Re Mostafa Siddiqui, 2026 CanLII 8795

Ontario Review Board

Re: Mostafa Siddiqui

ORB File No: 8634

Hearing held on: Wednesday, December 3, 2025

Place of Hearing: Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre

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

Before:

Alternate Chairperson: Mr. J. Weinstein

Members: Dr. R. Kunjukrishnan

Dr. S. Prat Mr. D. Sandor

Mr. A. Bernardo

Parties Appearing:

Accused: Mostafa Siddiqui

Counsel: Mr. B. Del Greco

Person in charge of hospital: Representative: Dr. J. Gojer

Attorney-General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. E. Davies

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated February 2, 2026)

Reasons for the Majority

(Dr. Kunjukrishnan, Dr. Prat, Mr. Bernardo)

Introduction

1. On September 26, 2024, Mr. Mostafa Siddiqui was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, on charges of possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose, assault with a weapon, assault causing bodily harm, uttering threats to cause death or bodily harm, and attempt to commit murder, all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (“Criminal Code”).

2. Mr. Siddiqui is subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the “Board”), dated December 9, 2024, which orders that he be detained at the Secure Forensic Unit of the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre (“Royal Ottawa”). This Disposition permitted him to live in the community, in accommodation approved by the person in charge. The Disposition required that he refrain from contact, or communication, with his parents and that he not attend within 50 metres of any place where his parents reside.

3. On December 3, 2025, the Board convened a hearing at Royal Ottawa to conduct the annual review of the current Disposition.

4. Mr. Siddiqui was present at the hearing (as were his parents) and was represented by his counsel, Mr. B. Del Greco.

5. A Hospital Report, dated November 17, 2025 (the "Hospital Report"), was entered as Exhibit 1.

6. The issues at this hearing were whether Mr. Siddiqui is a significant threat to public safety, as defined in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code, and, if so, what is the necessary and appropriate Disposition in the circumstances, bearing in mind the factors enunciated in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.

7. For the reasons set out below and based on the expert evidence and opinions before us, the Board unanimously concluded that Mr. Siddiqui continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. The majority members of the Board found that the necessary and appropriate Disposition in the circumstances is the continuation of the Detention Order, with the removal of the prohibition that he no longer has contact with his parents and the expansion of his travel privileges, all as set out in the formal Disposition.

8. The minority members of the Board felt that the necessary and appropriate Disposition in the circumstances is that Mr. Siddiqui be discharged, subject to certain terms and conditions, as recommended in the Hospital Report.

Current Psychiatric Diagnosis

• Schizophrenia

Position of the Parties

9. Dr. Gojer, as representative of the Hospital and as the most responsible physician, recommended a Conditional Discharge, with the requirement that Mr. Siddiqui consent to reside with his parents and agree to a Consent to Treatment clause, pursuant to s. 672.55(1).

10. Counsel for the Attorney-General vacillated between the appropriateness of a Detention Order as these were still early days, the seriousness of the Index Offences and how it best protects the safety of the public; however, she also recognized our responsibility to craft a Disposition that is necessary and appropriate.

11. Counsel for Mr. Siddiqui joined the Hospital in their recommendations and advised that his client did agree to reside with his parents and to consent to treatment, pursuant to s. 672.55(1).

12. For the purpose of this hearing, counsel for Mr. Siddiqui advised that significant threat was not in dispute.

Index Offences

13. The circumstances giving rise to the Index Offences are extracted from last year’s Board’s Reasons, as follows:

“On the 4th of March 2023, the accused stayed at home while his parents, Abida and Fareed SADDIQUE(sic) attended their daughter's wedding. Upon the parents return home, at approximately 2am, the accused cornered them and began talking aggressively, that he was going to kill the father and then himself, the accused stated, "that he was going to kill his father, cut out his tongue and then kill himself." (Charge #1, Utter Threats)

The accused kept his parents up for two to three hours, putting a hole in the wall by throwing a bowl and breaking Abida's cell phone. The parents pled with the accused, to let them go to bed. The accused's parents slept on the living room floor, out of fear for the accused, leaving the accused to have the upstairs floor. The accused slept on the floor on the upstairs landing, with a serrated knife.

