Ontario Review Board
Re:
ORB File No: Hearing held on: Place of hearing: Pursuant to: Before:
Alan H. Jusufovic 8290
Wednesday, February 25, 2026
Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care
Section 672.48(1) and 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Alt. Chairperson: Members
Parties Appearing:
Accused:
Person in charge of Hospital: Attorney General of Ontario:
Ms. L. Maunder Dr. P. Darby Dr. L. Lightfoot
Ms. M. Chamberlain
Mr. J. Cyr
Alan H. Jusufovic Counsel:
Amicus Curiae:
Counsel: Counsel:
Mr. C. Hynes Ms. M. Perez
Ms. J. Lefebvre Ms. S. Curry
*The information in paragraphs 11-22 is subject to the prohibitions on disclosure and publication set out in the Ontario Review Board's order dated March 2, 2026.
AMENDED REASONS ON MOTION TO WITHHOLD DISPOSITION INFORMATION AND REASONS FOR DISPOSITION - REDACTED
(Dated April 8, 2026)
Please see underlined changes to original reasons made June 10, 2026:
- On April 28, 2023, Alan H. Jusufovic was found unfit to stand trial on Criminal Code of Canada ("the Code'') charges of assault, utter threat, possession of stolen property, fail to comply (x3), and robbery (x2). Mr. Jusufovic has been detained at the High Secure Forensic Program at Waypoint Centre for Mental
Health Care (“Waypoint”) since then. At this annual review of Mr. Jusufovic’s disposition, the panel had to address a preliminary motion brought by Waypoint, decide whether Mr. Jusufovic remained unfit to stand trial, and decide the necessary and appropriate disposition.
The Motion to Withhold Disposition Information
In advance of the annual review of Mr. Jusufovic’s disposition, Waypoint filed a Notice of Motion seeking to withhold some disposition information from Mr. Jusufovic on the basis that disclosure of the information “would be likely to endanger the life or safety of another person or would seriously impair the treatment or recovery of Mr. Jusufovic” pursuant to s.672.51(3) of the Code. Waypoint also sought related orders (to exclude Mr. Jusufovic from the hearing and the hearing of the motion when the withheld information was discussed, to restrict access to the withheld information, and to prohibit publication of the withheld information) pursuant to several subsections of s.672.51(6, 7, 8, 11) and 672.5(10)(b) of the Code.
Several procedural issues that arose due to the nature of the motion were resolved over a series of Pre-Hearing Conferences, as follows:
Amicus curiae was appointed “to assist the Board” and “represent the liberty interest of the accused for the purposes of the application” on the motion when Mr. Jusufovic and his counsel are excluded.
Materials for the motion (and depending on the ruling, the annual review) were to be prepared such that Mr. Jusufovic and counsel received a version of the Hospital Report without reference to the information Waypoint sought to withhold, while amicus, the other parties, and the panel received the Hospital Report, an Addendum to the Hospital Report (with reference to the information Waypoint sought to withhold), as well as a Factum on the Motion.
The other parties were not to share the “information” with Mr. Jusufovic or his counsel.
The motion was ordered to be heard in camera and with Mr. Jusufovic and his counsel excluded when the information in question was discussed.
The motion was scheduled to be heard as a preliminary matter to the annual review.
If the motion was granted, the parties were to avoid (if possible) reference to the withheld information during the annual review and if not, Mr. Jusufovic and his counsel would once again be excluded while that information was discussed.
Similarly, if the motion was granted, the panel was to “refrain from making reference” to the withheld information in its Reasons for Disposition.
This panel convened and heard Waypoint’s motion (in the absence of Mr. Jusufovic and his counsel, but in the presence of amicus Ms. Perez). For reasons explained below (partially redacted in the version released to Mr. Jusufovic and his counsel) we granted the motion.
The substantive sections of 672.51 of the Code that the panel had to consider and apply on the motion provide:
(3) The Court or Review Board shall withhold some or all of the disposition information from an accused where it is satisfied, on the basis of that information and the evidence or report of the medical practitioner responsible for the assessment or treatment of the accused, that disclosure of the information would be likely to endanger the life or safety of another person or would seriously impair the treatment or recovery of the accused.
(4) Notwithstanding subsection (3), the court or Review Boad may release some or all of the disposition information to an accused where the interests of justice make disclosure essential in its opinion.
These provisions were recently discussed in Edgar (Re), 2025 CanLII 146946 (ON RB). The panel concluded that under s.672.51(4) disclosure of the information would be “essential” if, despite the participation of amicus, the accused cannot have a fair hearing without the information. Other considerations under s.672.51(4) are the significance of the information to the disposition and the ability of amicus to challenge the withheld information without sharing it with the accused.
In this case, the panel had a copy of the Hospital Report and Addendum to the Hospital Report, and we heard testimony from Dr. Ismail, Mr. Jusufovic’s treating psychiatrist.
We were satisfied based on that evidence and the information sought to be withheld that disclosure of the information would be likely to endanger the life or safety of another person, or would seriously impair the treatment or recovery of the accused.
We were also satisfied that Waypoint was seeking to withhold only a small and discrete portion of the overall disposition information, that was not the kind of information that would be determinative of the disposition. We were confident that amicus was in a position to challenge the information without sharing it with Mr. Jusufovic. We concluded that, particularly with the participation of amicus, Mr.
