Ontario Review Board
Re: B. (H.)
ORB File No: 8135
Hearing held on: Monday, March 30, 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. R. Louis
Ms. B. Naegele
Parties Appearing:
Accused: B. (H.) Counsel: Ms. M. Munsterman
Person in charge of hospital: Representative Dr. A. Sandhu
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 May 4, 2026)
Introduction
On August 31, 2022, the accused, B. (H.), was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (“NCR”) on charges of indecent act under the Criminal Code of Canada.
B. (H.) is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board (“ORB”) dated March 11, 2025, which detains him at the Secure Forensic Unit of the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre with privileges up to and including to live in the community of Ottawa, Ontario or Gatineau, Quebec, in accommodation approved by the person in charge.
On March 30, 2026, the Ontario Review Board convened a hearing at the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre, hereinafter referred to as “The Royal” or “the hospital” to conduct the annual review of B. (H.)’s disposition pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. B. (H.) attended the hearing and was represented by counsel, Ms. Marni Munsterman. A Hospital Report dated March 12, 2026 was entered as Exhibit No. 1 for the hearing.
The issues for this hearing are whether B. (H.) continues to meet the threshold of significant threat to the safety of the public and, if so, to determine the disposition that is necessary and appropriate in the circumstances.
At the commencement of the hearing, the parties provided their preliminary without prejudice positions for the hearing at which time the hospital indicated that though B. (H.) continues to meet the threshold of significant threat to the safety of the public, the risk can now be adequately managed with the conditional discharge.
Counsel for the Attorney General, Ms. Dufort, stated that she concurred that the significant risk threshold continued to be met but was reserving her position on the necessary and appropriate disposition pending the hearing of the evidence.
Counsel for B. (H.), Ms. Munsterman, indicated that she would likely support the hospital recommendation for a conditional discharge.
In closing submissions, the Board was presented with a joint position of all parties that B. (H.) continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public but that a conditional discharge is now adequate to manage the risk.
For the reasons set out below, the Board finds that B. (H.) continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public. We also find that the risk can be managed with a conditional discharge, the conditions of which shall be outlined in the Analysis and Conclusion section of these Reasons.
Index Offences
- The details of the index offences are summarized in last year’s Reasons for Disposition as follows:
A hospital report of February 16, 2024, was filed as Exhibit 1 to this hearing. It contains a description of the index offences occurring on nine dates between March 10, 2021, and August 15, 2021, when the accused exposed his genitals publicly and to a number of individual females. On some days he exposed himself at more than one location. One victim was a female that he had been dating between 2015 and 2016. Since that relationship ended, she had complained of harassment by B. (H.) and a charge of criminal harassment was made by her to which the accused pleaded guilty on August 31st, 2022. Except for her, all of M. B. (H.)’s victims were strangers to him.”
Background History
The details of B. (H.)’s personal, legal, and psychiatric background, are set out in the Hospital Report. Briefly summarized, B. (H.) is 32 years of age and was born in Turkey to a family of Kurdish background. He came to Canada as an infant with his family. He completed his high school education and went on to college and started a welding program. The family reports noticing his concern about people watching him from a relatively young age.
When he was about 21 years of age, he began a romantic relationship with one of the victims of his index offence. This lasted for about one year.
B. (H.) began using cannabis at the age of 20. He claimed that he only used it once a month and was rarely using it at the time of his index offences. He also reported rarely drinking alcohol. B. (H.)’s mother contradicts her son’s report about cannabis use, stating that he was smoking up to 20 to 30 joints of cannabis a day.
In July 2020, B. (H.) was brought to the Ottawa Hospital, General Campus. His parents described bizarre behaviour such as screaming alone in his room, being religiously preoccupied, expressing paranoia regarding several institutions, finding him naked in their living room, and shaving his head and eyebrows.
B. (H.) was admitted voluntarily and was declared incapable of making treatment decisions and his mother became his substitute decision-maker. In hospital, he was seen responding to internal stimuli and exhibiting threatening and agitated behaviour. He was diagnosed with schizophrenia and prescribed the antipsychotic Abilify and discharged to his parents’ home.
On December 7, 2020, an incident occurred at his mosque resulting in a court prohibition from carrying a firearm. It’s reported that he smeared blood on the mosque walls and threatened to kill arresting officers if they did not read the Bible.
In September of 2021, he was brought by police to hospital following reports from his parents that he was threatening to kill them with a knife and that he would set their house on fire. It was noted that he had stopped taking his Abilify medication. He was treated at the Pierre-Janet Hospital between September 2021 and March 2022. When discharged from there, he began receiving Risperidone injections every two weeks and his mental condition stabilized.
B. (H.) was arrested on November 2, 2022, for breaching the terms of judicial release relating to three outstanding charges in Aylmer, Quebec. Those incidents were similar to the index offences and were prosecuted in the Province of Quebec.
B. (H.) reported no history of legal issues prior to his current alleged offences. He has no criminal record according to CPIC.
B. (H.)’s current diagnoses are:
Treatment resistance schizophrenia, multiple episodes, in partial remission
Cannabis use disorder, in early remission.