The mother, Abida woke in the morning around 8am and went to look for the accused, the accused was standing at the top of the landing hold the knife screaming, about people coming after him. The accused then attacked his father who was still lying on the living room floor. The accused sat on top of his father, began trying to cut him with a knife, Fareed trying to protect himself turn away from the accused, and the accused started to cut the back of Fareed's neck, in a sawing motion. (Charge #2, #3, #4, #5 Attempt Murder, Aggravated Assault, Possess Weapon for Committing an Offence, Assault with a Weapon)

The mother, Abida in fear went to run out of the house for help, the accused, stopped attacking his father and went after his mother, sitting on top of her out front of the residence. The accused began to strike Abida in the face and choke her, making her dizzy. Both Abida and Fareed thought their son was going to kill them. (Charge #6, #7, Assault cause Bodily Harm, Assault/Choking).”

Personal History, Criminal History, and Psychiatric History

14. Mr. Siddiqui’s personal history, criminal history and psychiatric history are outlined in the Hospital Report, and they are accurately summarized in last year’s Reasons:

“Personal History

Mr. Siddiqui was born in Canada shortly after his parents immigrated from Pakistan. He was homeschooled in junior and senior kindergarten because he was a very active child, and his mother was worried about sending him to school. She has a high school education, which she completed in Ottawa.

His mother indicated that Mr. Siddiqui was hyper as a child but was overall well-behaved. She described her son as being very loving, polite, kind, and helpful at baseline. He was positive, bright and he kept himself busy because his goal was to become a neurosurgeon.

Mr. Siddiqui’s parents indicated that they have a daughter, Sajeela, born in 2000. She is married, lives in Toronto, and works as a dental hygienist.

Mr. Siddiqui’s childhood was unremarkable. His mother said he was well-behaved and reserved. He had good friends and was performing well at school. Sajeela indicated that she and her brother had a close relationship. They sometimes fought but within what would be expected for a brother and sister.

According to Mr. Siddiqui’s parents, he had one serious relationship with a woman while attending Carleton University, however they do not know the details of this relationship.

There was speculation as to whether Ms. Siddiqui used substances, however, his parents and sister could not confirm specific examples. When asked during his initial assessment about substance use during March 2023, Mr. Siddiqui indicated that he had not used any substances. There was only one urine drug screen in his medical records dated June 20, 2022, and it was negative for all substances.

Mr. Siddiqui completed both a bachelor’s and a master’s degree. He is single and has no children.

Criminal History

Mr. Siddiqui has no prior criminal record.

Psychiatric History

Abida indicated that when 10 years old, while he was playing video games, she overheard him say that he wanted to kill himself. When she confronted him about this, he told her he was joking. Abida noticed that around the age of 13, Mr. Siddiqui started being more isolated from her.

Mr. Siddiqui had no overt issues with his mental health until June 2022, when he had a brief admission at the Queensway Carleton Hospital, where he was diagnosed with a brief psychotic episode.

Reports from Mr. Siddiqui’s parents and sister indicate a significant change in his mental state beginning at least in June 2022 and persisting until the time of his trial in February 2024.”

Course since last Disposition

15. Mr. Siddiqui’s course since his last Disposition is set out in detail in the Hospital Report. The following extracted paragraphs are relevant to this hearing:

“From the time he had his last hearing, Mr. Siddiqui has not had any psychotic symptoms. He has remained on Invega injections in a dose of 75 mgs every 4 week.

While in hospital, Mr. Siddiqui participated and completed several programs that included the WRAP program that teaches patients how to handle a crisis. He also did life skills programs and the Illness Management Recovery that focused on education on mental illness and life skills topics. He also attended gym and participated in walks on the grounds. He developed good insight into his illness and the need for medication.