Jusufovic could have a fair annual review hearing without access to the withheld information.
- We agreed with counsel for Waypoint, as set out in her factum, that the "interests of justice" ought to be informed by the overall scheme and purpose of Part XX.1, including, to the degree possible, returning those who are unfit to stand trial to a state of fitness so that the criminal justice system can resume its course.
Discussion (Redacted in Version Released to Accused, his Counsel and Public)
Mr. Jusufovic Remains Unfit
In deciding whether Mr. Jusufovic remained unfit to stand trial, the panel had regard to the definition of fitness as set out in s.2 of the Code and elaborated upon, by the Supreme Court of Canada, in R v Bharwani (2025 sec 26).
Dr. Ismail, who had been treating Mr. Jusufovic for some time and had reassessed his fitness the morning of the hearing, testified that in his opinion Mr. Jusufovic remained unfit to stand trial. Counsel for the Attorney General and Mr. Jusufovic's counsel took the same position. The panel agreed.
Mr. Jusufovic carries a diagnosis of treatment resistant schizophrenia and suffers a high burden of psychotic symptoms. He experiences paranoid, persecutory, and grandiose delusions that impact on his ability to have a reality-based understanding of his circumstances. As an example, Dr. Ismail testified that Mr. Jusufovic believes he is either a hostage or being held due to his religious beliefs. In his own testimony, Mr. Jusufovic said he that he had been assaulted and killed in his apartment and then arrested for his own murder.
Dr. Ismail also testified that, although somewhat improved in the last several months, Mr. Jusufovic remains tangential and disorganized, to a degree that he could not meaningfully participate in his defence. He was able to answer some of the Taylor-type questions but was not aware of the consequences of his choices and was confused about the charges he was facing.
Although not necessary to decide (given his current risk to the public, discussed below), the evidence did not support the conclusion that Mr. Jusufovic is permanently unfit. As Dr. Ismail noted, Mr. Jusufovic has no history of developmental delay or other impediment to fitness aside from his illness. Mr. Jusufovic had also shown some improvement in his thought disorder in the last several months. Dr. Ismail was hopeful that Mr. Jusufovic would continue to improve and opined that it was “more likely than not” that he would become fit in the future.
The Necessary and Appropriate Disposition
The panel was thus obliged to render the “necessary and appropriate” disposition keeping in mind the safety of the public as the paramount consideration, as well as the mental condition of the accused, the reintegration of the accused into society, and the accused’s other needs. See s.672.54 of the Code.
The hospital and counsel for the Attorney General took the position that the necessary and appropriate disposition remained a detention order at Waypoint. Counsel for Mr. Jusufovic had no instructions and took no position. The panel agreed that Mr. Jusufovic must continue to be detained at Waypoint.
Mr. Jusufovic’s psychotically driven aggressive, threatening, and sexualized behaviours have required seclusion throughout the reporting period. His status has been reviewed regularly by Dr. Ismail, other psychiatrists at Waypoint, and, in April 2025, by way of an external seclusion consultation with Dr. Naidoo. All have agreed Mr. Jusufovic continues to require seclusion.
As noted above, there have been some recent improvements in Mr. Jusufovic’s mental state, and these have had an impact on the behaviours driving his seclusion. Dr. Ismail testified that the intensity of some of Mr. Jusufovic’s behaviours have lessened, such that there has been a decrease in his sexualized behaviours, noticeably less damage to property and he is less irritable. Mr. Jusufovic is also taking part in seclusion relief more frequently and is more engaged when doing so. He is on a step-down unit. The next step will be to gradually move towards lessening his restraints – that is allowing him to engage in seclusion relief with one arm out of his restraint, and if successful progress further until restraints are not necessary. Dr. Ismail said he saw a path out of seclusion this year for Mr. Jusufovic.
Not only is Waypoint better able to address the security issues that Mr. Jusufovic’s conduct raises, but they are better able to maximize his liberty within seclusion. They have staff devoted to seclusion relief and that means more access to seclusion relief than he would get elsewhere.
Dr. Ismail acknowledged that long-term seclusion may have negative impacts and reiterated his goal to get Mr. Jusufovic out of seclusion and reintegrated onto a unit as soon as possible while balancing the need to keep others safe.
Dr. Ismail confirmed that the team had not yet exhausted the recommendations from Dr. Naidoo and there are gains being made. A referral to MAPS would make sense once Dr. Naidoo’s recommendations were exhausted. Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) might offer benefit, but Mr. Jusufovic’s SDM is adamantly opposed. Other therapeutic interventions are generally not successful given Mr. Jusufovic’s current mental state but if he continues to improve, they will be offered.
The panel was convinced that Mr. Jusufovic needed a high secure setting and, given the need for seclusion, was also better off in a high secure setting where he had access to regular seclusion relief. We were also satisfied that despite Mr. Jusufovic being secluded for the entire review period, slow progress is being made. There is more room for improvement. We were hopeful, as was Dr. Ismail, that Mr. Jusufovic’s trajectory will continue and he will gradually work his way out of seclusion over the course of the year.
DATED this 8th day of April 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.
Ms. L. Maunder Alternate Chairperson
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board