “scared and stunned” and moved backwards away from the accused. The accused then walked away.
Background Information:
8The Hospital Report and documents forming the record provide a great deal of information concerning T.K. (M.A.)’s personal and mental health history, details of index offences, and his course in the community and in hospital since he was found NCR on March 18, 2024. Given that the Hospital Report was made an exhibit in this hearing, it is not necessary to reproduce in detail the information contained within it in these Reasons. Relevant points to provide context are set out below.
9T.K. (M.A.) is a 28-year-old man of Sri Lankan heritage who was born and raised in Montreal. In 2019, he and his family moved to Ottawa and continue to reside there. He is close to his family, especially a sister who is an on-going support. He is not married. The evidence indicates he last had a girlfriend in 2015 before he became unwell.
10T.K. (M.A.) describes having had a happy childhood. He recalls having friends and going to movies. School was in French, and he obtained average marks, however he dropped out in Grade 11 after becoming unwell. He is currently on ODSP.
11He began to smoke cannabis at age 16. At 17 he took MDMA for the first time. His behaviours following having used MDMA were such that his father called police. He was hospitalized and diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder and psychosis.
12Over the next several years he had multiple attendances at hospital for mental health challenges, including at the Centre for Addiction for Mental Health (“CAMH”) on April 17, 2021, after being found naked on the streets of Toronto. A review of events set out in the Hospital Report shows that T.K. (M.A.) had a pattern of not taking his medication, leaving the family home, decompensating very quickly, following which he was admitted to a hospital or brought home by police.
13Shortly before his annual ORB hearing in September 2025, T.K. (M.A.) was discharged home. He continued to attend the outpatient forensic program with his father, and later, his sister, participating in group therapies and working with his clinical team.
14Medications included Clozapine 600 mg every evening and Zuclopenthixol decanoate 100 mg injection every two weeks.
Position of the Parties:
15Counsel for the Hospital and the Attorney General were joined in recommending that T.K. (M.A.) be found to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and that a detention disposition order was necessary and appropriate. Counsel for the Attorney General indicated she would be proposing terms and conditions in addition to those of the Hospital. Counsel for T.K. (M.A.) advised that he was not contesting the issue of significant threat and consented to the terms and conditions of the detention order being proposed by the Hospital but wished to reserve on the issue of the additional conditions to be proposed by the Crown.
Evidence at the Hearing:
16The panel had before it the documentary information in the Record as well as evidence entered as exhibits at the hearing. The panel also had the benefit of oral evidence provided by Dr. J. Hwang, T.K. (M.A.)’s forensic psychiatrist.
17Dr. Hwang endorsed the contents of the Hospital Report including the risk assessments contained at pages 31 through 33 and provided the Board with an overview of T.K. (M.A.)’s progress since the preparation of the Hospital Report. Dr. Hwang advised the panel that T.K. (M.A.) is doing well overall. He has continued to attend weekly at the Hospital for assessment, treatment and follow-up, as well as participating in psychoeducational initiatives. His weekly urine drug screens have all been negative for the presence of substances of abuse and positive for the presence of anti-psychotic medication.
18Over the last two months, T.K. (M.A.) has attended a group focused on mental health and the law and a second group centered on addictions. He engaged well in the first group, actively sharing his experiences in the legal system. His work in the second group is on-going; early reports are similarly positive. He has not been irritable or physically aggressive. T.K. (M.A.) has expressed an interest in going back to school and also in developing more pro-social connections. Dr. Hwang advised the clinical team has been limited in their ability to fully support him in these goals because of the strictness of his release conditions.
19After T.K. (M.A.)’s 2025 ORB hearing, his bail conditions were modified to permit visits to the Hospital escorted by a forensic team member. This permitted closer supervision and more engagement in treatment.