On the 29th of May 2025, after much discussion with him and his family, he moved to a transitional home, Lebreton. While somewhat quiet and independent initially, he began to participate in groups there and demonstrated good capacity to manage on his own if he chose to live independently. Based on his performance, he has the option of having funding for independent living. He has chosen to live with his parents.

Mr. Siddiqui and family requested a weekend pass from Lebreton Residence as early as June 30th. This was not approved until Thanksgiving weekend, October 10th, 2025.

It has been a challenge for Mr. Siddiqui to convey to the team that he understand the signs and symptoms of the diagnosis.

Psychiatric Impression

Mr. Siddiqui presents as quiet, thoughtful, sharp in thinking and not presenting with any thought disorder. He tends to keep his thoughts to himself. He engaged in an Impulse Control Group with me and would listen intently but said little. He chose not to attend the second round of this group. I see him as introverted and have impressed on him that while this is a character trait, talking more helps the team evaluate his thoughts and feelings and make better decisions about his risk.

Evidence at the Hearing:

16. The Board had available to it the evidence and documents forming the Record, the Exhibits, and oral evidence from Dr. Gojer. Dr. Gojer authored the Hospital Report. He testified as follows:

a) After being admitted to the hospital, Mr. Siddiqui was started on injections of a long-acting injectable (“LAI”), Invega.

b) Mr. Siddiqui was sensitive to higher dose of his LAI, and it was reduced to 75mg. Mr. Siddiqui is taking his long-acting injectable every four weeks, and he has remained very stable on this medication regimen. Mr. Siddiqui has experienced no side effects from his LAI, and all psychotic symptoms have remitted.

c) As set out in his psychological profile in the Hospital Report, Mr. Siddiqui presents as quiet and introverted, but he has opened up with prompting and has attended an impulse control group with Dr. Gojer. He has also attended programs at Lebreton.

d) With the support of the Treatment Team and Lebreton House, Mr. Siddiqui has had overnight visits to his parents’ home for the last few months, and all have gone well.

e) As the next step, Mr. Siddiqui will be going home on an extended leave during the Christmas holidays, and again over New Year’s. The plan is to have him move back in with his parents, as of January 5, 2026.

f) Mr. Siddiqui’s parents have been reporting on their son’s progress to the treatment team on a weekly basis. They have a full understanding of his illness and of the importance of being open with the hospital.

g) The treatment team recognizes that this is an unusual set of circumstances; the team is recommending that Mr. Siddiqui go back to living with his parents, despite the fact that the parents were the victims of the Index Offences.

h) He has spent many sessions with Mr. Siddiqui’s parents, to assure himself that they would report to the hospital, should they notice any changes in their son’s behaviour. The treatment team and the parents trust each other.

i) Mr. Siddiqui now has good insight into his illness, and it is very likely that he would report any changes in his mental state to the treatment team.

j) The treatment team is requesting a consent to treatment clause, as a further measure to protect the safety of the public, and not because they do not believe Mr. Siddiqui would not remain adherent with his medication.

k) Mr. Siddiqui understands that he will most likely have to remain on his medication regimen for many years.

l) Mr. Siddiqui is a high functioning individual. He now understands his illness, his need for medication adherence and its impact on his mental health, and the connection of both his illness, and his need for medication, to the Index Offences.

m) When Mr. Siddiqui returns to live with his parents he will be visited on a regular basis by his case manager.

n) Mr. Siddiqui should still be considered a significant risk. Mr. Siddiqui will be moving back to his parents’ residence, and he intends to engage in employment. Therefore, the team will need at least a year or two to make sure he remains stable under any new stressors he may encounter.

