ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

DATE: 2025-06-09
COURT FILE No.: Toronto

B E T W E E N :

HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
DEEVA JOHN

Before Justice Riun Shandler
Heard on April 28, 2025

Ruling on Crown Application for Assessment of Criminal Responsibility

P. Kaur — counsel for the Crown
A. Stastny — counsel for the accused Deeva John

I. Introduction

[1] Ms. Deeva John entered guilty pleas before me on March 30, 2025, acknowledging her guilt in relation to six charges arising from incidents on four separate dates, as follows:

• Assault (June 19, 2024);
• Assault (July 23, 2024);
• Assault causing bodily harm and fail to comply with probation (August 11, 2024); and,
• Assault and fail to comply with probation (February 3, 2025).

[2] Ms. John entered those guilty pleas knowing that the Crown would bring an application for an assessment to determine whether she was criminally responsible at the time of those offences. The Crown’s application was heard on April 28, 2025 and dismissed with reasons to follow. These are my Reasons.

II. The Applicable Law

[3] Section 672.11(b) gives the court authority to order an assessment of the mental condition of an accused where it has “reasonable grounds to believe that such evidence is necessary to determine” whether the accused was not criminally responsible at the time they committed the offences.

[4] When it is the prosecutor who is applying for the assessment and the accused has not put their capacity into issue, as is the case here, section 672.12 puts further conditions into place. Section 672.12(3)(b) provides that the prosecutor must satisfy the court that there are “reasonable grounds to doubt” that the accused is criminally responsible for the alleged offence on account of mental disorder.

[5] There must be both reasonable grounds to believe that the person was suffering from a mental disorder and reasonable grounds to doubt criminal responsibility on account of mental disorder at the time of the allegations.[^1] The evidence of a mental disorder must be framed within the elements of the section 16 test: that is, does the evidence of a mental disorder raise a doubt with respect to whether the accused was incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of his or her conduct or knowing that it was wrong.[^2]

[6] The “reasonable grounds to doubt” standard, like “reasonable grounds to believe” provides for a lower standard than proof on a balance of probabilities.[^3] While no particular evidence is necessary, the basis for the belief must “clearly and plainly appear on the record.”[^4]

III. Analysis

[7] There is no issue that Ms. John suffers from a mental disorder. Ms. John was the subject of a Mental Health Act assessment in May 2023, which concluded that, while there was no clear evidence of major mental illness, Ms. John’s “problems are best characterized as Cluster B personality disorder traits.” The assessment notes the following:

Cluster B personality disorders are a group of disorders characterized by patterns of unstable and dramatic behaviour, emotional dysregulation, and impaired interpersonal relationships. The four main types of Cluster B personality disorders with the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) are as follows:

1. Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD): Individuals with ASPD exhibit a disregard for the rights of others, lack empathy and engage in impulsive and often criminal behaviour.
2. Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD): Individuals with BPD experience intense emotional instability, have difficulty regulating their emotions, and display impulsive behaviours, self-harm tendencies, and unstable self-image.
3. Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD): Individuals with NPD have an inflated sense of self-importance, a constant need for admiration, and a lack of empathy for others. They often seek attention and exhibit grandiose behaviours.
4. Histrionic Personality Disorder (HPD): Those with HPD exhibit excessive attention-seeking behaviours, dramatic emotions, and a need to be the center of attention. They may engage in self-dramatization and seek reassurance from others.

[8] As noted, however, the burden on the Crown is to satisfy the court that there are reasonable grounds to doubt that Ms. John either lacked the capacity to appreciate the nature and quality of her conduct or know that it was wrong. It is on that basis that the Crown’s application fails as there is nothing, in my view, in the facts of these offences that calls into question that fundamental issue of capacity under either branch of the s. 16 test.

[9] In relation to the June 20 incident, the Crown led evidence that the victim was delivering a package when he encountered Ms. John who demanded that he be her Uber driver. When he refused, she punched and kicked him while insisting that he drive her. As noted by the defence, however, this is not random, inexplicable conduct. Rather, Ms John saw someone doing delivery driving, decided they would drive her, and when they refused, assaulted them. Her conduct is a direct response to a situation in which her demands are not being met. While her response is demonstrative of a complete disregard for the rights of others, this is entirely in keeping with her personality disorder diagnosis.

