Ontario Review Board
Re: Maselan Navaratnam
ORB File No: 8034
Hearing held on: Friday, September 26, 2025
Place of hearing: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health 1001 Queen Street West, Toronto
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Ms. M. Labrosse Members: Dr. B. Sheppard Dr. M. Kalia Mr. M.D. Segal Mr. S. Doherty
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Maselan Navaratnam Counsel: Ms. J. Boissonneault
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Mr. K. Dow
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. C. Coughlan
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated November 5, 2025)
Introduction
On March 11, 2022, Mr. Maselan Navaratnam was found not criminally responsible (“NCR”) on account of mental disorder on charges of assault with a weapon (x2), and carry concealed weapon, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada.
Mr. Navaratnam is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board (“ORB”) dated September 18, 2024, which discharges him subject to a number of conditions including a residence specification and a treatment clause, with his consent, pursuant to s. 672.55(1) the Criminal Code.
On September 26, 2025, the ORB convened a hearing at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, hereinafter referred to as “CAMH” or “the hospital”, in order to review Mr. Navaratnam’s disposition pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Navaratnam attended his hearing, represented by his counsel, Ms. J. Boissonneault. At the outset of the hearing, a Hospital Report dated September 10, 2025, was entered as Exhibit 1 for the hearing.
The issues for this hearing are whether Mr. Navaratnam continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public, and if so, to determine the necessary and appropriate disposition having regard to the factors set out at s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
At the outset of the hearing, the parties were canvassed as to their preliminary positions for the hearing and all parties agreed that Mr. Navaratnam continues to meet the threshold of significant threat to the safety of the public. The hospital was recommending the maintenance of the conditional discharge on the same terms and conditions to which counsel for the Attorney General, Mr. Coughlin, advised that he was in agreement with same. Counsel for Mr. Navaratnam, Ms. Boissonneault, stated that she would be requesting that the Board consider removing the consent to treatment provision though her client was still prepared to consent to it, as well as the residence specification.
For the reasons set out below, the Board finds that Mr. Navaratnam continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public and that a conditional discharge remains necessary and appropriate and the least onerous and least restrictive disposition with the removal of the consent to treatment provision but with the maintenance of the residence specification.
Index Offences
- The circumstances of the index offences are taken from last year’s Reasons for Disposition as follows:
“On Saturday June 13, 2020 at approximately 1:50 pm the accused man was loitering in the lobby of 40 Fountainhead Road, in the City of Toronto. The accused man had a coat draped over his arm. Victim number one (Campbell-Chambers) approached the locked door to the lobby and motions for the accused man to let him in. The accused ignores victim 1 and does not give the victim access. A third party exits the elevator and opens the door for the victim. The victim enters the building and gets into an argument with the accused man. The accused man produces two knives from his from his jacket that he was holding and immediately runs towards the victim threatening him with the knives. The victim runs into the lobby vestibule and uses the door to separate himself from the accused. The accused man is wandering around the lobby and every so often runs up to the door where the victim is standing holding the 2 knives up to him. Victim number 2 (Quammie-Charles) who is 6 years old gets off of the elevator with 5 other kids. The accused man grabs the 6 year old boy by the shirt and drags him around the building lobby with both knives in his hand. Victim 1 (Campbell-Chambers) re-enters the lobby in an attempt to help victim 2 and places the accused in a choke hold in an effort to get the accused to release the 6 year old boy. The father of victim 2 enters the lobby and sees that his son is being attacked by the accused. The father starts wrestling and punching the accused man. During the melee victim 2 gets loose and escorted away from the accused. The knives that the accused man was holding are forced out of his hands. Victim 1 gets free from the accused. The father of the 6 year old gets on top of the accused man. The accused man is lying on his stomach and the father is punching the accused in the head and face. An unknown individual picks up one of the knives and hands it to the father. The father lifts the accused mans(sic) head and slashes the accused man in the side of the neck causing a 4 to 5 inch gash. Police were called and the accused man was transported to Sunnybrook hospital with serious but non-life threatening condition. The father of the 6 year old boy was also charged...This assault was caught on video by the camera in the lobby. The 6 year old boy suffered minor injuries from the victim. Victim number 1 suffered defensive knife wounds to his right hand. He was treated by DAS at the scene.”