Evidence at the Hearing
The hospital’s evidence was presented through its report as well as through the oral testimony of Dr. A. Sandhu who has been B. (H.)’s attending psychiatrist since he was found NCR. This evidence is summarized below.
Dr. Sandhu noted that B. (H.) has been on a very positive trajectory since being under the Board.
B. (H.) continues to reside in Aylmer, Quebec with his family. He was receiving services from an Intensive Treatment Team in Quebec, but this has been discontinued given his current level of stability. His Quebec psychiatrist, Dr. Moulia-Pelat, advised Dr. Sandhu that as part of a step down of care, B. (H.) will be referred to a mental health nursing clinic.
B. (H.) was meeting his case manager from the Forensic Program of the Royal, Ms. Jaroudi, in the community on a bi-weekly basis. In May of 2025, B. (H.) transitioned to a new case manager and because of his continued progress and the maintenance of his stability case management was discontinued. B. (H.)’s treatment team has been consolidated to include Dr. Sandhu and Ms. Farah, the forensic nurse and point person on the treatment team.
B. (H.) has been compliant with medication, and he is currently receiving a long-acting injectable (“LAI”) Abilify once every four weeks and he is also taking Clozapine on a daily basis. Because he lives in Quebec, B. (H.) is required to pay out of pocket, to some extent, for these medications and the hospital is currently looking into the possibility of changing the LAI to a bi-monthly formulation which could be more cost-effective. Dr. Sandhu confirmed that this discussion has only just been started and that it will be further explored by the hospital in consultation with B. (H.).
With respect to use of substances, B. (H.) has been submitting to regular random urine drug screens and his last positive test for cannabis was in April of 2025. B. (H.) is demonstrating better insight into the need to abstain from cannabis and the potential impact on his mental stability. Dr. Sandhu confirmed that both the desire to comply with his disposition and the expectations of his family, are assisting him in maintaining his abstinence.
The hospital maintains communications with B. (H.)’s family though his mother who had been very present until recently experiencing health issues which have prevented her from maintaining the same level of involvement. Dr. Sandhu explained that B. (H.)’s family is very close. With his increased stability, B. (H.) has been able to assist his mother by taking her to some medical appointments.
B. (H.) is working regularly at his father’s pizzeria, and this has been positive for him. Over the course of the next year, the treatment plan is to support B. (H.) in securing employment which could extend beyond working in the family restaurant. B. (H.) has previously worked in welding and has expressed a wish to retrain to work in that field.
The treatment plan also includes a decrease in B. (H.)’s attendance at the hospital for programming as part of a stepdown of follow-up. B. (H.) has been attending the 10:00 o’clock group at the hospital on a weekly basis and Dr. Sandhu anticipates that this could be reduced to once every two weeks.
In addition, B. (H.) is seen at the hospital for his appointments with Dr. Sandhu and also when he attends the hospital for his injection and random urine drug screens. Though he is seen at a much higher frequency, Dr. Sandhu is recommending that the reporting frequency be reduced in the disposition to not less than once every four weeks.
In response to questions posed to him by counsel for the Attorney General, Ms. Dufort, Dr. Sandhu testified as follows:
(a) In the spring of 2025, after his last ORB hearing, B. (H.) indicated a wish to test the effect of cannabis on the cognitive symptoms of his illness, to see if they would worsen. B. (H.) wanted to challenge the assumption that the symptoms of his illness would worsen with the consumption of cannabis. Though Dr. Sandhu appreciates that B. (H.) is forthcoming with the treatment team about this, the hospital continued to advocate for total abstention.
(b) Dr. Sandhu agrees that it is helpful for the treatment team to continue to maintain contact with B. (H.)’s family.
(c) There is no expectation at this time that B. (H.) would seek to move out of his parents’ residence. Living with his family has been very positive for him and he has not expressed any wish to live elsewhere, though he does occasionally spend time at his siblings’ homes.
(d) Dr. Sandhu was asked whether it would be prudent to have a residence specification in the conditional discharge to which he agreed.
(e) In addition to having access to a mental health nurse if needed in Quebec, B. (H.) also has a family doctor. Dr. Sandhu stated that B. (H.)’s mental health services have now been consolidated and are taking place at the Royal.
(f) Dr. Sandhu confirmed that if B. (H.) became unwell, he would likely cooperate with the request to come to the hospital and be admitted if necessary. In the event this did not happen, the forensic treatment team could resume case management which includes social workers that are licenced to practice both in Ontario and Quebec.
- In response to questions posed to him by counsel for B. (H.), Ms. Munsterman, Dr. Sandhu stated as follows:
(a) Dr. Sandhu confirmed his recommendation to specify B. (H.)’s address in the disposition reiterating that he does not anticipate a move over the course of the next year and confirming that the hospital maintains good communication with the family.
(b) With respect to ongoing symptoms, Dr. Sandhu believes that B. (H.) still experiences some negative symptoms of schizophrenia, but that overall he has been better able to discuss what he refers to as the “special powers” that he was experiencing at the time of the index offences when he was more symptomatic. He also has better emotional affect and a better ability to engage socially as demonstrated over the past year.