[10] In my view, the July 23 and August 11, 2024, incidents are similar in nature. In relation to the July 23, 2024, incident, Ms. John was unhappy because she was denied entry onto a TTC bus and pushed a barrier shield towards the bus driver. In relation to the August 11, 2024, incident, Ms. John was unhappy with another customer at a store because she believed that person had skipped the line. She followed the customer out of the store where she then assaulted them and fled on foot.

[11] The Crown initially relied on these incidents in support of their application for an assessment but subsequently chose not to rely on them. I agree with their assessment. The facts in those cases – much like the facts above – are incidents in which Ms. John is responding to a situation in which she feels she was wronged. They provide no basis to doubt Ms. John’s capacity under either branch of s. 16.

[12] The final incident on February 3, 2025, is similar in nature. The Crown played extensive video capturing this incident and its aftermath. The video amply demonstrates that Ms. John is again directly responding to a situation in which her demands are not being met. Ms. John is captured repeatedly telling the driver to “close the doors” and “go” while also yelling “Take another bus” to the wheelchaired passenger waiting to board the bus. When Ms. John’s demands are not complied with, she becomes more frustrated and spat in the direction of the passenger and banged on the plexiglass protecting the driver.

[13] When Ms. John is confronted by the police, she understands that she is in jeopardy and engages in discussions with the police where she tries to minimize her conduct.

[14] In my view, the video relied upon by the Crown is evidence detracting from their application, not enhancing it. It demonstrates that Ms. John knew exactly what she was doing and that she knew it was wrong.

[15] The Crown filed additional materials in support of their assessment application that included the following: An affidavit from Police Constable James Folkes attesting that Ms. John has 429 reports on file, as follows:

• 83 other provincial statutes;
• 45 trespassing;
• 16 assaults;
• 6 assaults with a weapon;
• 10 fail to comply with court orders;
• 15 MHA apprehensions;
• 5 non-MHA apprehensions;
• 5 mischief charges; and,
• 4 general incidents.
• Sentencing proceedings on November 21, 2023
• Sentencing proceedings before Justice Downes on June 5, 2024
• Mental health Occurrence Reports from May 2023 to January 23, 2025

[16] Much of this information, including Ms. John’s legal history and medical history, was either reviewed by the assessor for the May, 2023 report or is similar in nature. Those prior occurrences were relied on by the assessor to conclude:

“[Ms. John’s] patterns of behaviour over the last year have been characterized by impulsivity and emotional dysregulation. She has demonstrated occasions when she has been quick to anger, and demonstrated lack of judgment, including pursuing her own aims and intentions, without regard to rules of social convention.”

[17] In other words, these prior occurrences do not raise an issue with respect to Ms. John’s capacity under either branch of the s. 16 test. I further agree with the defence submission that sentencing decisions and occurrence reports do not assist the Crown because they shed no light on Ms. John’s state of mind at the time she committed the offences on June 19, 2024, and February 3, 2025 which is the issue before the Court.

[18] While I accept that there are reasonable grounds to believe that Ms. John suffered from a mental disorder at the time she committed these offences, there is no basis to doubt that her disorder rendered her incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of her conduct or knowing that it was wrong.

[19] The Crown’s application is dismissed.

Released: June 9, 2025
Signed: Justice Riun Shandler

[^1]: R. v. John Doe, 2011 ONSC 92 at para. 34; R. v. Pancer, 2018 ONCJ 355 at para. 13; R. v. Kindersley, 2020 ONCJ 349 at para. 30.

[^2]: R. v. John Doe, supra at para. 40; R. v. Panton-Sawyers, 2020 ONSC 2881 at para. 45.

[^3]: R. v. Faire, 2020 BCCA 110 at para. 41.

[^4]: R. v. Isaac, 2009 ONCJ 662 at para. 3; R. v. John Doe, 2011 ONSC 92 at para. 36.