Ontario Review Board
Re: Abokar Ahmed Ali
ORB File No: 6749
Hearing held on: Wednesday, May 6, 2026
Place of hearing: Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences 700 Gordon Street, Whitby
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. J. Weinstein Members: Dr. S. Chatterjee Dr. M. Green Hon. A. Sosna Mr. A. Mete
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Abokar Ahmed Ali Counsel: Mr. T. Whillier
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. J. Szabo
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. N. MacDonald
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated May 26, 2026)
Introduction:
On April 28, 2015, Mr. Abokar Ahmed Ali was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, on charges of theft exceeding $5000, criminal negligence causing death, dangerous operation of a motor vehicle and failure to stop at the scene of an accident, all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (the “Criminal Code”).
Mr. Ahmed Ali is subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the “Board”) dated May 5, 2025, which ordered that he be detained at the Forensic Program of Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences (“Ontario Shores”).
On May 6, 2026, the Board convened a hearing at Ontario Shores to conduct the annual review of the current Disposition.
Mr. Ahmed Ali was present at the hearing and was represented by his counsel, Mr. T. Whillier.
A Hospital Report, dated April 14, 2026 (the "Hospital Report"), was entered as Exhibit 1.
The issues at this hearing were whether Mr. Ahmed Ali is a significant threat to public safety, as defined in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code, and, if so, the necessary and appropriate Disposition in the circumstances, bearing in mind the factors enunciated in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
For the reasons set out below and based on the expert evidence and opinions before it, the Board concluded that Mr. Ahmed Ali continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public. The Board ordered that the necessary and appropriate Disposition in the circumstances is a continuation of the existing Detention Order.
Current Psychiatric Diagnoses:
- Schizophrenia (treatment resistant)
Index Offences:
- The circumstances giving rise to the Index Offences are extracted from last year’s Board Reasons, as follows:
“On August 19, 2013, Mr. Ahmed Ali hired a taxi to pick him up at a bus terminal. His instructions to the taxi driver changed as the vehicle proceeded, which caused the taxi driver concern about the legitimacy of the fare. The taxi driver pulled over and Mr. Ahmed Ali exited the taxi. When the taxi driver also exited, Mr. Ahmed Ali ran to the driver’s side of the taxi, got into the driver’s seat and drove the taxi westbound on Dixon Road, Toronto. He entered southbound onto Weston Road at a high rate of speed and collided with a stopped TTC bus. The bus driver called the police. Mr. Ahmed Ali left the scene of the accident and drove at a high rate of speed on Royal York Road where he entered the intersection of Westway/Lawrence Avenue West. He drove through the red light at the intersection and collided with two vehicles causing death of the driver of one vehicle and injuries to the occupant of the same vehicle. The occupant of another vehicle was also injured in the crash. Mr. Ahmed Ali ran from the scene of the collision and was later found by police and arrested.”
Background and History:
- Mr. Ahmed Ali's background and history are outlined in the Hospital Report, and they are accurately summarized in last year’s Reasons:
“Mr. Ahmed Ali has no history of criminal convictions prior to the index offences.
Mr. Ahmed Ali’s psychiatric history prior to the index offences includes an admission to Trent University Wellness Centre when he was 21 years of age. He was reported to have a convincing history of attention deficit disorder with depressive symptoms that are transitory.
Mr. Ahmed Ali attended Trent University where he completed two years of a biochemistry course. He stopped his studies, attributing it to suffering from Attention Deficit Disorder.
Mr. Ahmed Ali says he uses substances. However, when asked about alcohol use, he stated, “Only the day of the accident.”
Mr. Ahmed Ali reported that he hasn’t worked since December 2012.
Mr. Ahmed Ali has continued to reside on Forensic Assessment and Rehabilitation Unit (FARU), a Secure Forensic unit, since his last ORB hearing.