17. In response to questions from counsel for the Attorney-General, Dr. Gojer testified:

a) Mr. Siddiqui’s current risk should be considered low; he has no psychotic symptoms, he has excellent compliance with his LAI, and he has good insight into his illness and his treatment needs.

b) The Index Offence was very serious and potentially lethal. However, Mr. Siddiqui’s risk is now managed through medication, family involvement, and the case management provided by the treatment team.

c) There is some residual risk due to now still being in the early stages of Mr. Siddiqui’s recovery, but there is a low probability of recidivism.

d) Mr. Siddiqui has been closely monitored in hospital and in transitional housing for over a year. He has also had extended overnight home visits, and all were successful.

e) The treatment team intends to manage his transition from Lebreton House, which is 24-7 supervised accommodation, to the family home. The case manager will visit weekly; the family will provide structured monitoring and reporting; and there will be hospital follow-ups at least monthly, and more frequently, if needed. This plan will provide adequate supervision, especially given Mr. Siddiqui’s mental stability.

f) The reports of minimal engagement by Mr. Siddiqui were early on in his interactions with the treatment team, and they reflected his introverted personality. Over the last three months, he has been more engaged in programs and with staff. Mr. Siddiqui’s question about reducing his medication doses was more of a general inquiry and not indicative of resistance to his medication.

g) Mr. Siddiqui is capable of making treatment decisions.

h) Mr. Siddiqui’s parents are supportive, educated about his illness and willing to report any changes in his mental health.

i) Mr. Siddiqui himself now has insight and self-awareness to recognize decompensation, and the treatment team is not solely relying on the family to report any changes.

18. In response to questions from counsel for Ms. Siddiqui, Dr. Gojer testified:

a) Mr. Siddiqui’s risk of a psychotic relapse is very low as long as he is adherent to his medication regimen.

b) Mr. Siddiqui chose to return home to live with his parents.

c) His family residence provides better monitoring for Mr. Siddiqui than would living independently.

d) The Mental Health Act would be sufficient to protect the safety of the public.

e) Should Mr. Siddiqui experience a decompensation, it would be very gradual, because he is on a long-acting medication. This slow decompensation would allow the treatment team time to intervene before Mr. Siddiqui would become a significant threat to public safety.

f) Mr. Siddiqui’s parents have undergone psychoeducation.

g) The family support is protective, not enabling.

h) Mr. Siddiqui has made significant progress over a relatively short period of time; it is important to have a cautious approach considering the severity of the Index Offences.

i) A Detention Order would be the best Disposition to protect public safety, because it would allow the hospital to bring Mr. Siddiqui back fairly quickly. However, the protection of public safety must be balanced with the obligation to manage Mr. Siddiqui in a manner that is the least onerous and least restrictive.

j) Mr. Siddiqui has been symptom-free for more than a year. He has been on a LAI, which would allow plenty of time for the hospital to use the provisions of the Mental Health Act to bring him back to hospital, if required.

k) The chances of Mr. Siddiqui stopping his medication are extremely low; it could be classified as theoretical.

l) He has been Mr. Siddiqui’s treating psychiatrist for approximately one year. He pointed out that, after Mr. Siddiqui was charged and before he was found not criminally responsible, he was living in the community, unmedicated, yet he still did not engage in any acts of violence.

m) Mr. Siddiqui and his parents all have excellent insight across all domains. It is not fair to fault a patient for asking questions about his medication dosage and future plans; such inquiry demonstrates his involvement in his own care and does not represent an intent to become non-adherent to his medication regimen.

n) Mr. Siddiqui’s response to his medication regimen could be categorized as excellent. His symptoms have not merely attenuated, they have fully abated.

o) Mr. Siddiqui’s number one risk factor is his adherence to his medication. Even when Mr. Siddiqui was unmedicated after he committed the Index Offences, they did not see any rapid decompensation in his mental state.

p) Mr. Siddiqui’s agreement to a consent to treatment clause is a protective factor; if he were to stop taking his medication, he would be in breach, and the team could bring him back to hospital. Further, as Mr. Siddiqui is on a long-acting injectable, they would know very quickly if he stopped his medication.

q) Another protective factor is Mr. Siddiqui’s weekly meetings with the case managers; and if they recognized any signs of decompensation, they would contact the treatment team.

r) The final protective factor is the treatment team’s relationship with Mr. Siddiqui’s parents, who will be monitoring him.

s) Should Mr. Siddiqui begin to show signs of a decompensation in his mental state, he would voluntarily return to hospital and would stay there.

