Re A. (F.A.A.), 2026 CanLII 48349

Ontario Review Board

Re: A. (F.A.A.)

ORB File No: 5226/5988

Hearing held on: Tuesday, March 31, 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. R. Kunjukrishnan Dr. G. Nexhipi Ms. B. Naegele Ms. R. L. Louis

Parties Appearing: Accused: A. (F.A.A.) Counsel: Mr. B. Engel Person in charge of hospital: Representative: Dr. J. Gojer Attorney-General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. M. Dufort

*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 who is under 18 years of age.

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated April 28, 2026)

Introduction

1. On November 25, 2008, A. (F.A.A.) was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (“NCR”) on charges of utter a threat to cause death or bodily harm, mischief not exceeding five thousand dollars, and failure to comply with an undertaking, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (“Criminal Code”).

2. On October 21, 2011, A. (F.A.A.) was also found NCR on two counts of assault with a weapon, one count of utter threat to cause death or bodily harm, one count of indecent act, and two counts of failure to comply with an undertaking or recognizance, contrary to the Criminal Code.

3. A. (F.A.A.) is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board (“ORB”) dated March 17, 2025, which detains him at the Secure Forensic Unit of the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre, in Ottawa (“Hospital”). The disposition provides A. (F.A.A.) privileges up to and including that of living in the community in accommodation approved by the person in charge of the Hospital.

4. On March 31, 2026, the ORB convened at the Hospital to conduct A. (F.A.A.)’s annual review hearing, pursuant to subsection 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. A. (F.A.A.) was present and was represented by counsel, Mr. B. Engel. The Hospital’s report dated March 7, 2026, was entered as Exhibit 1 for the hearing (Hospital Report). A two-page letter authored by Sarah Schryer, Transitional Case Manager from the Canadian Mental Health Association (“CMHA”), dated March 24, 2026, was shared with the parties and Panel at the hearing. The letter was entered as Exhibit 2 for the hearing.

5. The issues before the Panel are: (1) whether A. (F.A.A.) continues to represent a significant threat to public safety, and if so, (2) to determine the necessary and appropriate disposition to manage his risk for the coming year.

6. The parties provided their preliminary positions at the outset of the hearing.

7. The Hospital recommended a conditional discharge as the appropriate disposition. However, the Hospital also explained that they would provide some testimony to support why an absolute discharge may be appropriate in A. (F.A.A.)’s circumstances.

8. Counsel for the Attorney General did not provide a preliminary position, preferring instead to provide the Attorney General’s position after the evidence was heard.

9. A. (F.A.A.)’s counsel indicated that he agreed with the Hospital’s recommendation. A Panel member asked counsel to clarify which of the Hospital’s two recommendations he agreed with: a conditional discharge, or an absolute discharge. Counsel clarified that he agreed that an absolute discharge is possible.

10. Below are the reasons the Panel finds: (1) that A. (F.A.A.) continues to pose a significant threat to public safety and (2) that a conditional discharge is the least onerous and restrictive disposition in A. (F.A.A.)’s circumstances.

Evidence

11. The evidence at the hearing originated from three sources: the Hospital Report, Ms. Schryer’s letter, and Dr. Gojer’s testimony. The Hospital Report includes, among other information, a summary of the index offences, details of A. (F.A.A.)’s academic, relationship, medical and psychiatric, and substance use histories, and an update on A. (F.A.A.)’s circumstances for the reporting year.

Index Offences

12. Below is a summary of the index offences from last year’s Reasons for Disposition:

April 8, 2008:

On April 8, 2008, A. (F.A.A.) attended the residence of his brother and sister-in-law and knocked on the door. The sister in-law did not want to admit A. (F.A.A.) into her home because he was talking incoherently and based on his prior conduct. She asked family members to shut off all lights and not open the door. A. (F.A.A.) started yelling and screaming. He threatened to kill his brother. Eventually, he kicked the door off its hinges while continuing to scream and threaten his brother.