Mr. Ahmed Ali has remained calm, cooperative, and behaviorally stable throughout the reporting period. He consistently presents with a polite, though quiet and guarded, demeanor. Mr. Ahmed continues to suffer from prominent negative symptoms of treatment resistant schizophrenia. This include apathy, flat affect, amotivation, and anhedonia. Mr. Ahmed Ali spends the majority of his time listening to music and pacing within the unit. He has been encouraged to participate in off unit programming, however he has consistently declined to participate in any group or individual therapy. His social engagement remains minimal at best. He interacts briefly with peers and staff when necessary, he tolerates the presence of others within the shared space of the unit and is able to appropriately approach staff to have his needs met. There have been no incidents of intrusive behavior, nor any episodes of verbal, environmental, or physical aggression during this reporting period.”
Position of the Parties:
Counsel for the hospital and for the Attorney General were recommending a continuation of the existing Detention Order Disposition.
Counsel for Mr. Ahmed Ali advised that his client was requesting an Absolute Discharge as he felt he no longer met the threshold of being a significant threat to the safety of the public.
Evidence at the Hearing:
- The Board had available to it the evidence and documents forming the Record, the Exhibits, and oral evidence from Dr. Harrigan. Dr. Harrigan testified as follows:
a) Mr. Ahmed Ali continues to suffer from treatment-resistant schizophrenia, with persistent negative symptoms, such as apathy and amotivation. He also experiences ongoing positive symptoms, including auditory hallucinations and delusional beliefs involving the military and his family coming to discharge him.
b) He has no insight into his mental illness or his need for medications, and his interactions remain superficial, making it very difficult to assess his risk.
c) Although a psychologist has now been assigned to complete a cognitive assessment, Mr. Ahmed Ali refused to participate twice. He only recently agreed after significant encouragement to participate.
d) The treatment team hopes that this assessment will clarify cognitive deficits and inform whether Mr. Ahmed Ali could eventually be managed with indirectly supervised privileges, which he does not currently have. His progress remains slow, and he requires staff encouragement to attend programming or to use privileges.
e) There is no air of reality to community living, as Mr. Ahmed Ali has not yet met the basic milestones required even for transfer to a General Forensic Unit. He is content on a Secure Forensic Unit. When told that the cognitive assessment might help him progress towards community integration, he described that as a deterrent, demonstrating no personal motivation to move forward within the forensic system.
f) The Index Offences were extremely serious, involving the death of one victim and serious injuries to another. The Index Offences appeared impulsive, unpredictable, and directly linked to his untreated psychosis.
g) Mr. Ahmed Ali continues to experience residual psychotic symptoms and has no insight into his illness, his symptoms, or the circumstances of the Index Offences. He has very limited social supports, relies entirely on the clinical team for medication supervision, and requires oversight to ensure adherence with clozapine blood work.
h) If Mr. Ahmed Ali were granted an Absolute Discharge, he would very likely leave hospital, and it is unknown where he would live.
i) There are significant concerns that Mr. Ahmed Ali would stop taking his medications, should he be granted an Absolute Discharge, increasing his risk to public safety. The fact that all of his medications are oral, and that he has no insight into their necessity, would increase the likelihood of him becoming non-adherent.
j) If he stopped adhering to his medication regimen, Mr. Ahmed Ali would be at risk of rapid decompensation, leading to the return of paranoid delusions, hallucinations, disorganization, and impulsivity. He would have no insight into this deterioration and would not seek help, creating a very high risk of impulsive behaviour that would endanger public safety.
k) The absence of recent violence does not reduce the underlying risk because of his lack of insight, ongoing symptoms and the seriousness, and unpredictability, of the Index Offence.