Background Information
Mr. Navaratnam’s personal, legal, and psychiatric history are set out in great detail in the Hospital Report, entered as Exhibit 1 for the hearing. Briefly summarized, Mr. Navaratnam is currently 30 years of age and was born in Jaffna, Sri Lanka. He was raised in a home with his parents, two sisters and maternal grandparents. Mr. Navaratnam reported that his family was forced out of their family farm and lived as refugees for about eight years, starting in 1994, because of the civil war in Sri Lanka. During that period, the family lived in a variety of temporary accommodations and UN refugee camps and received financial support from NGOs but often experienced hunger. When the family returned to the family farm in the early 2000s, they found it ransacked and destroyed. Mr. Navaratnam describes this period of his life in traumatic and distressing terms. Mr. Navaratnam’s sister married a Canadian citizen and moved to Canada in 2005, after which she sponsored Mr. Navaratnam, his parents and younger sister in 2010.
Mr. Navaratnam has no prior criminal convictions but has been charged with criminal offences, once in relation to an alleged assault against his wife, and again with respect to an incident which took place in a bank, resulting in a number of charges, including assault with a weapon. The incident at the bank reportedly involved Mr. Navaratnam throwing a glass of water after a verbal altercation with a bank teller. This incident appears to have been related to his mental health. Mr. Navaratnam reportedly entered into a peace bond for both sets of charges.
The Hospital Report contains a very detailed account of Mr. Navaratnam's psychiatric admissions to hospital between 2015 and 2018.
Mr. Navaratnam’s current diagnoses include bipolar disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder.
Evidence at the Hearing
The hospital’s evidence was presented through its report and through the oral testimony of Dr. A. Ali, who has been Mr. Navaratnam’s attending psychiatrist through the Forensic Outpatient Services of the hospital. This evidence is summarized below.
Dr. Ali adopted the contents of the Hospital Report and advised that since its completion, there has been information provided by Mr. Navaratnam that he has had contact with his family in Sri Lanka, of which the treatment team was not aware.
Dr. Ali also advised that there have been ongoing discussions regarding Mr. Navaratnam's medication. He has indicated that he is willing to consider other medications, given the side effects that he is experiencing with his current long-acting injectable medication. There will be ongoing discussions between he and the treatment team on this issue.
Mr. Navaratnam has generally done well and has maintained his stability in the community despite significant stressors with employment and financial circumstances. According to Dr. Ali, his long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotic medication has assisted him again managing those stressors and maintaining stability.
Mr. Navaratnam currently rents an apartment in Markham, which is the residence specified in his Disposition. He has had difficulty paying his rent at times, when unemployed. According to Dr. Ali, he continues to experience some instability in relation to his housing due to financial issues. Mr. Navaratnam has made an application for Access Point housing, but it is a very long waitlist and would likely take several years before a unit comes up for him. When Mr. Navaratnam was unable to pay his rent, the hospital was prepared to assist him in looking at other options and even to bring him into hospital temporarily if he lost his home. Dr. Ali believes that the hospital needs to remain involved and at the forefront of the discussions regarding housing.
Mr. Navaratnam has ongoing financial stressors in his life given the inconsistencies with employment. He had a vehicle at one point but was unable to continue to afford it. There have been discussions about the possibility of him looking at making a consumer proposal to deal with his current debt load. Dr. Ali believes that Mr. Navaratnam’s current housing is appropriate.
In Dr. Ali’s opinion Mr. Navaratnam continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public and the rationale for that opinion is set out at pages 20 to 22 of the Hospital Report. The re-offence scenario states as follows:
“In risk assessment, one of the best predictors is a patient’s history of violence. Mr. Navaratnam’s index offences were of a violent nature. If he were to reoffend, it would likely be in the context of suboptimal supervision, non-adherence to his medication regimen and/or stress. In the event of a psychotic decompensation, Mr. Navaratnam would become increasingly unwell, with persecutory delusions, impulsivity, and would be at a heightened risk of acting out violently towards others.”