20T.K. (M.A.) is currently stable and accepts his diagnoses. His insight into his need for medication is developing. His thoughts are linear and organized. He answers questions appropriately and describes his mood as good. He continues to reside with his family with no concerns observed or reported. He sees medications as helpful in terms of stabilizing his mental health. While he agrees that cannabis is not good for mental health overall and is not currently expressing an interest in using it, he has not yet made a strong connection between his use of cannabis and previous episodes of psychiatric decompensation. Dr. Hwang pointed out that in 2025, T.K. (M.A.) was hospitalized on three occasions due to decompensation in his mental state primarily triggered by cannabis use. Although he has made gains in terms of stabilizing his mental health, he continues to need support from his clinical team to remain abstinent from substances and to deepen his insight into the role cannabis has played and will continue to play in terms of his vulnerability to relapse in his mental state. Dr. Hwang confirmed Mr. T.K. (M.A.)’s last admission to hospital was in September 2025.
21T.K. (M.A.) has been adherent to his psychiatric medication but is experiencing sustained upward-gazing eye movements which may be a side effect of his long-acting injectable antipsychotic medication. Dr. Hwang expressed considerable concern as to the significance of this particular side effect, which she noted he had experienced in the past, both as to the potential impact on T.K. (M.A.)’s ocular function as well as its potential to limit his ability to adhere to what has proven to be an effective medication regimen. Dr. Hwang noted that reducing the dose of the long-acting injectable – which she indicated was the most likely culprit – puts T.K. (M.A.) at risk of decompensation in his mental state; if this occurs, increased monitoring will be necessary. A referral to a neuro-ophthalmologist has been made, but there is a 2-year waitlist. Dr. Hwang is hopeful that a second such specialist will be joining hospital staff, thus shortening the length of time T.K. (M.A.) will have to wait to be seen by a specialist.
22Dr. Hwang provided the Board with additional insights as to T.K. (M.A.)’s progress including work by T.K. (M.A.) on recognizing need for medication to help stabilize his mental state. The doctor emphasized the need for ongoing close monitoring, given the rapidity with which T.K. (M.A.) can decompensate and the fact that he is living with family members who are readily incorporated into his paranoid and delusional thinking when unwell.
23There are no plans for the family to move and T.K. (M.A.) wants to live in the family home with them. Dr. Hwang further advised that there are no persons under the age of 16 living there, and no plans for him to work in a fast-food restaurant where he might have contact with males or females under 16. Dr. Hwang’s main concern about the reasonableness of continuing no-contact terms regarding those under 16 years of age was whether such restrictions might prevent T.K. (M.A.) from going into the community independently (that is, indirectly supervised) or posing continued barriers to rehabilitation.
24Although in-depth discussions about employment have yet occurred, his current level of functioning suggests he could be employed. T.K. (M.A.) has expressed an interest in computers and information technology and wants to go to college for this. Generally speaking, the team supports T.K. (M.A.) furthering his education. Dr. Hwang would like T.K. (M.A.) to be able to independently take public transit to school or hospital appointments. Once T.K. (M.A.)’s bail conditions are changed, the clinical team will be able to have him live at a group home, should this be deemed appropriate. The doctor would like T.K. (M.A.) to participate in a group to help improve his stress vulnerability. This group has not started yet.
25As for the issue of significant threat, Dr. Hwang relied on the results of the HCR-20 v3, which is a structured clinical judgment tool, as well as her clinical assessment, that T.K. (M.A.)’s risk for future violence is moderate at this time. The re-offence scenario contained at p. 33 of the Hospital Report indicates that an elevated risk of violence would occur if T.K. (M.A.) were to use cannabis or become non-adherent with medication, leading to a recurrence of manic and psychotic symptoms. The latter would likely include persecutory and religious delusions and auditory hallucinations prompting him to aggress against those in close proximity.
26Dr. Hwang emphasized the need for a detention disposition Order allowing for prompt intervention in the event of actual or threatened deterioration in T.K. (M.A.)’s mental state. Dr. Hwang confirmed information in the Hospital Report that Mr. T.K. (M.A.)’s sexual disinhibition when psychotic is not indicative of a separate diagnosis of a paraphilic disorder. Dr. Hwang agreed with the suggestion that a sexual behaviour assessment would be helpful, given the history.