- In response to questions from counsel for the Attorney General, Dr. Harrigan testified:
a) The hospital’s current plan is to begin with indirectly supervised privileges on hospital grounds. Once the team has a clear understanding of Mr. Ahmed Ali’s cognitive function, and ability to manage greater independence, they will proceed with further passes.
b) Mr. Ahmed Ali has not yet demonstrated the insight, stability or functional capacity required even for transfer to a General Forensic Unit. He has not identified where he would live, whether he would live with anyone else, or how he would meet his basic daily needs, should he be granted an Absolute Discharge.
c) At the time of the Index Offences, Mr. Ahmed Ali was already struggling with day-to-day functioning, and there is no evidence that he has developed the skills required for independent living since then.
d) Mr. Ahmed Ali continues to require medication supervision and staff reminders, even within the secure forensic environment.
e) It is a significant concern that Mr. Ahmed Ali would not have the ability to seek out resources independently, including medication management, housing or community supports, if he were to be absolutely discharged .
f) Should Mr. Ahmed Ali stop his medication regimen, which is highly likely in the absence of supervision, he would be at risk of rapid decompensation. This decomposition would occur within days to a week, and it would result in a return of paranoid delusions, auditory hallucinations, disorganization, and impulsivity. In this state, he would be at high risk of acting out in ways similar to the circumstances of the Index Offences, as he was in a similar psychotic state at that time.
- In response to questions from counsel for Mr. Ahmed Ali, Dr. Harrigan testified:
a) Mr. Ahmed Ali attended one group program, Navigating the ORB System, and although he was quiet, he appeared attentive and able to take in information.
b) Mr. Ahmed Ali has not developed any meaningful insight into his mental illness, his symptoms, or his need for medication.
c) Mr. Ahmed Ali does not understand why he requires treatment, which makes it likely that he would not continue taking medication if he were no longer subject to a Board Disposition.
d) Mr. Ahmed Ali would also not continue with psychiatric follow up in the community if he were absolutely discharged.
e) There have been no aggressive, or sexually intrusive, behaviours in the past two years.
f) Mr. Ahmed Ali had no criminal history prior to the Index Offences.
g) Mr. Ahmed Ali was unmedicated and delusional at the time of the Index Offences.
h) Although Mr. Ahmed Ali’s delusional beliefs have softened with treatment, they remain present, particularly beliefs about his family coming to discharge him or being required to join the military. These beliefs previously led to exit-seeking behaviour, including packing his belongings in anticipation of leaving the unit.
i) Mr. Ahmed Ali is not optimally treated, but the team must be cautious with medication adjustments because of his seizure history. His current medication regimen keeps him behaviourally stable, and his residual symptoms do not grossly interfere with unit functioning, but further progress requires better understanding of his cognitive deficits.
j) Mr. Ahmed Ali has never identified where he would live after discharge, and she is concerned about his ability to secure housing or meet basic needs.
k) Despite repeated explanations, Mr. Ahmed Ali has limited understanding of the ORB process, the steps required to move to a General Forensic Unit, or the criteria for an Absolute Discharge.
l) Mr. Ahmed Ali lacks insight, lacks functional capacity for independent living, would not maintain treatment if discharged, and would rapidly decompensate; these factors collectively sustain her opinion that he is a significant and ongoing threat to public safety.
- In response to questions from the panel, Dr. Harrigan testified:
a) If Mr. Ahmed Ali were granted an Absolute Discharge, there would be a real, significant risk of serious harm. This risk is not speculative or theoretical.
b) She would describe the risk as great.
c) The type of harm anticipated is one of a serious criminal nature consistent with the circumstances of the Index Offences, which were impulsive, unpredictable, and directly linked to Mr. Ahmed Ali’s untreated psychosis. The risk of similar behaviour re-emerging is realistic and foreseeable if he were absolutely discharged and not adherent to his medication.
d) The absence of violent incidents in the past year does not diminish the underlying risk. Mr. Ahmed Ali's current stability is entirely dependent on the highly structured and forensic environment, continuous supervision, and enforced medication adherence.
e) Even without recent aggression, the potential for serious harm remains high because it is the protective structure that prevents Mr. Ahmed Ali’s deterioration, not internal insight or self-management.
f) Mr. Ahmed Ali’s lack of insight presents a risk across all domains, including his illness, symptoms, need for medication, and the circumstances of the Index Offence. This lack of insight means that he would not recognize early signs of relapse, would not voluntarily seek help, and would not maintain treatment.
g) Mr. Ahmed Ali has accompanied privileges; however, he uses them only with staff encouragement, and his progress to a greater independence remains minimal.
