Ontario Review Board
Re: Abdikarim Samanter
ORB File No: 8602
Hearing held on: Friday, April 17, 2026
Place of Hearing: Brockville Mental Health Centre
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Ms. M. Labrosse Members: Dr. R. Kunjukrishnan Dr. R. Cormier Ms. R. Louis Ms. K. Brisson
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Abdikarim Samanter Counsel: Mr. J. Morency
The person in charge of hospital: Representative: Dr. A. Corona
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. J. Masse
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated June 2, 2026)
Introduction
On August 2, 2024, the accused, Abdikarim Samanter, was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (“NCR”) on charges of mischief under $5000 (x2), utter threat, and breach of recognizance of bail, all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada.
Mr. Samanter is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board (“ORB”) dated April 25, 2025, which detains him at the Secure Forensic Unit of the Brockville Mental Health Centre – Member of the Royal Ottawa Health Care Group with privileges up to and including community living in 8 hour a day supervised accommodation approved by the person in charge.
On April 17, 2026, the ORB convened a hearing at the Brockville Mental Health Centre, hereinafter referred to as the hospital, to conduct the review of Mr. Samanter’s disposition pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Samanter attended his hearing and was represented by counsel, Mr. J. Morency. Mr. Morency could not attend the hearing in person at the scheduled hearing time due to another court matter and therefore attended virtually.
A hospital report dated April 7, 2026, was entered as Exhibit No. 1.
At the commencement of the hearing, the parties provided their preliminary without prejudice positions. The hospital recommended the maintenance of the current disposition on the same terms and conditions. Counsel for the Attorney General, Ms. Masse, advised that she supported the hospital recommendation. Counsel for Mr. Samanter, Mr. Morency, advised that his client was seeking an absolute discharge. At the conclusion of the hearing, the parties maintained these positions in closing submissions.
For the reasons set out below, the Board finds that Mr. Samanter continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the maintenance of the current detention order, on the same terms and conditions, remains necessary and appropriate and is the least onerous and least restrictive disposition to manage the ongoing risk to public safety.
Index Offences
- The details of the index offences are set out in the hospital report as follows:
“According to the crown brief synopsis:
On July 24, 2023 at approximately 6:12pm the accused Abdikarim Samanter was standing at the entrance of the Presse Cafe attached to Les Suites Hotel located at 130 Besserer Street in the City of Ottawa, attempting to enter the Hotel through a secure door by prying the two sliding doors open causing the doors to come off their track.
Security guard Rakesh Arnuachalam approached Samanter asking him to leave the property as Samanter was not a customer or guest at the hotel. Samanter refused to leave the premises, so Arunachalam called 9-1-1 to have him removed by police.
While Arnuachalam was communicating with 9-1-1 Samanter pushed past him and entered the hotel lobby. Samanter was removed from the property by Arnuachalam prior to police arrival.
On July 25, 2023 at approximately 7:30pm the accused Abdikarim Samanter entered Les Suites Hotel by following a guest in through the secure door. Samanter was approached by staff of Les Suites hotel and as he was not a customer or guest he was asked to leave. Samanter refused to leave the property and eventually left after 30 minutes.
On July 26, 2023 at approximately 3:50pm the accused Abdikarim Samanter entered Les Suites Hotel by following a guest in through the secure door. Samanter was approached by staff of Les Suites hotel and as he was not a customer or guest he was asked to leave. Samanter refused to leave the property and eventually left after 30 minutes.
On July 27, 2023 at approximately 4:00pm the accused Abdikarim Samanter entered Les Suites Hotel by entering the hotel through a secure door by prying the two sliding doors open causing the doors to come off their track. Samanter was in the Presse Cafe when he was approached by Les Suites Hotel staff who advised him that he was trespassing again and asked him to leave the property.
Samanter left the property, and then at approximately 5:00pm Samanter returned entering Les Suites Hotel by following a guest in through the secure door and sat in the Presse Cafe. Les Suites Staff members Abdikarim Samanter, and Pierre-Luc Losier were made aware of Samanter being on the property, the staff members had to move guests out of the Presse Cafe while they dealt with Samanter.