19. No other evidence was called.

Analysis and Conclusions:

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

21. 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. Gojer, in addition to the documentary evidence before us.

22. While all indicators point to him being on the low end of the spectrum for risk, the Board agrees that he still poses a significant risk to the public because of the following aspects of this case: the very serious nature of his charges; the fact that he is returning to live with his parents who are the victims; and the need to assess how he does under these new stressors.

23. These are still early days in Mr. Siddiqui’s recovery period. The treatment team still needs to see how he will cope with the stressors of living with his parents and the pursuit of educational, or vocational, opportunities.

24. We also note that the Hospital Report indicates that Mr. Siddiqui has an underlying substance use disorder, which cannot be ruled out. Accordingly, should he engage in the use of substances, it could lead to a decompensation in his mental state.

25. In light of the Board’s finding of significant threat, it is charged with shaping a Disposition for the coming year. The main issue between the majority and minority is what is the appropriate Disposition for the coming reporting year.

26. After the NCR finding Mr. Siddiqui was kept in the Ottawa Carleton Detention Centre (“OCDC”), waiting for a bed in the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre (“ROMHC”). While in OCDC he refused to participate in psychiatric assessments and refused to take any medications. Dr. Selaman, who did a court‑ordered NCR assessment at OCDC, tried to assess him, but he refused to participate. Dr. Selaman arrived at his conclusion based on collateral information. Dr. Gojer, who tried to do a risk assessment prior to the initial ORB hearing, also had the same experience and did his assessment from collateral information.

27. After admission to the hospital Mr. Siddiqui was apparently more cooperative and was treated with medications with good therapeutic response. He was discharged to a transitional home, Lebreton Residence, on 29 May 2025 and continued to receive outpatient treatment.

28. While we acknowledge the progress Mr. Siddiqui has made since initiating long-acting injectable treatment and the reported stability, particularly being described as symptom-free, several elements remain of significant concern. Based on the evidence presented, we conclude that the person in charge should have a legal mechanism in place to allow for Mr. Siddiqui’s rapid readmission to hospital should he exhibit signs of mental health decompensation.

29. Dr. Gojer indicated that the primary factor influencing the risk of decompensation is discontinuation of treatment, a risk mitigated by the use of long-acting injectable medication, which is monitored by the clinical team. However, the report notes a lack of clarity regarding past substance use history (hospital report, page 14: “an underlying substance use disorder cannot be ruled out”), which should be considered a significant risk factor for rapid decompensation until clear evidence confirms the absence of such risk. Dr. Gojer also emphasized the insight Mr. Siddiqui has gained since starting medication. Yet, the evidence suggests this improvement in insight is relatively recent, and no consideration was given to potential fluctuations in insight, particularly during transitional phases with reduced monitoring (hospital report, page 22: “it has been a challenge for Mr. Siddiqui to convey to the team that he understands the signs and symptoms of the diagnosis”). Cognitive difficulties were highlighted in the neuropsychological testing (hospital report, page 21) and described as atypical for someone with his level of education, indicating a cognitive impairment whose progression remains unknown. No information has been provided regarding Mr. Siddiqui’s awareness of his cognitive decline or how this may affect his ability to recognize early signs of decompensation, appreciate the need for treatment, or understand the impact of psychoactive substances (illicit or non-prescribed).

