Re Nabil Huruy, 2026 CanLII 45683

Ontario Review Board

Re: Nabil Huruy

ORB File No: 6872

Hearing Held On: Tuesday, March 24, 2026

Place of Hearing: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health

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

Before: Alternate Chairperson: Ms. L. Banks Members: Dr. S. Lessard Dr. J. Cheston Ms. A. La Viola Mr. J. Cyr

Parties Appearing: Accused: Nabil Huruy Counsel: Mr. I. McCuaig

The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. M. Warner

Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. M. Feindel

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated May 12, 2026)

OVERVIEW

1Nabil Huruy was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on December 10, 2015, for the offence of second-degree murder, contrary to the Criminal Code. He is subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated March 26, 2025, currently detaining him within the Secure Forensic Unit of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto (“CAMH”). The disposition allows Mr. Huruy privileges up to and including the ability to live in the community, in supervised accommodation, approved by the person in charge.

ISSUES

2On March 24, 2026, the Board convened at CAMH for a hearing further to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code to review the disposition. The Board had to determine whether Mr. Huruy represented a significant threat to the safety of the public at the time of the hearing, and further, what the necessary and appropriate disposition is in the circumstances according to the factors set out in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.

3In addition, the parties submitted an initial position with respect to the recommendation that Mr. Huruy continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public, and that the necessary and appropriate disposition is a continuation of the current detention order, under the same conditions and privileges, with a reduction to frequency of his reporting obligation to not less than once every two weeks. There was no contention that Mr. Huruy continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. At the conclusion of the hearing, all parties maintained their initial positions, and a joint submission was put forward for the Board’s consideration.

FINDINGS

4After hearing the evidence, the Board found that Mr. Huruy continues to pose a significant threat to public safety. The necessary and appropriate disposition is a continued detention order, with the ability to live in the community, in approved, supervised accommodations, with a reduction in reporting requirements once every two weeks.

BACKGROUND

5The Hospital Report dated March 7, 2026, was entered as an exhibit at the hearing. Also admitted into evidence were a number of victim impact statements that had been filed with the Board. The statements were admitted subject to a ruling that the panel members would consider only the contents of the victim impact statements that complied with s. 672.5(14) of the Criminal Code, namely, “a written statement describing the harm done to, or loss suffered by, the victim arising from the commission of the offence”.

6The following information, including the events surrounding the index offence has been taken from the Hospital Report. On September 14, 2013, Mr. Huruy entered a café in Toronto, where the victim was seated with other patrons. After briefly sitting near the victim, Mr. Huruy suddenly produced a knife and stabbed the victim in the head, and, when pulled away, used a second knife to stab the victim in the face. The victim was transported to hospital, where he remained in critical condition until succumbing to his injuries. Mr. Huruy was later identified through a taxi he entered after the incident and was arrested the same day.

7Mr. Huruy is 35 years old. He was born in Saudi Arabia and immigrated to Canada at age 12 with his mother and sister. He is the younger of two children and has maintained close relationships with his family, including renewed contact with his father in recent years. His childhood was described as stable, with no history of abuse or neglect. He completed schooling in Saudi Arabia to approximately Grade 6 and transitioned into the Canadian school system without difficulty. His academic performance declined in high school, and he ultimately left a few credits short of graduating. Mr. Huruy’s employment history consists of part time positions in retail, restaurants, and food service beginning at age 17. He had difficulty sustaining employment for extended periods, with his longest position lasting approximately six months.

8A check of the Canadian Police Information Centre database shows that Mr. Huruy’s criminal history prior to the index offence includes convictions for theft under $5000, failure to comply with recognizance, break and enter, attempt at theft, as well as police occurrences related to disputes and disturbed behaviour.

9There is no documented psychiatric history prior to 2013. In the days leading to the index offence, Mr. Huruy exhibited behavioural and perceptual disturbances, including two police encounters on September 11, 2013. He was assessed in hospital but denied psychotic symptoms and was discharged. In the period immediately before the index offence, he reported increasing fear and persecutory beliefs. He armed himself with two knives for protection and later described interpreting others’ intentions and believing that the victim posed a threat to him.