The Les Suites general manager Chris PIERCE was contacted to assist his staff in removing Samanter. As Samanter left the property, he blocked the guests of the hotel from using the doors and eventually left the property heading over to the Ottawa Mission where he was arrested by Ottawa Police.”
Background History
Mr. Samanter’s personal, legal and psychiatric history is set out in detail in the hospital report (Exhibit 1). Briefly summarized, Mr. Samanter is presently 43 years of age. According to available records, Mr. Samanter was born and raised in Somalia and came to Canada sometime between 2000-2005. Mr. Samanter's first language is Somali, but he speaks English fluently.
Mr. Samanter is on ODSP and reported being homeless since about 2018. He has also lived in rooming houses and at shelters and stayed at the Salvation Army Men's shelter for most of 2022. In 2023, Mr. Samanter was reported to be exhibiting more aggression at the shelter. He had fights with other residents and had reportedly attempted to stab a staff member in March 2023. He was subsequently barred from the Salvation Army. Mr. Samanter stayed at the Shepherds of Good Hope shelter for periods over the summer of 2023, with no reported incidents.
Criminal History
Mr. Samanter’s criminal record starts in 2010. He has had numerous charges of theft and theft under $5,000, causing a disturbance, assaults and failures to comply with recognizances or probation orders.
Mr. Samanter was charged with assault with a weapon, possession of a weapon, and theft under $5,000 and was previously found unfit to stand trial under the ORB. The charges appear to have been dismissed in March 2022, prior to Mr. Samanter’s discharge from the Brockville Mental Health Centre at the end of March 2022.
As set out in last year’s Reasons for Disposition, there appear to be charges stemming from breaches allegedly having occurred on April 29, 2024, and November 29, 2024, and for which Mr. Samanter was arrested on December 4, 2024. These were erroneously referred to in the description of the index offences, which they are not. It is not clear from the record before us what happened to these charges. It would be helpful if counsel could clarify this at Mr. Samanter’s next ORB hearing.
Psychiatric History
The hospital report contains the details of Mr. Samanter’s long history of mental health issues. His documented psychiatric history commences in 2010.
Briefly summarized, Mr. Samanter had a number of presentations to psychiatry at the Ottawa Hospital between 2010 and 2019, where he appeared with psychotic symptoms.
According to the records at the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre, Mr. Samanter had a five-day inpatient fitness assessment on May 24, 2019, which was detailed in a report completed by Dr. Strike on May 31, 2019. During this admission, he reported a previous episode of depression at the age of eighteen, and he was treated with oral medications for about two years with minimal benefit.
During the five-day fitness assessment, Mr. Samanter was described as mainly being disengaged and not responding to prompts by nursing staff. It was determined that he was selectively mute. He would also engage with some staff in a pleasant manner but then be demanding and quite vocal with other staff. He had to be placed on Intermittent Observation due to aggressive outbursts that were unpredictable in nature.
It was opined that Mr. Samanter had a psychotic illness, primarily a schizophreniform disorder, where he displayed a number of positive psychotic symptoms (i.e., paranoid thinking, bizarre and disorganized behaviour, disorganized thinking and speech, and catatonic symptoms that persisted in the absence of substances). He was found unfit to stand trial and a 60-day treatment order was made. He was started on a long-acting injectable antipsychotic, lnvega (Sustenna), which he tolerated well. Mr. Samanter eventually became more cooperative with interviews by the end of the sixty-day treatment order and was declared fit to stand trial.
Mr. Samanter was discharged with a diagnosis of schizophrenia, and it was strongly recommended that he remain on a long-acting injectable antipsychotic (“LAI”) through the medical clinic at the Ottawa Mission or through the General Forensic Consultation Clinic at the Royal. It was also suggested that he receive a case manager through the Canadian Mental Health Association (“CMHA”). It is not known whether indeed he was assigned a caseworker and for what duration he remained compliant with medication, if at all.
Mr. Samanter’s current diagnoses are:
Schizophrenia
Alcohol Use Disorder, Moderate
Evidence at the Hearing
The hospital’s evidence was presented through its report as well as through the oral testimony of Dr. A. Corona, who has recently taken over Mr. Samanter’s care from Dr. S. Gulati. This evidence is summarized below.