The hospital is recommending no change to the disposition as it is important for Mr. Navaratnam to have stability before he moves towards an absolute discharge. Mr. Navaratnam does not currently have any community psychiatric team in place to manage his medications. Furthermore, changes to his medications are being contemplated and could happen in the next year. Overall, Dr. Ali believes that there remains uncertainty in key areas of Mr. Navaratnam’s life, and it is important for all the pieces to be put together before he is absolutely discharged.
In the opinion of Dr. Ali, maintaining a residence specification clause in the disposition will enable the hospital to remain involved at the forefront of any potential housing change to avoid a situation where Mr. Navaratnam could end up in inappropriate housing that could destabilize him further.
With respect to the plan for the next year, the hospital is looking at potential medication change. Mr. Navaratnam has no financial support for his medications which are being provided to him free of cost by CAMH. This will not be extended to him once he obtains an absolute discharge.
The team wants to be able to work with Mr. Navaratnam about changing medications as he is currently experiencing side effects on his current LAI and the team will explore to see if it is possible for him to receive a different antipsychotic medication free of charge. Additionally, the hospital would like to see Mr. Navaratnam stabilize his housing and finances if possible and, in that case, commence transitioning him to a community team for psychiatric follow-up and an absolute discharge.
In response to questions posed to her by counsel from the Attorney General, Mr. Coughlin, Dr. Ali acknowledged that Mr. Navaratnam decompensated very rapidly in June of 2024 and that this compounded by a lack of sleep and noncompliance to medication.
Being on a LAI antipsychotic is protective for Mr. Navaratnam who is quite isolated in the community. All of the information obtained by the treatment team is based on Mr. Navaratnam’s self-report. Mr. Navaratnam’s stability is wrapped up in his housing, and it is important for the hospital to know what is happening with him, to assist him in making appropriate changes and choices in respect of his living accommodation. Dr. Ali agreed that having the resident specification is the least onerous way of ensuring this.
In response to questions posed to her by counsel for Mr. Navaratnam, Ms. Boissonneault, Dr. Ali testified as follows:
a) Mr. Navaratnam’s symptoms have been in remission throughout the past reporting year. Mr. Navaratnam is polite and cooperative with the treatment team.
b) Mr. Navaratnam experienced very rapid decompensation in June of 2024 while on oral medication but has now been taking a LAI and has been compliant with that all year.
c) Dr. Ali agreed that it is no longer necessary to have a consent to treatment provision in the disposition now that Mr. Navaratnam is on the LAI and complying with it and indicating his intention to continue taking it.
d) Mr. Navaratnam continues to be somewhat guarded about information that he shares with the treatment team. For example, the treatment team was only recently informed of the fact that Mr. Navaratnam started having contact with his family. It is important that he shares information with the team in a timely manner. Dr. Ali agreed that a more trusting relationship has developed between Mr. Navaratnam and the treatment team and that he is more accepting of the support but that there remains some guardedness.
e) With respect to the housing instability that Mr. Navaratnam experienced in the spring, he did agree with the suggestion of the treatment team that the last resort would be that he could come into hospital temporarily if he lost his housing.
f) Dr. Ali acknowledged that when Mr. Navaratnam was admitted to hospital in the summer of 2024 following a decompensation, he did remain in hospital voluntarily after the expiration of the Mental Health Act form. Dr. Ali agreed that Mr. Navaratnam is likely to cooperate with the treatment team regarding any potential change in residence though maintaining a residence clause in the disposition ensures that the hospital will get information in a timely manner. Dr. Ali acknowledged that 24-hour notice of change of address is included in the disposition, however, this is not adequate in her opinion.
g) Dr. Ali confirmed that Mr. Navaratnam is currently working as a forklift operator and that he has been quite resourceful in finding employment.
h) The hospital will assist Mr. Navaratnam in finding non-forensic support when he is ready for an absolute discharge and with respect to the cost of medication, they will attempt to assist Mr. Navaratnam in finding an insurance plan that will cover the bulk of the costs though there may be some residual fee payable. Dr. Ali is not aware of any other grants or supports that could be available to subsidized medication, but it could be that if Mr. Navaratnam finds more permanent employment with an insurance benefit plan, that could assist.
i) Dr. Ali agreed that it could be beneficial to craft a disposition that tests Mr. Navaratnam prior to receiving an absolute discharge.