Submissions:
27In submissions, all parties maintained the positions they took at the outset of the hearing as to the issue of significant threat and the necessity for a detention disposition order with terms essentially those of the disposition dated September 18, 2025. Regarding the additional terms and conditions proposed by counsel for the Attorney General during the hearing, Dr. Strike and Ms. McMahon submitted that a blanket term of no contact by T.K. (M.A.) with anyone under the age of 16 could prove to be a barrier to his rehabilitation. Ms. McMahon asked that the panel engage in careful drafting given the potentially over-broad sweep of a term requiring T.K. (M.A.) to not be “in the company of persons under the age of 16”, which could impede his taking public transit or engaging in education and employment if not in the presence of staff or approved adult family member.
28With respect to terms and conditions, Ms. Dufort submitted a no contact order restraining T.K. (M.A.) from direct or indirect contact with the victim and her mother was appropriate and in the interest of public safety, as such an order would provide them with peace of mind. The Crown suggested that terms requiring T.K. (M.A.) to refrain from being around children under 16 in certain places and situations were not unduly restrictive and that these terms should be included in any disposition fashioned by the Board.
Analysis and Conclusions:
Significant Threat:
29Having heard and considered the entirety of the evidence as well as the submissions of the parties, the Board agrees with the joint position that T.K. (M.A.) represents a significant threat to the safety of the public. However, quite apart from the joint submissions, the Board has no difficulty coming to an independent conclusion on the same point.
30T.K. (M.A.)’s risk flows from his major mental illness, Schizoaffective Disorder, Bipolar type (currently in remission) and his Cannabis Use Disorder (mild) which, operating independently and together, render him highly likely to act out in serious, criminal and violent ways when symptomatic.
31T.K. (M.A.)’s illness structure is such that he is prone to decompensation following cannabis use or medication non-adherence. As noted above, he has a well-established pattern of non-adherence to psychiatric medication, leaving home, decompensating very quickly and getting admitted to hospital or brought home by police.
32The treatment-resistant nature of his mental illness can cause T.K. (M.A.) to mentally decompensate notwithstanding compliance with medication. When symptomatic, he does not sleep, engages in disinhibited behaviours, hears voices in the form of command hallucinations, develops paranoid and persecutory thinking typically involving family members. Cannabis use triggers or worsens his psychosis. His insight into his illness and need for medication vanishes.
33Thus, absent the appropriate level of support and supervision to ensure medication adherence and abstinence from substances, it is more probable than not that T.K. (M.A.) could quickly return to the state of mind that engendered his index offences. On the evidence before it, the Board finds that T.K. (M.A.) poses a significant threat to the safety of the public. As his history demonstrates, the risk he poses to others when symptomatic is neither speculative nor trivial.
34Currently, T.K. (M.A.) is doing well. With support from the Hospital’s forensic outpatient team, an Assertive Community Treatment Team (ACTT), and family members, he is compliant with anti-psychotic medication. He is engaged in the treatment options that are available to him (addictions, psychoeducation for healthy living and illness management). He demonstrates an understanding of taking his medications consistently and reports his symptoms openly when asked. His insight, while still limited in some respects, has improved and his judgment is good. He is forward-looking, with future plans to complete his secondary school education. Over the coming review period, his ability to live independently will be assessed, with the conclusions helping to inform appropriate housing options.
35However, risks remain as described in the Hospital Report (see pages 23-33). Based on the most current clinical risk assessment, an elevated risk of violence would occur if T.K. (M.A.) resumed cannabis use or became non-adherent with his medications, leading to a recurrence of manic and psychotic symptoms. The Board relies on the uncontroverted expert evidence of Dr. Hwang, and the risk assessments set out at pp 31-34 in the Hospital Report, in reaching this conclusion.
Least Onerous, Least Restrictive, Necessary and Appropriate Disposition:
36Given T.K. (M.A.)’s progress, including living in his family home since the last annual review in the other ORB (8517) matter, this panel considered a conditional discharge as such a Disposition did have an “air of reality”. However, based on all of the materials and submissions, this Board finds that a detention disposition is the necessary and appropriate vehicle within which to provide the extrinsic legal support required for him to progress in his healing journey.
