Ontario Review Board
Re: Prasant Iyer
ORB File No: 7394
Hearing held on: Friday, November 28, 2025
Place of hearing: Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences 700 Gordon Street, Whitby
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before: Alternate Chairperson: Mr. G. Beasley Members: Dr. S. Chatterjee Dr. M. Kalia Mr. R. Bigelow Ms. R. MacIntyre
Parties Appearing: Accused: Prasant Iyer Counsel: Ms. J. Boissonneault
The person in charge of hospital: Representative: Dr. M. Pearce
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. N. MacDonald
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated December 30, 2025)
Introduction
On July 6, 2018, the accused, Prasant Iyer, was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on charges of aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose and failing to comply with a court order, all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada. By reason of a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (“ORB”) dated December 5, 2024, Mr. Iyer was ordered to be detained within the Forensic Program at Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences (“Ontario Shores”) with privileges up to and including residing in the community in accommodation approved by the person in charge.
On November 28, 2025, the ORB convened a hearing at Ontario Shores for the purpose of the annual review of Mr. Iyer’s Disposition pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Iyer was present and represented by counsel, Ms. Boissonneault. Dr. Pearce appeared as the representative of the hospital and Ms. MacDonald as counsel for the Attorney General of Ontario.
Index Offence
- The circumstances of the index offence as taken from the Hospital Report are as follows:
“On Tuesday, February 21 2017 at 12:20 am, the accused, Mr. Prasant Iyer, called Beck Taxi for service at his residence. When the victim, taxi driver Arfan Malik, attended in front of 11 Stonefield Crescent, Toronto, Mr. Iyer was already on the driveway of the residence and walked down to the roadway, getting into the taxicab from the rear driver’s side door. Mr. Malik asked, “How are you, sir?” at the same time that the Mr. Iyer asked, “How are you, boss?” When the victim answered, “Very good,” Mr. Iyer suddenly began to stab Mr. Malik in the face and the back of his shoulder area, as well as causing cuts to the driver’s seat and front driver’s seat armrest.
Mr. Malik did not at first realize what he had been hit with and may have lost consciousness for a short period of time, as he did not recall the vehicle mounting the curb and hitting a tree, nor did he realize he had also been stabbed in the back-shoulder area until paramedics later found the blade of a steak knife protruding from his back. He ran away from his vehicle, only then feeling blood flowing from both his mouth and right cheek and realizing he had been stabbed, not just in the face. Once he was a few houses away, he looked back and, seeing Mr. Iyer re-entering his residence, called 911. Upon police arrival, he pointed out Mr. Iyer as the person who attacked him. Officers on scene located the taxicab with the engine still running, up against a tree, and the handle of the knife on the ground near the open rear driver’s side door of the taxicab. Numerous bloodstains were observed and photographed on the driver’s side door area of the cab, on the victim’s clothing, and on the roadway.
Upon police attendance at the front door of 11 Stonefield Crescent, Mr. Iyer’s father, Prabhakar Iyer, first excited the residence and was asked if he was involved in the incident. At this point, Mr. Iyer exited his residence and said he was the one involved. He was arrested without incident. Officers at the station noted no blood or flesh injuries on Mr. Iyer when being booked into 43 Division.
Mr. Malik required numerous stitches to the interior and exterior of his right cheek to close the through-and-through stab wound to his face, as well as stitches to the stab wound in the back shoulder area. A laceration to the base of the tongue was discovered a week later, which could not be surgically repaired.”
Current Diagnoses
- Mr. Iyer’s current diagnoses are as follows:
Schizophrenia
Alcohol Use Disorder, mild
Dextromethorphan Use Disorder, moderate
Intellectual Developmental Disorder, mild
Criminal History
- According to his criminal record dated February 21, 2017, Mr. Iyer had no criminal convictions prior to the index offence. A review of his legal history set out in the Hospital Report indicates that in March of 2016, Mr. Iyer was charged with threatening a stranger at a bar. There are no details of the outcome of that charge. The Hospital Report also details charges from June 25, 2015. Mr. Iyer is alleged to have attacked a taxi driver who he had called to his house. He used a large knife and caused damage to the motor vehicle. This incident appears to have been resolved by way of a peace bond.
Background and Personal History
The Hospital Report sets out in great detail information about Mr. Iyer’s personal history and course in the hospital and community subsequent to the index offences and need not be repeated here as the Hospital Report was made an exhibit at the hearing. Briefly stated, at the time of the hearing, Mr. Iyer was a 40-year-old man who was born in India and immigrated to Canada with his parents at age 6. His mother and his sister were diagnosed with schizophrenia.