At this time A. (F.A.A.) was bound by a court undertaking to be of good conduct and behavior. He breached the undertaking given the events noted above.

June 4, 2011 and September 7, 2011

The NCR finding of October 21, 2011, was based on A. (F.A.A.)’s earlier plea of guilty to common assault. He acknowledged having been involved in an incident in June with the ten-year-old daughter of a friend. Initially, he was charged with sexual assault or sexual interference. The facts accepted by the court were that, when visiting friends, he had propositioned a young girl and made contact by hugging and grabbing her.

The same NCR finding of October 21, 2011, dealt with a separate incident from September 7, 2011, at the St. Laurent Shopping Centre in Ottawa. A. (F.A.A.) had chased an individual who was not known to him, threatening that individual with a weapon, a screwdriver. A. (F.A.A.) removed all his clothing. He chased the victim, screaming “you fucked my sister and I’m going to kill you”. Soon after on the same offence date, he appeared at the Cité Collegial in Ottawa. Wearing only a large orange tarp, he stopped to flash three women saying, “how do you like this?”

Personal and Family History

13. The Hospital Report provides that A. (F.A.A.) was born in Mogadishu, Somalia. He is the youngest of six full siblings and has six half siblings. He has a sister and brother who live in Canada. He reports that he was primarily raised by his brother and sister-in-law since he was 7 or 8 years old.

14. A. (F.A.A.) reports not remembering much of his childhood in Somalia, but recalls having thrown grenades at people, because an uncle told him to. His father passed away in 1999. His mother resides in Mogadishu, and he is in regular contact with her.

15. A. (F.A.A.) moved to Italy when he was in kindergarten with his brother and sister-in-law and remained there until grade 4. He then moved to New York City and remained there for 3 months. He then moved to Buffalo, New York, for a month, before arriving in Toronto in 1992, and moving to Ottawa within a week. He has lived in Ottawa since then. His family initially lived in a shelter but found housing and employment. A. (F.A.A.) has lived with his brother and sister-in-law sporadically since 1992. At other times, he has lived in more than 20 houses and apartments.

Criminal History

16. A. (F.A.A.)’s criminal record reflects the following previous convictions:

Date	Conviction(s)	Sentence
2011-06-04	• Indecent act	• Suspended sentence and 24 months probation
2008-03-07	• Failure to comply with undertaking • Failure to comply with probation • Cause disturbance	• Suspended sentence and 12 months probation (+14 days pre-sentence)
2008-01-31	• Failure to attend court • Mischief under • Failure to comply with recognizance	• 25 days concurrent on each charge (+10 days pre-sentence)
2006-07-25	• robbery	• 1 day & 24 months probation (+54 days pre-sentence); mandatory prohibition for 10 years
2005-09-15	• Possession Schedule II substance for the purpose of trafficking • Possession Schedule I substance for purpose of trafficking • Failure to comply • Possession of a firearm	• 90 days concurrent on each charge (+67 days pre-sentence)
2004-01-14	• Assault • Failure to comply with probation order	• 1 day & 1 year probation (+52 days pre-sentence)
2003-05-20	• Carrying a concealed weapon • Failure to comply with recognizance • Assault peace officer	• Suspended sentence & 24 months probation

Psychiatric History

17. A. (F.A.A.)’s psychiatric history, according to the Hospital Report, show that his psychiatric history dates back to his first psychiatric admission, at Montfort Hospital, when he was 18. He was admitted for one month, diagnosed with depression, and non-compliant with the medication he was prescribed. He was seen as an out-patient but had difficulties attending appointments. Shortly after his discharge, his diagnosis was changed to bipolar disorder.

18. The Hospital Report documents that since his first hospital admission, he has been admitted to hospitals on more than 20 occasions, to date, because of his mental health challenges. In many cases, his hospital admissions coincided with his non-compliance with medication and substance use.

