Re: Seyed H. Zarrabian, 2026 CanLII 53893

Re: Seyed H. Zarrabian

ORB File No: 2682

Hearing held on: Tuesday, April 21, 2026

Place of hearing: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health

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

Before:

Alternate Chairperson: Mr. M.D. Segal

Members: Dr. T. Verny Dr. S. Wiseman Ms. A. Israel Mr. S. Doherty

Parties Appearing:

Accused: Seyed H. Zarrabian Counsel: Mr. A. Rai

The person in charge of hospital: Representative: Dr. P. Darby

Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. R. Weinberg

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated June 2, 2026)

Introduction

1On February 11, 1998, Mr. Zarrabian was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on a charge of assault, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (“Criminal Code”).

2Mr. Zarrabian is currently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the “Board”) dated April 29, 2025, which detains him at the Forensic Service of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto (“CAMH” or the “Hospital”), with privileges up to and including living within the city of Toronto in accommodation approved by the person in charge.

3On April 21, 2026, a hearing was convened at CAMH to review the Disposition pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Zarrabian was in attendance at his hearing and was represented by counsel.

4A Hospital Report dated March 27, 2026 (the “Hospital Report”), was entered into evidence as Exhibit 1.

5The issue at this hearing is whether Mr. Zarrabian is a significant threat to public safety, as defined in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code. If so, the necessary and appropriate disposition in the circumstances must be determined, bearing in mind the factors enunciated in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.

6At the outset of the hearing, the parties were canvassed as to their recommendations to the Board. Counsel for Mr. Zarrabian conceded significant threat for the purposes of the hearing. The Hospital recommended that Mr. Zarrabian’s existing detention disposition continue without changes. The position was supported by counsel for the Attorney General and for Mr. Zarrabian. The Board was therefore presented with a joint recommendation.

7For the reasons set out below and based on the expert evidence and opinions before it, the Board concluded that Mr. Zarrabian continues to present a significant threat to the safety of the public. The Board further ordered the continuation of the existing detention disposition without changes.

Current Psychiatric Diagnoses

8Schizophrenia;

Rule out Unspecified Neurocognitive Disorder;

Persistent Delirium due to multiple etiologies, resolved.

Background and Index Offence

9The details of the index offence are set out in last year's Reasons for Disposition as follows:

“…. on February 5, 1997, at approximately 1030 hours, Mr. Zarrabian was at the drop-in centre in downtown Guelph. Staff noted that his behaviour was somewhat “hyper” and agitated. Another male patron, the victim, got up from his table to put a cup in the sink. As he passed the accused, the accused turned and quickly became violent, kicking and flailing his arms at the victim. The accused grabbed the victim by the throat, but the victim was able to restrain the accused by holding him against the wall. Staff intervened and the accused was asked to leave.

Mr. Zarrabian reported that he assaulted the victim in “self-defence.” Mr. Zarrabian reported that the victim “grabbed me by the shirt, threw me on the ground and kicked me.” He denied that he had either provoked or been provoked by the victim prior to the incident. He indicated that he knew the victim but stated that the victim had never bothered him previously. He denied that he had ever hit anyone at the drop-in centre or that he had previously created any problems there. However, notes in the file indicated that while attending the drop-in centre Mr. Zarrabian was involved in several incidents during which he kicked, struck, or threw a chair at an individual.

According to Dr. Hector’s consultation of March 20, 1998, Sister Christine provided many examples of Mr. Zarrabian’s problematic behaviour. In particular, his behaviour towards children often alarmed staff to the extent that they would provide him money to go to a nearby donut shops so as to prevent his presence at the clinic. At the clinic, Mr. Zarrabian’s behaviour terrorized mothers and their children. Apparently, no one had ever informed the clinic of Mr. Zarrabian’s clinical diagnosis, which made it difficult for staff to understand Mr. Zarrabian’s aggressive embracing of children whom he identified as his own children, and his attempts to remove such children from their mothers."

10Mr. Zarrabian’s background is set out in detail in the Hospital Report so need not be repeated. Briefly summarized, he is presently 66 years of age. He has been subject to an Ontario Review Board Disposition since 1998. Mr. Zarrabian was born in Iran. He was married and had a daughter but has had no contact with either since 1992. Mr. Zarrabian is not capable with respect to treatment decisions. He remains in contact with his brother, who acts as his substitute decision maker.

Evidence at the Hearing

11The evidence at the hearing was comprised of the Hospital Report, as well as the testimony of Dr. Darby, Mr. Zarrabian’s psychiatrist.

12Dr. Darby testified that Mr. Zarrabian remains significantly psychotic and that his symptoms continue to govern his behaviour, including his unapproved trip to Ottawa in January.