10Mr. Huruy was admitted to Waypoint in May 2014, where he underwent a forensic assessment, and after a lengthy period of risk management and eventual stabilization, he was transferred to CAMH in October 2023, subsequently progressing to less secure forensic units. His first transition to community living occurred when he moved to 96 Dowling (24‑hour supervised residence) on December 1, 2025, where he presently resides.

11Mr. Huruy’s current diagnoses are Schizophrenia and Cannabis Use Disorder (in remission, in a controlled setting). Mr. Huruy is currently incapable of making decisions about his psychiatric treatment, and his mother is his substitute decision maker, but he has been found capable of managing his financial affairs. He receives financial support through the Ontario Disability Support Program.

12Over the past year, Mr. Huruy has remained psychiatrically stable on clozapine, with no episodes of aggression, threats or behavioural dysregulation. His mental status has been consistent, and he has continued to follow rules and cooperate with staff. He has not shown signs of acute psychosis, and his presentation has been calm, organized, and appropriate throughout the reporting period.

13Since moving to 96 Dowling, he has adjusted well to supervised community living. He has complied with all reporting requirements, maintained medication adherence, and managed his daily routines without difficulty. Staff describe him as reliable and cooperative, and there have been no concerns related to substance use, safety, or elevated risk during this period.

EVIDENCE AT THE HEARING

14The evidence at the hearing included comprehensive testimony from Dr. D. Jaiswal regarding Mr. Huruy’s current mental health status, behaviour and updates regarding community living.

15Dr. Jaiswal testified that he has acted as Mr. Huruy’s psychiatrist since his transfer to a General Forensic Unit in June 2024. His role evolved from inpatient psychiatrist to outpatient attending psychiatrist, following Mr. Huruy’s transition to the community. Dr. Jaiswal confirmed that there were no material updates or changes since the date of the Hospital Report.

16Dr. Jaiswal described a highly cautious and gradual progression through the pass system over the past year. Mr. Huruy began with Level 6 passes and advanced more slowly than standard hospital guidelines, due to risk management considerations. Community access was initially indirectly supervised, followed by overnight passes beginning in September.

17Based on Mr. Huruy’s consistent compliance and safe use of passes, the treatment team-initiated planning for community housing. A vacancy became available in November at a 24-hour supervised housing program, leading to Mr. Huruy’s community transition into that residence in December 2025. The housing provides continuous staffing, supervised medication administration, routine mental status monitoring, and immediate communication with the forensic outpatient team regarding any concerns.

18The current residence is permanent, not transitional, housing. It is located approximately 1.7 km from CAMH – facilitating outpatient contact and participation in hospital programming. Mr. Huruy travels to programs by walking or public transit. Dr. Jaiswal emphasized that proximity to hospital supports reduces logistical barriers, and it allows for frequent clinical contact. While other similar residences exist elsewhere in the city, the proximity of Mr. Huruy’s housing was a particularly relevant, but not exclusive factor. Availability of 24/7 supervised housing is limited in the GTA, waitlists are lengthy, and turnover is infrequent.

19Mr. Huruy is followed by the forensic outpatient team, including a case manager and Dr. Jaiswal. The housing staff function as an extension of the treatment team, maintaining close communication with the hospital’s forensic outpatient team. Mr. Huruy also participates in structured programming, including CAMH programs, several days per week.

20Dr. Jaiswal testified that Mr. Huruy has not exhibited active psychotic, manic, or residual psychotic symptoms over the past year. Previously noted religiously themed delusions have not emerged. Mr. Huruy has demonstrated sustained psychiatric stability since stabilization on clozapine, with therapeutic blood levels confirmed through regular monitoring.

21There has been no evidence of substance use relapse during either inpatient or outpatient periods. Regular urine drug screening has consistently yielded negative results. Mr. Huruy has remained fully adherent to medication, with no concerns regarding compliance. Medication is administered under supervision at the residence, and routine blood work continues on a monthly basis.