19. A. (F.A.A.)’s current diagnoses are: a. Bipolar Disorder – Type 1, currently euthymic b. Polysubstance Use Disorder c. Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder d. Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder e. Antisocial Personality Disorder f. Somatic Symptom Disorder

Update for Reporting Year

20. The Hospital Report includes an update on A. (F.A.A.)’s circumstances beginning at page 107. It provides that A. (F.A.A.) engaged with the team more than previous years. He explored with staff how he may be able to return to work or volunteer and met with a vocational therapist for assessment sessions.

21. A. (F.A.A.) attends for urine drug screens (“UDS”) when prompted and reports a decrease in THC use. This is consistent with 9 negative UDS results, of 37 samples. A. (F.A.A.) reports sending money to Somalia to deter his spending on substances.

22. The Hospital Report shows that since the last reporting period, A. (F.A.A.) had two hospital admissions, as compared to four, in the previous reporting period:

Date of Admission	Activity reported prior to/at admission
June 27, 2025 – July 10, 2025: Queensway Carleton	• Wandering streets, yelling, throwing items, clothing removed (prior to admission) • Member of public made emergency call for assistance as a result of A. (F.A.A.)’s conduct • A. (F.A.A.) requested EMS to be taken to hospital, when police arrived • A. (F.A.A.) reported cannabis use • UDS positive for cannabis/cocaine • Psychomotor agitation, irritability (at admission)
November 18, 2025 – November 26, 2025: TOH Civic Campus	• Insomnia (prior to admission) • A. (F.A.A.) called EMS on his own • A. (F.A.A.) denied using substances and told EMS abstained from THC for two days, leading to insomnia • UDS positive for amphetamine/THC • A. (F.A.A.) settled after sleep/mania subsided

23. When ill, A. (F.A.A.) attends a hospital, as a voluntary patient, receives medication to manage his manic symptoms, has minor adjustments to his long-acting medication and is discharged.

24. The Hospital Report update also provides that he does not miss appointments or UDS, and he is motivated to take medication. He shows insight into his illness and recognizes that substance use can trigger manic episodes. He is also cooperative with admissions to hospital and remaining voluntarily as a patient.

25. A. (F.A.A.) reports not using cocaine or amphetamines. He reports purchasing cannabis from regulated dispensaries, not on the street. He could not explain why cocaine and amphetamines registered in some UDS.

26. The Hospital Report update also notes that A. (F.A.A.) has not engaged in violent incidents for many years and was better managed in the last 2 years on the medication, Trinza.

27. The Hospital Report update shows curiosity as to why A. (F.A.A.)’s greater mental stability over the reporting year, especially given his numerous positive screens for cocaine. The suggestion given for A. (F.A.A.)’s increased stability is a change in his long-acting medication.

28. A. (F.A.A.) currently lives in an apartment funded by Salus Housing.

29. The Hospital Report also includes a risk assessment, at page 109. Based on A. (F.A.A.)’s lengthy history of mental illness, ongoing manic episodes, and substance use, including cocaine and amphetamine, he poses a significant threat to public safety. He is at a moderately high risk of relapsing into a manic state. He is also a high risk to continue using substances, which contribute to his risk of ongoing manic episodes.

Ms. Schryer’s Letter

30. As mentioned above, Ms. Schryer is a Transitional Case Manager with CMHA. Essentially, Ms. Schryer’s letter provides that: a. she has worked with A. (F.A.A.) since April 2025; b. A. (F.A.A.) engages with CMHA services and they meet biweekly; c. A. (F.A.A.)’s goals are to: maintain stable housing, reduce substance use, and strengthen his connection to his spirituality; d. A. (F.A.A.) has demonstrated an ability to live independently and shows insight into his mental health, including by reaching out proactively when he sees deterioration in his mental health; and e. A. (F.A.A.)’s engagement with his spiritual community is a source of structure and support.