13In his testimony, Dr. Darby noted that Mr. Zarrabian resides at St. Annes, a high support residence for seniors where he receives support including medication supervision. He identified two recent developments which, in his opinion, underscored the need for a detention order and a high level of supervision in the community:

a) a minor physical altercation at St. Anne's in which Mr. Zarrabian pushed another resident in a crowded elevator, in a setting with physically vulnerable residents; and

b) a forthcoming increase in rent at St. Anne's following Mr. Zarrabian turning age 65, which led to irritability and apparent difficulty understanding or accepting the change.

Dr. Darby clarified that the rent issue is not a question of ability to pay but of comprehension and acceptance, and he indicated that if the issue jeopardized his continued placement at St. Anne’s, the treatment team would have no alternative but to return him to the Hospital.

14In response to a question from counsel for Mr. Zarrabian, Dr. Darby confirmed that there had been no readmissions to the hospital since an overnight admission in November. Mr. Rai clarified that the admission was due to a bed bug infestation, not decompensation and Dr. Darby agreed adding that there has been no admission for decompensation since 2023-2024. Counsel also asked whether St. Anne's is considered permanent housing to which Dr. Darby confirmed that it is permanent.

15In response to a question from the panel regarding whether St. Anne's is a religiously run residence, Dr. Darby responded that St. Anne's is part of LOFT, a community agency with multiple placements, and it is not religious and therefore there is no issue with fit.

16In response to a question from the panel, Dr. Darby testified that Mr. Zarrabian had no insight that the trip to Ottawa was contrary to his Detention Order.

17In response to a question from the panel, Dr. Darby indicated that Mr. Zarrabian has been at St. Anne's for approximately three years. He has his own apartment; Dr. Darby has seen it, and it is kept reasonably well.

18Following questions from the panel, Mr. Rai indicated that Mr. Zarrabian would like to testify and provide evidence. Mr. Zarrabian testified that:

a) he would like to go and live with his wife and daughter rather than remaining in his current housing;

b) the rent is increasing and stated he would pay the increased amount;

c) if he did not pay the rent, he would have to “come back to the hospital” and questioned why a rent increase would lead to a hospital return;

d) he receives Old Age Security and that he understood that rent can rise with his increased pension income;

e) he is a doctor; he has a degree and wants to practice as a doctor in Canada in the future; and

f) he does not want to see doctors in the future while also noting he has a health card and making references to family doctor arrangements.

Final Submissions

19The parties maintained their joint recommendation.

Analysis and Conclusions

20Having heard and considered the entirety of the evidence as well as submissions from the parties, the Board agrees with the joint submission: Mr. Zarrabian remains a significant threat to the safety of the public.

21In 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 examine the NCR accused. In coming to our conclusion in this matter, the Board relies on the uncontroverted expert evidence of Dr. Darby, in addition to the documentary evidence before us.

22Mr. Zarrabian has a major mental illness, a history of violence, and has impaired insight into his illness and need for treatment. The re-offence scenario is described at page 50 of the Hospital Report:

“The following clinical factors most relevant Mr. Zarrabian include:

• History of violence towards adults and inappropriate touching of children influenced by delusional beliefs

• History of treatment refractory psychosis

• Impaired insight

• Difficulties in community when acting on his delusions

• Recent history of delirium, which caused rapid and significant derangements in his mental state and led to reckless behaviour such as standing in the middle of an intersection

• Neurocognitive disorder further impacting his insight and his ability to control his behaviour

• Limited participation in rehabilitative programming

• Limited supports and relationships – he is estranged from his daughter and ex-wife

If Mr. Zarrabian were to re-offend, this will likely transpire in the context of insufficient treatment and supervision. In such a scenario, he would likely exhibit increased physical aggression and/or engage in inappropriate behaviour such as touching children. His risk to re-offend would be raised further in the context of heightened psychosis and/or delirium.”

23In the view of the treatment team at page 52 of the Hospital Report:

“While subject to a Detention Order, Mr. Zarrabian has had a number of Restriction of Liberty admissions to hospital. Apart from an overnight stay, he has not been admitted during the last year.”

Given Mr. Zarrabian’s instability, the team does not believe Mr. Zarrabian’s risk can be managed under a conditional discharge.

Based on the rapidity of Mr. Zarrabian’s decompensation in the community, the need for expeditious admission to hospital, and the associated risk to others, a detention order continues to represent the least onerous and least restrictive disposition, taking into consideration his mental disorder and other needs, and the safety of the public.”

24In consideration of all the evidence, the submission of the parties, and the criteria set forth in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code, the paramount consideration being the safety of the public, in addition to the mental condition of Mr. Zarrabian, his reintegration into society and his other needs, we conclude that the necessary and appropriate disposition is to continue with the existing Detention Order disposition without change.

25The panel commended Mr. Zarrabian for attending his hearing this year and wished him well.