30. The other important factor to consider, as noted by Ms. Davies from the Crown Attorney’s Office, is that the improvements, though undisputed, have occurred while Mr. Siddiqui was living in a supervised environment with oversight provided by mental health professionals. While we acknowledge that his upcoming living arrangement will be monitored by his parents, it is essential to distinguish between monitoring by trained healthcare professionals and by family members. Dr. Gojer stated that Mr. Siddiqui’s parents have developed sufficient knowledge and insight into the nature of his mental illness. They indicated that they would notify the clinical team of any signs of decompensation; however, the clinical team has decided to request weekly emails from the parents to report on Mr. Siddiqui’s status. Therefore, weekly emails may be a necessary strategy to ensure effective monitoring, but this likely suggests that the team does not intend to rely solely on spontaneous contact from the parents.

31. Each of these elements, taken individually, may not indicate an imminent risk of decompensation; however, their cumulative effect is significant. It is important to note that the risk factors have not been fully identified; therefore, optimal risk mitigation cannot be considered entirely achieved. Furthermore, while the protective factors appear promising, they cannot be regarded as sufficiently strong to guarantee the safety of the community, particularly the safety of his parents, who were the victims of the index offense and with whom he will be residing.

32. The knowledge that his parents have acquired and demonstrated, according to Dr. Gojer’s testimony, should be considered with caution. This knowledge was gained while the accused was removed from the home environment and receiving ongoing monitoring, support, and care. Clinical knowledge in individuals without a formal background cannot be assumed to remain stable and consistent over time, as it may be influenced by real-life situations and shaped by personal beliefs or biases. Historically, prior to the index offense, the report indicates that they experienced significant difficulties in managing the accused’s behavior and accessing mental healthcare when he exhibited persistent paranoia (descriptions made on page 9 to 11 of the hospital report). While their commitment to learning about Mr. Siddiqui’s mental health challenges is commendable, it does not suffice to be regarded as an optimal safety measure at this early stage.

33. Lastly, although Mr. Siddiqui has been engaged in treatment and community placement, there is no reported daily structure involving vocational or leisure activities that could provide an additional layer of protective factors by fostering meaningful engagement in his recovery. Beyond medication compliance and symptom stability, the remaining protective factors appear to rely primarily on external controls.

34. In considering the least restrictive and least onerous dispositions, it is essential to assess the risk of future reoffending by evaluating not only the likelihood of such an occurrence but also its potential severity. Based on the description of Mr. Siddiqui’s mental illness at the time of the index offense and the trajectory of his mental health symptoms, if he were to become unwell, the evidence suggests a high probability of developing similar delusional ideas. Consequently, the likelihood of an offense comparable in magnitude to the index offense remains present.

35. The remaining consideration is the likelihood of a decompensation so severe that the use of the Mental Health Act under a Conditional Discharge would not suffice to ensure community safety, particularly the safety of his parents. Although missing an injection may not immediately trigger a psychotic outburst, the uncertainty surrounding substance use is concerning, as it can independently precipitate an acute psychotic episode, even when medicated. Based on the evidence presented, we conclude that this likelihood is neither trivial nor speculative. Risk factors remain incompletely identified, and protective factors are limited. The legislation governing restrictions under a Detention Order allows immediate police apprehension without prior medical assessment, unlike the discretionary apprehension permitted under section 672.91 for a Conditional Discharge. Equally important, it enables the clinical team to keep an accused in hospital even when active symptoms are no longer present. Historical information indicates that psychiatric admissions have been challenging. Therefore, the provisions under a Detention Order underscore that the risk of reoffending associated with severe mental illness is not solely tied to active symptoms. Recovery and long-term stability extend beyond the resolution of psychosis. In essence, risk mitigation and community safety depend on the accused demonstrating sustained stability over an extended period and under varied circumstances, including routine daily stressors.