Dr. Gojer’s Testimony

31. Dr. Gojer provided evidence for the Hospital at the hearing and testified as follows: a. A. (F.A.A.)’s diagnosis is a bipolar mood disorder, and he has shown anti-social traits since the age of 15; b. A. (F.A.A.) was found NCR in 2008 and 2011, and has had no convictions or charges since then; c. A. (F.A.A.) has lived in Salus Housing since 2022, and maintained it well, except when he broke a window in 2023, for which he is paying to repair; d. A. (F.A.A.) has been on anti-psychotic medication for years, including Abilify, and Invega, and switched to Trinza (Paliperidone) in the last two years; e. A. (F.A.A.) also takes Wellbutrin to assist with depressive episodes and ADHD, without triggering mania; f. reports show that Wellbutrin help to decrease the quantity and frequency of cannabis use; g. A. (F.A.A.) is working with his counsel and the Hospital to get his permanent residency renewed; h. while living in the community, A. (F.A.A.) was followed by CMHA, and for the first 3 years he was under Mr. Woodward’s care, who he would see biweekly, and he would contact Mr. Woodward if he had any other issues; i. while living in the community, last year, A. (F.A.A.) attended biweekly meetings with Ms. Schryer; j. in the last 4 years, A. (F.A.A.) has had many manic episodes, and will generally take himself to the hospital or show up at Dr. Gojer’s office when they occur; k. Dr. Gojer usually uses a Form 1 to admit A. (F.A.A.) to the Hospital when he shows up, and A. (F.A.A.)’s mental health will usually stabilize in 2-3 weeks; l. A. (F.A.A.) does not miss appointments, even when manic, and has a good relationship with his treatment team; m. A. (F.A.A.) has a rigid personality and is adamant that he will not stop using cannabis; n. A. (F.A.A.) had two manic episodes last year, and both times took himself to the hospital; o. A. (F.A.A.) told Dr. Gojer than he has not had contact with the law since 2011 because he has become a practicing Muslim; p. A. (F.A.A.) has had 16 positive UDS for cocaine and says he does not use cocaine, but picks up discarded roaches which could be contaminated with cocaine; q. A. (F.A.A.)’s positive UDS screens for cocaine are concerning, so a conditional discharge with approved accommodation is a good option; r. A. (F.A.A.) has had no manic episodes coinciding with positive UDS for cocaine;¹ s. A. (F.A.A.) has a moderate-high or high chance of experiencing recurring manic episodes; t. A. (F.A.A.)’s receipt of Trinza and Wellbutrin, and decrease in manic episodes may demonstrate that his mental health struggles are better under control than previously; and u. a conditional discharge is the most obvious choice for a disposition, but an absolute discharge could be considered.