Dr. Corona advised that there were no material updates since the completion of the hospital report. Mr. Samanter continues to present with persistent negative symptoms of schizophrenia. Though his use of privileges has been improving, he did not exercise his privileges during the winter as he complained that it was too cold outside.
Mr. Samanter has poor insight into his major mental illness and the need to take medication to treat the symptoms. He voluntarily takes medication but does not believe that it helps him. Because Mr. Samanter agrees to take medication his capacity has not been formally assessed. According to Dr. Corona, if he refused to take treatment, he would likely be assessed and found incapable to consent to treatment due to his lack of insight.
Mr. Samanter is currently on B-3 South Unit of the hospital. His current privileges include hospital grounds, access accompanied, hospital grounds access indirectly supervised, community access accompanied, and community access indirectly supervised. As indicated, his use of privileges has been limited due to cold weather.
According to Dr. Corona, Mr. Samanter has not presented any significant management problems. Nursing staff indicate that he can perform his activities of daily living independently, without prompting, and that he mostly follows unit rules and regulations, but occasionally requires re-directing. He is compliant with medication administration and provides urine samples for drug screens.
As stated in the hospital report, Mr. Samanter occasionally has difficulty responding to direction by nursing staff. At times, he has been observed responding to internal stimulation and expressing some persistent delusional beliefs.
Mr. Samanter does not have any known personal or familial supports in the community and refuses to discuss this with the treatment team.
In response to questions posed to him by counsel for the Attorney General, Ms. Masse, Dr. Corona responded as followed:
(a) Mr. Samanter remains at risk of serious physical violence, but this risk is well managed with the current level of supervision and oversight.
(b) If Mr. Samanter is granted an absolute discharge, he will likely not continue with treatment as he does not see the benefit and does not acknowledge that he suffers from a major mental illness. In these circumstances, he would most certainly deteriorate, become psychotic, leading to further aggressive and violent behaviour, as has been the case in the past when he was untreated.
(c) It is unclear whether Mr. Samanter would be seeking to return to Ottawa and whether he remains fixated with the hotel Les Suites where he continues to be prohibited from attending because of the index offences.
(d) Dr. Corona believes that Mr. Samanter would deteriorate within a matter of several weeks as he is on an LAI, and his symptoms would progressively worsen.
(e) The treatment team does not recommend a conditional discharge as Mr. Samanter’s risk cannot be adequately managed under the Mental Health Act.
(f) Dr. Corona acknowledged that in last year’s Reasons for Disposition, at paragraph 23, it is stated that the hospital would have an updated CT scan or neuropsychological assessment; however, this has not yet been done.
(g) Dr. Corona believes that it is possible that Mr. Samanter could be discharged to community living over the course of the next 12 months if he continues to work with the treatment team. The hospital would likely start with 24-hour supervised accommodation and then transition to 8-hour supervised accommodation.
- In response to questions posed to him by counsel for Mr. Samanter, Mr. Morency, Dr. Corona testified as follows:
(a) There have been no incidents of violence or serious aggression in the past 12 months.
(b) Mr. Samanter’s risk assessment is based on his historical risk factors, his lack of insight and future management problems.
(c) In Dr. Corona’s opinion, lack of insight contributes to Mr. Samanter’s risk as he would inevitably become non-compliant with treatment without supervision.
(d) Mr. Samanter continues to consent to taking treatment. Though his positive symptoms are mostly treated, he has prominent negative symptoms leading to a lack of motivation and engagement. The hospital is utilizing behavioural therapy to work on Mr. Samanter’s motivation.
(e) The hospital has not yet decided on any additional treatment. Clozapine could be an option in the future as it could help with the negative symptoms and lack of insight.
(f) Mr. Samanter’s negative symptoms and lack of insight are active risk factors. As he is not easily engaged, the hospital has limited opportunities to observe his functioning to determine how best to manage his risk in the community. Once Mr. Samanter has been fully functionally assessed, the hospital will have a better understanding of his readiness for community living and what is required to manage the risk. This requires him to become more involved in the process.
(g) Dr. Corona believes that the detention order currently provides the necessary privileges for Mr. Samanter to be ready for and to be discharged to the community in the coming year.
(h) Mr. Samanter receives his LAI Invega every three weeks. If Mr. Samanter was in the community, he would have to attend the hospital at least once every three weeks to receive his injection; however, the treatment team would want to see him more frequently.