(c) Dr. Sandhu agreed that B. (H.) is both internally and externally motivated to abstain from cannabis. The next year will be quite important determining if he maintains that motivation with reduced oversight from the treatment team.
(d) Dr. Sandhu confirmed that B. (H.) has freely given consent for the treatment team to continue to have communications with the family, which is done mostly through the forensic nurse, Ms. Farah.
- In response to questions posed to him by members of the hearing panel, Dr. Sandhu responded as follows:
(a) Despite some ongoing negative symptoms, the positive symptoms of schizophrenia have resolved over the course of the past year and that this explains Dr. Sandhu’s current diagnosis of treatment-resistant schizophrenia, multiple episodes, in partial remission.
(b) In view of B. (H.)’s compliance with treatment since he has been under a Board disposition, Dr. Sandhu is not recommending the inclusion of a consent to treatment provision under s. 672.55(1) of the Criminal Code, as he feels it is better to test B. (H.)’s commitment to taking treatment in the long term over the next year as the oversight diminishes.
(c) With respect to hospital programming, B. (H.)’s attendance at the 10:00 o’clock Club, which provides the hospital with a good opportunity to monitor him, will likely be reduced to once every two weeks. Dr. Sandhu also confirmed that B. (H.) had graduated from the Concurrent Disorders Program of the hospital and then increased his work hours at the Pizzeria.
(d) Dr. Sandhu confirmed a diagnosis of treatment-resistant schizophrenia that has responded well to medication in the past year. There have been no reports of any behaviours similar to those exhibited at the time of the index offences.
(e) Dr. Sandhu believes that an abstention clause continues to be required as part of the disposition. He has explained to B. (H.) that the issue of cannabis is akin to an allergy, and that he should therefore abstain completely from it. Dr. Sandhu confirmed that B. (H.) continues to be tested monthly.
(f) In addition to the likelihood that B. (H.) would cooperate with any request to attend hospital or to be admitted to hospital in the event of decompensation, Dr. Sandhu is confident that the hospital will have at its disposal several different ways in which it can bring B. (H.) back into hospital should he decompensate. These include the provisions of the Mental Health Act and the fact that members of the treatment team would be qualified to work with people in Ontario and Quebec. The disposition should also contain a condition that B. (H.) be brought to hospital in the event of any breach of conditions.
(g) In the opinion of Dr. Sandhu, it is not necessary to include a clause that would require B. (H.) to attend hospital if needed.
- No further evidence was presented.
Analysis and Conclusion
Having considered all of the evidence tendered at the hearing, and the joint submission of the parties, the Board does find that B. (H.) continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public as defined in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code of Canada and as further defined in the Supreme Court of Canada decision Winko v. British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute), 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625.
According to R. v. Winko, a significant threat to the safety of the public means a real risk of physical or psychological harm to members of the public that is serious in the sense of going beyond the merely trivial or annoying. The conduct giving rise to the harm must be criminal in nature.
Our finding that B. (H.) continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public is based on his diagnosis of treatment-resistant schizophrenia, compounded by a cannabis use disorder, which when inadequately treated, have caused B. (H.) to act out violently while experiencing psychosis, leading to charges for criminal offences committed in both Quebec and Ontario.
B. (H.) has responded well to treatment and appears engaged in his rehabilitation but is just now starting to assume more independence from very structured supervision and oversight from his forensic treatment team since his NCR finding.
B. (H.)’s current trajectory is very positive. He has abstained from cannabis use for almost one year but continues to be externally motivated to do so by his disposition and the wishes of his family. The goal is for that motivation to be internally driven.
Though the positive symptoms of his schizophrenia have responded to treatment, he has some ongoing negative symptoms.
The hospital plans to reduce its oversight over the course of the next year, including a proposed reduced reporting frequency. This will test B. (H.)’s internal motivation to maintain his stability.
B. (H.) is very well supported by his family, with whom he lives and works. He hopes to look at other employment opportunities and generally maintains pro-social goals. These are strong protective factors for him.
We agree with the joint submission of the parties that a conditional discharge is now adequate to manage the risk. The evidence persuades us that the hospital would have at its disposal several options to re-admit B. (H.), should he experience a decompensation.
We have taken into consideration the factors at s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code of Canada, namely the protection of the public, which is the paramount consideration, the mental condition of the accused, his reintegration into society and his other needs in coming to the unanimous finding that a conditional discharge is the necessary and appropriate and least onerous and least restrictive disposition in all of the circumstances, which shall include the following conditions.
i) To reside at 24 rue de Cherbourg, Gatineau, Quebec
ii) To report not less than once every four weeks
iii) To abstain from drugs and other intoxicants and submit to random testing
iv) A weapons prohibition
v) non-contact provision with victim of index offences.
vi) Reporting of any absence from his residence of 24 hours or more
- We congratulate B. (H.) on a very positive year and hope that he will maintain this progress over the next year.
DATED this 4th day of May 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Ms. M. Labrosse
Alternate Chairperson
__________________
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board