32. In response to questions from counsel for the Attorney General, Dr. Gojer testified as follows: a. A. (F.A.A.) stopped taking his prescribed medication when he was under the ORB’s jurisdiction when he threatened his brother in 2008, and in 2011; b. when requested, A. (F.A.A.) usually attends the same day, or within 24 hours to submit to UDS and 37 urine drug screens were done in the reporting year; c. a bystander called the police in June 2025 because of A. (F.A.A.)’s behaviour, which resulted in A. (F.A.A.) being admitted to the Queensway Carleton Hospital (QCH) in June 2025; d. Dr. Gojer acknowledged that the bystander’s quick intervention possibly prevented any potential violence by A. (F.A.A.) in June 2025; e. A. (F.A.A.) did not call his psychiatrist or treatment team prior to his hospital admission in June 2025, but he called his treatment team after his admission; f. Dr. Gojer would have issued a Form 49 for A. (F.A.A.) in June 2025, had Dr. Gojer learned of A. (F.A.A.)’s behaviour that led to his admission to the QCH in June 2025; g. Dr. Gojer would issue a Form 49 for cocaine use leading to A. (F.A.A.)’s decompensation, but not for cannabis use; h. A. (F.A.A.) called emergency services, on his own behalf, in November 2025, prior to his hospital admission in November 2025; i. concerning some of A. (F.A.A.)’s previous hospital admissions, cocaine was an associated factor in the admission, rather than the causation; j. A. (F.A.A.) has been admitted to hospitals on Form 49s, several times in the past; k. A. (F.A.A.) is happily housed with a subsidy from Salus, and unlikely to move; l. A. (F.A.A.) is capable to consent, and he sees Dr. Gojer twice per month, and sometimes more frequently; m. although A. (F.A.A.) has a history of wanting to change his medications, he has remained on some type of medication, both inside and outside of the Hospital; n. A. (F.A.A.) is content on Trinza, his somatic complaints are unrelated to known side effects, and he has taken Invega for 4 of 6 years while under Dr. Gojer’s care; o. A. (F.A.A.) has no issue with the frequency of Trinza injections (he takes his dosage every 9 weeks, while Trinza is generally administered every 12 weeks); p. Dr. Gojer would like to see A. (F.A.A.) on Lithium, but A. (F.A.A.) stopped taking Lithium when he was discharged from the Hospital; q. A. (F.A.A.)’s ability to recognize his decompensation “can go either way”; r. it is not necessary to identify the address where A. (F.A.A.) should live in the disposition; and s. a condition to report to the Hospital of not less than 1 time per month is enough to manage the risk posed by A. (F.A.A.) to public safety.

33. In response to counsel for the Attorney General’s questions, Dr. Gojer also testified that a condition to abstain from substances in the disposition is unlikely to reduce A. (F.A.A.)’s substance consumption. Notwithstanding, Dr. Gojer testified that a condition to abstain from substances should remain in the disposition, as it provides latitude to return A. (F.A.A.) to the Hospital on a breach, if necessary.

34. In response to counsel for the Attorney General’s questions, Dr. Gojer also testified that A. (F.A.A.) has a history of using stimulants. In 2011 A. (F.A.A.) was caught with cocaine, and he tested positive for cocaine in 2011, 2024 and June/July of 2025. He also tested positive for amphetamine when admitted to the hospital in November of 2025. Dr. Gojer testified that A. (F.A.A.) suggests that the positive tests for cocaine could be the result of A. (F.A.A.) retrieving discarded roaches which are contaminated with cocaine. A. (F.A.A.) denies actively using cocaine and is unable to explain why he has tested positive for amphetamines.

35. Counsel for the Attorney General highlighted paragraph 2 of Ms. Schryer’s letter, Exhibit 2, which provides that one of A. (F.A.A.)’s goals is to reduce his substance use. Counsel asked Dr. Gojer how this information fits with Dr. Gojer’s testimony that A. (F.A.A.) is unlikely to reduce substance consumption. Dr. Gojer testified that A. (F.A.A.) is rigid, and he is trying to reduce the frequency and quantity of his substance use, but he has used substances his whole life and unlikely to stop. Dr. Gojer testified that it is disconcerting that A. (F.A.A.) is using cocaine.