- In response to questions posed to him by members of the hearing panel, Dr. Corona testified as follows:
(a) Clozapine could be an option to attempt to more optimally treat Mr. Samanter. The fact that Mr. Samanter is diabetic is an issue, as he would require close monitoring. This treatment option could lead to better engagement and possibly improved insight.
(b) Dr. Corona acknowledged that Dr. Gulati, who was Mr. Samanter’s attending psychiatrist at the time of his last Board hearing, had recommended a neuropsychological assessment and that this has not been done. Dr. Corona believes that Mr. Samanter’s cognitive level is likely a function of his illness and is not aware that there are any other issues at play at this point.
(c) The plan for the next year is to move Mr. Samanter to unit B-3 North and start discharge planning to determine the best community placement for him.
(d) Dr. Corona would not object to having a condition in the detention order that provides simply for supervised accommodation instead of 8-hour supervised accommodation.
(e) Prior to the index offences, Mr. Samanter was living on the street. If he were discharged today, he may very well end up on the street again as he has nowhere else to go.
(f) Dr. Corona believes that Mr. Samanter’s adherence to treatment is likely a behavioural response and that he has determined that it is best to comply with medication though he does not believe that it is necessary. Dr. Corona has not specifically asked Mr. Samanter why he accepts to take treatment.
(g) Dr. Corona confirmed that there are at least a couple of homes in the Brockville area that are 8-hour supervised group homes.
- No other evidence was presented.
Closing Submissions
The hospital maintained its preliminary position that Mr. Samanter continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the maintenance of the current disposition is necessary and appropriate and least onerous and least restrictive in the circumstances. Counsel for the Attorney General, Ms. Masse, indicated her agreement with the hospital recommendation.
Counsel for Mr. Samanter, Mr. Morency, submitted that his client does not meet the significant threat to the safety of the public threshold and should be granted an absolute discharge. The evidence must positively and conclusively support the finding of significant threat to the safety of the public. Given the recent improvements in Mr. Samanter’s condition and his willingness to engage with the treatment team by adapting to his environment, the Board must consider whether the threshold continues to be met and whether it is necessary to continue to keep Mr. Samanter in hospital. There has been no recent violence. It would be speculative to conclude that Mr. Samanter would necessarily become violent in the community. Finally, Mr. Morency encouraged the Board to consider granting Mr. Samanter greater privileges and to do whatever can be done to move him towards greater liberty.
Analysis and Conclusion
Having considered all of the evidence tendered at the hearing, and the submissions of the parties, the Board does find that Mr. Samanter 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 Mr. Samanter continues to meet the threshold for significant threat to the safety of the public is based on the evidence of a long history of major mental illness, non-compliance with treatment and criminal offending when untreated and symptomatic. Mr. Samanter has not consistently engaged in mental health treatment unless he has been required to do so by the Court or by the ORB. He has very poor insight into his major mental illness and does not believe that he needs any treatment.
Mr. Samanter’s illness has responded to treatment, but he continues to exhibit prominent negative symptoms, which affect his progress towards community discharge. It remains unclear whether there is anything else going on that may be impacting his cognition and general motivation. The hospital had planned to complete neuropsychological testing. It would be important for this to be done to have a better understanding of Mr. Samanter’s neuropsychological state and to be able to rule out other issues that may be impacting him.
Mr. Samanter’s current medications appear to be treating his psychosis. The hospital is considering treatment with Clozapine which could be worthwhile to target the negative symptoms and lack of insight, though this must be balanced against the potential complications related to Mr. Samanter’s diabetes.
Very little is known about any family or friends in the community due to Mr. Samanter not wanting to share information. It would be important to develop greater supports, both personal and professional, for Mr. Samanter to successfully transition to the community.
Discharge to the community, along with a neuropsychological assessment and possible optimization of treatment are reasonable objectives for the next year. We agree with the submission of the hospital that the current disposition allows for the hospital and Mr. Samanter to work on meeting those objectives, and we wish Mr. Samanter success in that regard.
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 detention order on the same terms and conditions remains necessary and appropriate and least onerous and least restrictive disposition in all of the circumstances.
DATED this 2nd day of June, 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.
Ms. M. Labrosse Alternate Chairperson
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board