22Dr. Jaiswal testified to a gradual but meaningful expansion in Mr. Huruy’s insight over the past year. While insight is not yet fulsome, Mr. Huruy increasingly links his index offence to psychosis and substance use, particularly cannabis. He has demonstrated greater contextual understanding of his mental state at the time of the index offence, and he has reflected on the impact of his actions on the victims and his family. Mr. Huruy has expressed remorse and a desire to apologize to the victim’s family members, but has not attempted any direct or indirect contact, in accordance with his disposition. He has consistently respected legal advice and the conditions of his disposition. Mr. Huruy has not attempted to identify, contact, or approach members of the victim’s family. He reported that if he encountered them in public, he would not recognize them. Dr. Jaiswal expressed confidence in Mr. Huruy’s willingness to continue complying with all non‑contact conditions.

23Mr. Huruy maintains a structured weekly schedule involving hospital programming, community programs, volunteer work at a food bank, and attendance at a local mosque for Friday prayers. He visits his mother, an approved person, on weekends, an approved person. He has accepted all recommended therapeutic programming and has not declined any proposed interventions.

24Mr. Huruy has articulated educational goals, including completing high school credits to obtain a diploma. He previously completed a module of a peer support program and has expressed interest in becoming a peer support worker. These plans are anticipated to further structure his time and support rehabilitation.

25Dr. Jaiswal testified that stability and continuity are critical at this stage of reintegration. A significant change in his housing or community supports could introduce stressors and disrupt his current prosocial engagements. Over the next year, treatment goals include continued psychiatric stability, increased internal motivation for medication adherence, expanded insight, educational progress, and monitoring community functioning.

26Dr. Jaiswal recommended continuation of the current detention order, noting that Mr. Huruy has not yet completed a full year of living in the community. Establishing stability remains necessary before considering increased liberties or the granting of a conditional discharge. However, the evidence supported a reduction in reporting frequency to biweekly, given Mr. Huruy’s sustained compliance and progress.

SUBMISSIONS

27Counsel on behalf of the hospital acknowledged the victims’ proximity related concerns and emphasized that public safety and victim protection have been central to discharge planning for Mr. Huruy. Counsel highlighted the cautious progression to community placement, including residence in a 24-hour highly supervised residential setting, and relied on the existing no contact conditions and Mr. Huruy’s demonstrated compliance. Counsel stated that these measures adequately address victim safety and that additional geographic restrictions would be neither necessary nor appropriate.

28Counsel for the Attorney General raised an issue of concern for the victims (present at the hearing) regarding Mr. Huruy’s recent transition to the community on December 1, 2025. Namely, his placement at a high support 24-hour supervised facility located at 96 Dowling, and its proximity to areas that the victims frequent. Counsel for the Attorney General accepted that the victims’ concerns are genuine, arising from geographic proximity rather than any concern about Mr. Huruy’s conduct or intent. He characterized the issue as systemic, noting that the proximity concern emerged late in the discharge process and that post placement police notification offered limited reassurance. While raising these concerns, Counsel did not seek readmission or a request that Mr. Huruy be transitioned to alternative housing, acknowledging Mr. Huruy’s stability and the absence of viable alternatives, and instead urged reflection on improved future processes. Counsel advised that the victim’s family members were not pursuing a prohibition on Mr. Huruy’s attendance at any specific locations as they did not want to identify these locations.

29Counsel for Mr. Huruy submitted that relocation based solely on proximity concerns would risk destabilizing Mr. Huruy and could increase risk by disrupting his established supports. While acknowledging the victims’ experiences, Counsel emphasized that the disposition must be grounded in risk. Counsel relied on evidence of Mr. Huruy’s consistent compliance with medication, lack of contact between Mr. Huruy and the victim’s family members, and his ongoing commitment to conditions of his disposition that preserve stability and protect public safety.

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION

(a) Significant Threat

30The Board must first determine whether Mr. Huruy continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public, as that term is defined in Winko v. British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute), 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625. This determination must be based on the totality of the evidence, including the circumstances of the index offence, Mr. Huruy’s psychiatric history, his current mental condition, and the degree to which his present stability is dependent on external supports and supervision.