36. In response to A. (F.A.A.)’s counsel’s questions, Dr. Gojer testified as follows: a. a conditional discharge may be the more appropriate and “the ideal way” to manage the risk posed by A. (F.A.A.), rather than an absolute discharge; b. A. (F.A.A.) has not had any charges since 2011, which proves a change; c. it is difficult to say whether it is the oversight over A. (F.A.A.) that has shaped his behaviours, or whether he is personally motivated to change, including for faith-based reasons; d. there is a theoretical possibility that A. (F.A.A.) may engage in threatening or harmful behaviour, but this possibility may be speculative; e. A. (F.A.A.) is no different from someone who is manic and apprehended under the Mental Health Act; f. manic cycles can become more frequent but less severe over time; g. A. (F.A.A.) will always live with mental illness, and he has a personality disorder that complicates his mental health disorder; h. A. (F.A.A.)’s rigid personality has prolonged his time under the ORB’s jurisdiction, and he has sabotaged his ability to get an absolute discharge many times by refusing Lithium; i. Dr. Gojer is confident that A. (F.A.A.) will take his medication, particularly his Trinza, and his prognosis is improving with time; j. ideally, A. (F.A.A.) would eliminate drugs, but he has not had any psychotic or manic episodes when using cocaine;² k. if granted a conditional discharge, if necessary, Dr. Gojer would exercise a Form 49 to bring A. (F.A.A.) into the Hospital, more for A. (F.A.A.)’s benefit, not because he is a public safety risk; l. if granted an absolute discharge, Dr. Gojer could use the Mental Health Act to respond to any of A. (F.A.A.)’s manic episodes; and m. if granted an absolute discharge, over the course of the next 60-90 days, A. (F.A.A.) would continue to see Dr. Gojer and Ms. Schryer.

37. A. (F.A.A.)’s counsel also asked whether A. (F.A.A.) is a significant threat to public safety. Dr. Gojer responded affirmatively, acknowledging that he takes a cautious approach. He also acknowledged that A. (F.A.A.)’s history should be taken into account in consideration of an absolute discharge.

38. Prior to the Panel’s questions to Dr. Gojer, a Panel member noted that A. (F.A.A.)’s disposition dated March 17, 2025, does not contain a condition requiring him to abstain from substances.

39. In response to the Panel’s questions, Dr. Gojer testified: a. A. (F.A.A.) poses a significant risk to public safety; b. he recommends to not include a condition to abstain from substances in A. (F.A.A.)’s disposition; c. he does not know why a condition to abstain from substances was not included in A. (F.A.A.)’s disposition dated March 17, 2025; d. he is unlikely to admit A. (F.A.A.) to the Hospital for cannabis use, and believes he can manage the risk A. (F.A.A.) poses without having a condition to abstain from substance use in his disposition; e. he is unable to explore cocaine and amphetamine use with A. (F.A.A.), as A. (F.A.A.) denies using these substances; f. some hospitals are reluctant to admit A. (F.A.A.) because his manic episodes are not always considered severe; g. A. (F.A.A.) spends most of his time on his phone, attending the mosque, and praying; h. if granted an absolute discharge, A. (F.A.A.) intends to get a job and attend a peer support worker course; and i. A. (F.A.A.)’s immigration status permits him to work.

40. No further evidence was presented.

Parties’ Submissions

41. Dr. Gojer, for the Hospital, submitted that the Hospital’s position remained as outlined in the Hospital’s Report. He submitted that a conditional discharge including the conditions in his testimony was appropriate. Dr. Gojer also submitted that the Panel could consider an absolute discharge.

42. Counsel for the Attorney General submitted that the threshold for significant risk to public safety was met, and the appropriate disposition is a conditional discharge. Counsel suggested including a condition that the Hospital report any breaches of the disposition to the ORB and the police.

43. Counsel for the Attorney General also submitted that the concerns identified in last year’s reasons for disposition remain. Counsel highlighted that A. (F.A.A.) was admitted to hospitals in June and November of 2025, and although he said he was not using substances, he tested positive for substances. Therefore, reasoned counsel, substance use remains a problem that A. (F.A.A.) does not admit, and the evidence does not support that he is working to reduce his substance use, as outlined in Ms. Schryer’s letter. For this reason, counsel submitted that a condition requiring random UDS be included in the disposition. Additionally, there may need to be a condition in the disposition to abstain from substance use.

44. Counsel for the Attorney General also noted a concern with the condition requiring A. (F.A.A.) to report to the Hospital not less than once per month. This is because within weeks of reporting to the Hospital in November of 2025, he was admitted to a hospital and had a positive UDS. Counsel submitted that because A. (F.A.A.) decompensates quickly, it may be appropriate that the disposition contain a condition requiring A. (F.A.A.) to abstain from substance use.