- In response to questions posed to her by the members of the panel, Dr. Ali responded as follows:
a) Mr. Navaratnam has not received PTSD treatment as he is not currently endorsing those symptoms. Moreover, Mr. Navaratnam does not have time to participate in psychosocial programming because of his employment obligations but in any event the hospital has not seen those symptoms.
b) Dr. Ali acknowledged that Mr. Navaratnam still has outstanding criminal charges arising from his episode of decompensation in June of 2024, which involved him throwing rocks at a taxi. It is her understanding that this process is moving slowly through the courts and that there may be a possible NCR defence.
c) With respect to medication compliance, Mr. Navaratnam has not clearly stated that he wants to come off the LAI, but this could be an issue once he receives an absolute discharge. Dr. Ali wants to have more discussions with him over the course of the next year in order to further solidify his compliance with medication.
d) Dr. Ali acknowledged that the disposition could contain a longer period of notification of change of address rather than a residence specification clause; however, this still will not assist the treatment team if Mr. Navaratnam does not share information in advance of making choices about further accommodation and that the efficacy of such a condition depends on him being forthcoming about the information.
Counsel for Mr. Navaratnam in questions arising, asked Dr. Ali whether the team was considering adding a medication to treat side effects. Dr. Ali responded that the hospital is favouring switching to a different LAI as the issue of costs are important for Mr. Navaratnam and if he is on multiple medications this may become difficult for him to obtain subsidies.
Counsel for the Crown, Mr. Coughlin, confirmed that trial dates have been set for the month of December 2025 for the outstanding criminal charges.
Submissions of the Parties
The parties essentially maintained their preliminary positions regarding ongoing significant threat and the maintenance of a conditional discharge. All parties were in agreement that the consent to treatment provision is no longer necessary and could be removed.
The hospital and the Crown continued to support the inclusion of the residence specification whereas counsel for Mr. Navaratnam, Ms. Boissonneault, submitted that the residence specification clause is no longer needed in that the Board could simply require that Mr. Navaratnam provide 30 days’ notice of any change of address. Ms. Boissonneault added that Mr. Navaratnam would involve the treatment team in his decision and that there is no evidence that he has ever gravitated towards inappropriate housing. Mr. Navaratnam should be trusted to make that decision in the future, and he is a hard-working individual. Ms. Boissonneault acknowledged that including the residence specification would send a message that this is a serious issue but that in any event it is no longer necessary given that Mr. Navaratnam is more cooperative and less guarded.
Analysis and Conclusion
Having considered all of the evidence presented at the hearing, and the submissions of the parties, the Board finds that Mr. Navaratnam continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of public as set out in s. 682.5401 of the Criminal Code of Canada and as further defined in 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. Navaratnam continues to post a significant threat to the safety of the public is based on the totality of the evidentiary record, including the serious index offences which were committed in the context of psychiatric decompensation of Mr. Navaratnam’s inadequately treated major mental illness. Mr. Navaratnam continues to have the presence of destabilizing factors in his life, including financial instability and concerns about losing his accommodation, and outstanding criminal charges. He is relatively isolated in the community and needs the ongoing support of his treatment team to help him navigate those ongoing stressors.
Though his insight remains partial, Mr. Navaratnam has been largely compliant. He also appears to be more willing to work with his treatment team towards medication optimization and is more accepting of the support that is being offered to him.
Dr. Ali has stated that efforts will also be made to help connect Mr. Navaratnam with community mental health supports, that will be needed once he is no longer under a Board disposition.
The Board agrees that a consent to treatment provision is no longer necessary and that it is important to test Mr. Navaratnam’s compliance with treatment while he is still under a disposition.
As to the issue of a residence specification, we find that it remains necessary at this time, given ongoing financial instability as well as Mr. Navaratnam’s residual guardedness and the fact that information is not always shared with the treatment team in a timely manner. It would be important for the hospital to be able to act promptly and avoid a situation where Mr. Navaratnam loses his accommodation and is forced to make choices that could lead to further destabilization of his mental condition.
In coming to our disposition, we have considered the four factors set out at s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code, 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.
DATED this 5^th^ day of November, 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.
Ms. M. Labrosse Alternate Chairperson
__________________
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board