36. While Mr. Siddiqui has maintained a stable mental status for several months, this stability has occurred under daily monitoring by experienced mental health professionals. Therefore, there is no certainty that supervision provided by his parents, who are also the victims of the index offense, can offer the same level of risk mitigation or ensure rapid readmission if needed, despite their commitment as caring parents. At this stage, there is no evidence that they can maintain the necessary and adequate level of monitoring comparable to what the clinical team has provided. The psychotic decompensations that occurred prior to the index offense likely reflect difficulties in taking timely steps to engage him in treatment. This is not intended as criticism; we acknowledge the challenges of being a caring parent while imposing restrictions on an individual with active psychotic symptoms and limited insight. Given their willingness to participate in Mr. Siddiqui’s care, it is important to monitor and reinforce their skills, provide ongoing support, and maintain mechanisms, such as a Detention Order, that allow for rapid readmission should their ability to provide adequate monitoring and take necessary action become compromised, as it has in the past. We conclude that relying solely on the absence of active symptoms and a few successful overnight passes does not guarantee that similar positive experiences will continue long-term when living together full-time, particularly given the presence of cognitive difficulties that may affect their daily interpersonal relationship.

37. When analyzing the least restrictive and least onerous measures, we also considered the specific impact on Mr. Siddiqui’s recovery and personal preferences. While a Detention Order imposes greater restrictions than a Conditional Discharge due to the readmission process, an accused may still have opportunities to engage in similar activities or travel under either disposition, depending on their interests. The parties have not raised concerns regarding travel limitations, and housing arrangements have already been agreed upon. Furthermore, there is no information suggesting that any recovery or leisure activities Mr. Siddiqui wishes to pursue in the coming year would be impeded by a Detention Order. Therefore, we do not believe that a Detention Order would interfere with rehabilitative measures or leisure activities intended under a Conditional Discharge, as initially proposed by the clinical team, and likely anticipated by Mr. Siddiqui.

Reasons for the Minority

(Mr. Weinstein and Mr. Sandor)

38. The minority members agree with the submissions of counsel for Mr. Siddiqui and the submissions, and evidence, of Dr. Gojer: the Disposition that is necessary and appropriate, as well as being the least onerous and restrictive, is a Conditional Discharge Order. We understand that a Detention Order would be the safest Disposition for the paramount safety of the public, and it would allow the quickest return to hospital; however, the same factors that the Supreme Court outlined in Winko, that the Board must consider, apply not only to the test of significant threat, but to the type of Disposition and all its terms and conditions.

39. We agree that the circumstances of the Index Offences were quite serious. Dr. Gojer’s evidence is that Mr. Siddiqui is no longer experiencing any symptoms of his major mental illness and that he has been stable for seven months, while on a long-acting injectable medication. Mr. Siddiqui’s insight, and that of his parents, are now excellent across all domains, including his need to continue with his medication regimen and the connection between his risk for violence and his adherence to his LAI. Dr. Gojer was quite clear that there are several protective factors in Mr. Siddiqui’s favour, including:

(a) He is on a long-acting injectable medication, which he is tolerating well, and which he has indicated he has no desire to discontinue.

(b) Any decompensation would be very slow and observable, both by his case management team during their weekly visits, and by his parents, who are trusted reporters, and monitors, of their son’s mental health. His parents have undergone psychoeducation to be able to recognise any signs of decompensation in Mr. Siddiqui’s mental health.

(c) It is Dr. Gojer’s opinion that Mr. Siddiqui would return to hospital voluntarily, and would remain voluntarily, should he experience any symptoms of decompensation.

(d) Dr. Gojer testified that The Mental Health Act would be sufficient to protect the safety of the public.

(e) Mr. Siddiqui has consented to a term requiring him to reside with his parents, as well as a consent to treatment clause.

40. The Court of Appeal has made it quite clear that the fact that a Detention Order is quicker and easier to use and more convenient is not to be considered a deciding factor; rather, the NCR accused is entitled to the least onerous, least restrictive, Disposition available that protects the safety of the public.

41. For the factors outlined above and based on the uncontroverted expert evidence of Dr. Gojer and the documentary evidence before us, we find that Mr. Siddiqui is entitled to a Conditional Discharge upon the terms recommended by the Hospital.

DATED this 2nd day of February 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.

Mr. J. Weinstein

Alternate Chairperson

__________________

Office of the Registrar

Ontario Review Board