31The Board acknowledges that Mr. Huruy has made substantial clinical progress and has demonstrated sustained psychiatric stability over the past year. He has remained free of active psychotic symptoms, has complied with treatment, and has behaved appropriately in both hospital and community settings. The Board accepts the evidence that this progress reflects meaningful rehabilitation. However, the Board must also consider the seriousness of the index offence, which involved extreme violence and resulted in the loss of life. The offence occurred in the context of untreated psychosis and substance use, and the risk associated with relapse remains a central consideration in the Board’s analysis. The gravity of the index offence heightens the consequences should decompensation occur, even if the likelihood of such an event is presently reduced.

32The Board places significant weight on the evidence that Mr. Huruy’s current stability remains closely linked to a structured and highly supervised treatment environment. While he is now residing in the community, this transition is recent, having occurred on December 1, 2025, and is supported by 24-hour staffed accommodation, supervised medication administration, routine monitoring, and close involvement of the forensic outpatient team. Mr. Huruy has not yet demonstrated sustained stability over an extended period in the community, absent this level of oversight.

33The Board agrees that continuity of supervision, and the ability to intervene promptly, remain critical at this stage of reintegration. Any premature reduction in the level of oversight could introduce destabilizing stressors and increase the risk of relapse, with serious public safety concerns. While Mr. Huruy’s insight has improved, it remains partial, and his long-term capacity to independently maintain treatment adherence has not yet been established.

34In these circumstances, the Board is satisfied that, notwithstanding Mr. Huruy’s progress, the evidence establishes that he continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public within the meaning of Winko. This conclusion is not based on current misconduct or instability, but rather on the conditional nature of his stability, the seriousness of the index offence, and the ongoing need for hospital-directed supervision to adequately manage risk at this time.

(b) Necessary and Appropriate

35The Board must next determine the disposition that is necessary and appropriate in the circumstances. The disposition must embrace the principle of the ‘least onerous and least restrictive’ outcome, with due consideration given to Mr. Huruy’s liberty interests, his mental condition, and his reintegration into society, which must also be weighed together against the paramount concern of public safety as required by s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.

36The Board accepts that Mr. Huruy has benefited significantly from gradual, carefully managed increases in liberty, culminating in his recent placement in supervised community housing. The evidence demonstrates that he has adjusted well to this placement, complied with all conditions, and engaged in meaningful programming and prosocial activities. These factors weigh in favour of maintaining community living within a structured residential framework, and a conditional discharge would be premature at this time. Mr. Huruy has not yet completed a full year in the community, and his successful functioning remains dependent on hospital-directed supervision, including medication management, monitoring for relapse, and rapid intervention should concerns arise. The hospital must retain the ability to respond swiftly and effectively to developing risk.

37In contrast, a detention order permits Mr. Huruy to continue residing in the community in approved accommodation, while preserving the necessary clinical authority and oversight required to manage risk at this transitional stage. The Board is satisfied that the disposition appropriately balances public safety with Mr. Huruy’s rehabilitation and liberty interests, and that it reflects the least onerous and least restrictive means of addressing the ongoing risk.

38The Board accepts the submission that the victims’ concerns arise from geographic proximity rather than from any concern regarding Mr. Huruy’s current conduct or intent. The evidence and submissions confirm that public safety and victim protection have remained central to discharge planning, including placement in a 24-hour highly supervised residence, the imposition of no contact conditions, and Mr. Huruy’s demonstrated and sustained compliance with antipsychotic medication. In these circumstances and having regard to Mr. Huruy’s stability and the absence of viable alternatives, the Board is satisfied that the existing measures adequately address the proximity concerns and that additional geographic restrictions would not be necessary or appropriate.

39Accordingly, the Board concludes that the necessary and appropriate disposition is a continuation of the existing detention order, under the same conditions and privileges, with a reduction in reporting frequency as recommended. This disposition supports Mr. Huruy’s continued reintegration into the community while ensuring that sufficient safeguards remain in place to protect public safety.