37T.K. (M.A.)’s most recent return to his family home is relatively early in its assessment period. There are current concerns as noted in the evidence, including his minimal acknowledgment of the need for medication and abstinence from cannabis to remain stable. This is noted against a history of non-adherence to treatment and follow-up even when connected to community-based mental health and subject to a Community Treatment Order. Combined, they support a conclusion that a detention disposition order is required. The civil commitment provisions of the Mental Health Act are retroactive in nature. A detention disposition order allows the treatment team to approve T.K. (M.A.)’s accommodations, monitor him closely for signs of incipient worsening of symptoms and behaviours and intervene at an early stage. The ability to intervene quickly and proactively is a key risk minimization strategy for T.K. (M.A.).
Terms and Conditions of Detention Disposition Order:
38In turning to the terms and conditions that are least restrictive but both necessary and appropriate to protect the public, the panel considered the evidence and submissions of the parties. The panel is sensitive to the issue of protection of the public, which is paramount, as well as the need for T.K. (M.A.) to be able to fully participate in rehabilitation, with the ultimate goal of no longer posing a risk to the safety of the public. In this regard, the Board appreciates the Hospital’s concern that some of the restrictions currently imposed by the terms of T.K. (M.A.)’s interim judicial release may prove to be barriers to his participation in rehabilitative initiatives but is mindful of the tender age of Victim No. 1 and his tendency towards sexual impropriety when unwell.
Re: Prohibitions on the Accused’s Contact with Persons Under 16:
39Nevertheless, given the nature of the index offence, and the age of the victim, as well as T.K. (M.A.)’s demonstrated history of having engaged in sexually assaultive behaviours when psychotic, the Board finds it necessary and appropriate to that the following terms be incorporated into T.K. (M.A.)’s disposition Order:
a. That he not be in the company of or communicate, directly or indirectly, by any physical, electronic or other means with males or females under the age 16, unless in the presence of an adult family member, Hospital staff or unless in the course of his paid employment or education as approved by the person in charge;
b. The he not attend a public park or swimming area where persons under the age of 16 years are present or can reasonably be expected to be present, or at a daycare, school ground (except adult school ground), playground or community centre, unless in the presence of an adult family member or hospital staff;
c. The he not seek, obtain, or continue with any paid or unpaid activity that involves being in a position of trust or authority towards persons under the age of 16 years.
40For further clarity, the Board is not seeking to prohibit fleeting or incidental contact with those persons under 16 that may occur when T.K. (M.A.) is indirectly supervised in the community and in locations such as being on a city bus, going to school, attending the Hospital for appointments, or engaging in volunteering or employment.
Non-Communication:
41The Board finds it appropriate to include a term of non-communication between the victim, her mother and T.K. (M.A.). This is not a particularly restrictive term on T.K. (M.A.)’s liberty interests and will assist in the protection of the public which includes both the victim and her mother. The Board notes that risk of harm can be physical as well as psychological and this provision provides them with an extra layer of protection and comfort.
42In view of the fact that ORB file number 8517 will be joined with this matter going forward, the Board re-engrosses in this disposition the no-contact term protecting Adama Halwani, who was the victim of the index offence on the first NCR finding. The remainder of the terms shall continue in their current form and be mirrored in the Board’s formal disposition.
Comment on Sexological Assessment:
43The panel notes that no sexological assessment has been prepared on T.K. (M.A.)’s behalf. Given the nature of the index offences in both matters before the Board, and Dr. Hwang’s agreement that one would be helpful in informing the treatment plan and to assess future risk if a sexual behaviour assessment were available, the Board urges the Hospital to seriously consider conducting a sexual behaviour assessment. In addition to helping the clinical team to assess future risk, such an assessment would be of assistance to the work of the Board in any subsequent annual review.
Conclusion:
44T.K. (M.A.) has made very good progress since the date of the underlying NCR offence, and this panel wishes to encourage him to continue on this positive path in the upcoming year.
45In arriving at our disposition, the Board has considered the paramount factor of the safety of the public, the rehabilitation of T.K. (M.A.), his mental condition and his other needs, all as required by s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
DATED this 20th day of March 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.
Ms. T. Mann
Legal Member
______________________
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board