No other evidence was called.
Analysis and Conclusions:
Having heard and considered the entirety of the evidence, as well as the submissions from the parties, the Board finds that Mr. Ahmed Ali remains a significant threat to the safety of the public.
In Winko, the Supreme Court outlined that, in coming to the conclusion on the issue of significant risk, a Review Board should closely examine a range of evidence, including: the circumstances of the original offence; the past and expected course of the accused’s treatment; the present state of the NCR accused’s medical condition; the NCR accused’s own plans for the future; the support existing for the NCR accused in the community; and most importantly, the recommendations provided by experts who examined the NCR accused. In coming to our conclusion in this matter, the Board relies on the uncontroverted expert evidence of Dr. Harrigan, in addition to the documentary evidence before us.
Mr. Ahmed Ali continues to lack insight across all domains. This lack of insight connects to his risk to the safety of the public. He has no place to live, and no professional follow-up, in the community. Should he be absolutely discharged, there is a real, foreseeable risk that he would stop treatment and that he would engage in behaviour similar to that of the Index Offences. In particular, the Board relies on paragraph 16 of these Reasons as to why Mr. Ahmed Ali remains a significant threat to the public safety.
In particular, the Board relies on the Clinical Assessment of Risk set out in the Hospital Report:
“The following remain areas of clinical concern:
Mr. Ahmed Ali continues to suffer from treatment resistant symptoms of schizophrenia despite treatment with two antipsychotic medications, and one mood stabilizing medication, at therapeutic doses.
The Index Offences were serious and appeared to be impulsive and unpredictable, resulting in the death of one driver and injuries to another.
Symptoms that he continues to experience include prominent and persistent negative symptoms, as well as likely positive symptoms such as auditory hallucinations, that he is reluctant to disclose.
He largely continues to require prompting for clozapine blood work and medication adherence.
Mr. Ahmed Ali has declined to participate in individual or group programming that would address his risk factors, such as those related to insight.
He requires significant improvement and prompting to utilise his accompanied privileges.
Mr. Ahmed Ali’s impulsivity and AWOL risk, as well as his comprehension of rules and expectations should he receive more liberal privileges, is difficult to assess due to his guarded nature
Mr. Ahmed Ali has limited social supports
In Mr. Ahmed Ali’s favour:
There have been no incidents of physical, environmental, or verbal aggression.
Mr. Ahmed Ali has evidenced significantly more behavioural stability over this past year.
When he has used his accompanied hospital grounds and community privileges, they have gone without incident.
Mr. Ahmed Ali follows unit rules and staff direction without difficulty.
There have been no attempts to go AWOL on accompanied privileges.
There have been no incidents of suspected substance use.”
The doctor confirmed that there is currently no air of reality to the inclusion of community living in Mr. Ahmed Ali’s current Disposition, as such a Conditional Discharge is neither realistic nor appropriate. It is quite clear that the hospital would need to retain the authority to approve Mr. Ahmed Ali’s accommodation, to monitor his adherence to his medication regimen and his mental stability. Accordingly, a Conditional Discharge is unrealistic at this time.
In consideration of all the evidence, submissions of the parties and criteria set forth in s. 672.54, the paramount consideration being the safety of the public, in addition to the mental condition of Mr. Ahmed Ali, his reintegration into society and his other needs, the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a continuation of the existing Detention Order.
DATED this 26^th^ day of May 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.
Mr. J. Weinstein Alternate Chairperson Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board