45. Finally, counsel for the Attorney General acknowledged that A. (F.A.A.) has been under the ORB’s jurisdiction for a while. Counsel submitted, however, that this is not a factor to consider in determining the appropriate disposition. Counsel, too, submitted that the passage of time alone, coupled with less frequent hospital admissions does not equate to a lesser risk to the public.

46. A. (F.A.A.)’s counsel submitted he was not advocating for an absolute discharge based on the passage of time since A. (F.A.A.) has been under the ORB’s jurisdiction or since he was last charged. Counsel acknowledged A. (F.A.A.)’s long history of mental health challenges. He emphasized, however, that A. (F.A.A.)’s recent past shows no evidence of threats or charges, and he poses more of a nuisance than a risk. He acknowledged A. (F.A.A.)’s ongoing substance use. He submitted that the potential for A. (F.A.A.) to commit an offence is either speculative, or beyond speculative, and that Dr. Gojer is being more than cautious by recommending a conditional discharge as a possible disposition. A. (F.A.A.)’s counsel ultimately submitted that an absolute discharge is in A. (F.A.A.)’s interest, not contrary to the public interest, and that A. (F.A.A.) does not pose a significant risk to public safety.

Analysis and Conclusion

47. Having considered all of the evidence, and the parties’ submissions, the Panel finds that A. (F.A.A.) continues to pose a significant threat to public safety as defined in section 672.5401 of the Criminal Code and as further defined by the Supreme Court of Canada in Winko.³

48. According to Winko, a significant threat to public safety 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. The finding of a significant threat is an onerous one.

49. The Panel finds that A. (F.A.A.) continues to pose a significant threat to public safety. The Panel’s finding on this point considers that the index offences are serious. They concern threats against a family member, threats and assault against a member of the public with a weapon, and an indecent act. A. (F.A.A.) also has previous convictions for violent offences including robbery and assault.

50. Additionally, the Panel is unpersuaded by the submission of A. (F.A.A.)’s counsel that his conduct is more in the nature of nuisance, rather than a significant risk to public safety. The triggering event for A. (F.A.A.)’s hospital admission in June of 2025 involved throwing objects in public, and his clothing was removed. These circumstances intimate a real risk of assault against members of the public. Moreover, considering the index offences involve an indecent act, and exposing himself in public, that his clothing was removed during the events of June 2025, leading to his hospitalization, also supports the finding that A. (F.A.A.) poses a significant risk to public safety. His conduct, at least in so far as the incident of June 2025 is concerned, exceeds nuisance, triviality, and annoyance. We are grateful that this incident did not escalate to violence against others. However, while the bystander’s quick response may have stymied potential violence, or other offending behaviour, the public’s quick response to the risk A. (F.A.A.) poses does not, itself, negate the significant risk he poses to public safety.

51. In concluding that A. (F.A.A.)’s conduct continues to pose a significant threat to public safety, the Panel has also considered that a court has twice found A. (F.A.A.) NCR, and he has a history of major mental health illness and manic episodes, which are complicated by a personality disorder and polysubstance use disorder. The public remains at significant risk given A. (F.A.A.)’s ongoing substance use, including cocaine and amphetamine, which has resulted in an ongoing sequence of hospital admissions, including in the reporting year.

52. The Panel is persuaded that A. (F.A.A.)’s substance use continues to place public safety at a significant risk. The Panel is concerned that A. (F.A.A.)’s recent consumption of substances beyond cannabis, namely cocaine, further heightens concern for public safety. He tested positive for cocaine and cannabis at his hospital admission in June of 2025. Likewise, he tested positive for amphetamine and THC at his hospital admission in November of 2025. Page 109 of the Hospital Report provides that A. (F.A.A.) is at a moderately high risk of relapsing into a manic state, and a high risk to continue abusing drugs. It also provides that the use of drugs like cocaine, amphetamine and cannabis, contribute to his risk of ongoing manic episodes. Stated otherwise, his ongoing substance use—some of which he is not forthcoming about, including cocaine—directly correlates to his decompensation. This, coupled with Dr. Gojer’s testimony that A. (F.A.A.) is unlikely to abstain from substances, suggests A. (F.A.A.) possesses limited insight into the real risk his substance use invites upon his other diagnoses. In this context of limited insight, the risk to public safety is more than speculative.

53. The Panel acknowledges that the index offences date back to 2008 and 2011. However, the mere passage of time since the index offences does not negate the significant threat posed to the public safety by A. (F.A.A.)’s conduct. Notably, both of A. (F.A.A.)’s admissions to hospital in the reporting year would have qualified for a restriction of liberty hearing if A. (F.A.A.) did not voluntarily submit to the admission, as they each exceeded 7 days.

54. The Panel finds that the risk posed by A. (F.A.A.) to public safety can be adequately managed through a conditional discharge, which is the least onerous and least restrictive disposition to manage his risk. This is because he has stable housing and community supports in the community. Moreover, while he has been readmitted to hospitals in the reporting year, neither the police, nor the hospital have had to exercise a Form 49 for his admission to hospital. As the Hospital Report emphasizes at page 109, “notwithstanding the many manic episodes, A. (F.A.A.) is cooperative with admissions to hospital and remains in hospital as a voluntary patient. In the past he has also brought himself to hospital voluntarily for admission at the Royal.” This is supported by Dr. Gojer’s testimony that A. (F.A.A.) sometimes shows up to Dr. Gojer’s office, unprompted, when he recognizes signs of decompensation in himself.

55. For the reasons above, the Panel agrees with the Hospital’s and Attorney General’s position that a conditional discharge is the least onerous and least restrictive disposition to manage the risk A. (F.A.A.) poses to the public safety. This is consistent with the duty to public safety, and A. (F.A.A.)’s mental condition. It also acknowledges the progress A. (F.A.A.) has made since his last disposition, notwithstanding his two hospital admissions in the reporting year.

56. A. (F.A.A.) is discharged subject to the following conditions: a. report to the person in charge of the facility or his or her designate, not less than once every two weeks; b. submit samples of his/her urine and/or breath to the person in charge of the facility for the purpose of analyzing whether the accused has ingested alcohol, drugs, or any other intoxicant (person in charge will be ordered to require the accused to submit samples of urine and/or breath); c. refrain from having in his possession any firearm, ammunition or other offensive weapons, or being in the company of any person possessing a firearm other than a peace officer; d. advise the person in charge or his/her designate, in advance, of any absence of 24 hours or more; e. notify, in writing, the person in charge of the facility or his/her designate and the Ontario Review Board 24 hours in advance of any change of existing address or telephone number; f. participate in the rehabilitation program created for him by the person in charge or his/her designate; g. Other – 672.91(1)(b) - return to hospital in the event of breach.

57. The Panel has considered the factors in section 672.54 of the Criminal Code, namely the protection of the public, which is the paramount consideration, A. (F.A.A.)’s mental condition, his reintegration into society and his other needs in coming to the unanimous finding that a conditional discharge on the terms and conditions described above is the necessary, appropriate, least onerous, and least restrictive disposition in all of the circumstances.

58. Given the Panel’s conclusion that A. (F.A.A.)’s conduct continues to pose a significant threat to public safety, currently, an absolute discharge is an inappropriate disposition.

DATED this 28th day of April 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.

Ms. R. L. Louis Legal Member

__________________

Office of the Registrar

Ontario Review Board

Footnotes

1. 1The Panel notes that the Hospital Report (p. 107) provides that A. (F.A.A.) tested positive for cocaine on admission to the hospital in June 2025, after found wandering the streets with his clothes off, yelling, and throwing items.
2. 2See footnote 1, above.
3. 3Winko v. British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute), 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 SCR 625.