Mr. Iyer exhibited increasing behavioural problems as he entered adolescence. He performed poorly in school and was diagnosed with a learning disability and “maybe ADHD” in Grade 8. Psychological testing suggested “significant delay” and his measure of intellectual functioning was “well below age level expectations” with a full-scale IQ in the “lower extreme” range (2nd percentile). By Grade 9, he began spending increasing amounts of time with antisocial peers in his neighbourhood and he dropped out of school.
Mr. Iyer has no significant work history and is currently supported by the Ontario Disability Support Program.
According to the Hospital Report, Mr. Iyer first began using cannabis at the age of sixteen. He reported that at the time of the index offences, he was smoking “one spiff” and drinking two bottles of beer per day. In 2012, Mr. Iyer began misusing over-the-counter cough syrup. By the time of the index offences, he was drinking one bottle of cough syrup a day. In 2018, he reported that he believed that it helped with his “music and imagination” and kept him from thinking “in a bad direction”. Mr. Iyer’s father reported his son’s use of cough syrup as problematic and thought that it caused him to be “more agitated.” All three substances were factors in the commission of the index offences.
Psychiatric History
Mr. Iyer’s psychiatric history is detailed in the Hospital Report which describes a number of instances in which the Scarborough Hospital Mobile Crisis Intervention Team was called to the Iyer residence due to Mr. Iyer’s aggressive behaviour. He was admitted to Scarborough Hospital in December 2011 after he overdosed. At that time, his past psychiatric history was noted for a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia. His mother reported that he had not seen his doctor for nearly two years and was medically noncompliant.
Mr. Iyer has remained detained at Ontario Shores since his admission in November 2018. In September 2019, he was transferred to the secure Forensic Assessment Unit (“FAU”) based on his continued use of substances, including cannabis, cough syrup and alcohol and his fluctuating mental status with repeated incidences of aggressive and violent thoughts and behaviour towards peers and staff. He was transferred back to the general Forensic Psychiatric Rehabilitation Unit (“FPRU”) in February 2021.
Position of the Parties
- At the outset of the hearing, Dr. Pearce stated that in the opinion of the hospital and the treatment team, Mr. Iyer continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate disposition was the continuation of the current Detention Order but with removal of a clause which prevented Mr. Iyer from utilizing taxis unless he had the permission of the hospital. Ms. Boissonneault supported the recommendation of the hospital as did Ms. MacDonald.
Evidence
The evidence on behalf of the hospital was presented by Dr. Pearce. Dr. Pearce stated that he is Mr. Iyer’s attending psychiatrist on the general unit. He said that Mr. Iyer has made some progress over the past reporting year. He continues to have issues with coping which can result in his talking to himself and becoming upset with himself. This has caused some conflict on the unit with co-patients and the nursing staff. Mr. Iyer has made use of his available passes without issue. He has not demonstrated any psychosis. He is compliant and cooperative with the treatment team and takes good care of himself. Dr. Pearce stated that at the present time the treatment team are just waiting for available housing for Mr. Iyer although this may take some considerable time due to his specialized needs. Dr. Pearce stated there has been some discussion with the family about the possibility of Mr. Iyer returning home to live but this is in the early stages of consideration. Dr. Pearce stated that in December or January, the treatment team will begin to explore the possibility of passes home for Mr. Iyer. Dr. Pearce stated that Mr. Iyer has used cannabis throughout the year, but this has not caused any problems. Mr. Iyer has also consumed alcohol and cough syrup, although not as much as in past years. Cough syrup, in particular, has resulted in there being a number of issues with Mr. Iyer.
Ms. MacDonald did not have any questions for Dr. Pearce.
In response to questions from Ms. Boissonneault, Dr. Pearce confirmed that Mr. Iyer has been compliant with his antipsychotic medications throughout the past reporting year. He also confirmed that Mr. Iyer has participated in a number of programs including anger management. He has recently started individual counselling for concurrent disorders. Dr. Pearce confirmed that Mr. Iyer is considered to be Alternative Level of Care (ALC), and ready for discharge once suitable housing is arranged. Dr. Pearce also confirmed that Mr. Iyer has DSO status with Passport funding in place. He said that the team will arrange for a Transitional Case Manager in the near future.
In response to questions from members of the Board, Dr. Pearce confirmed that Mr. Iyer has cognitive deficits which have had some affect on his ability to absorb information from his counselling sessions. Dr. Pearce acknowledged that Mr. Iyer may require a modified approach to his treatment. The treatment team would like Mr. Iyer to have more individual sessions in order to bolster his coping skills. The treatment team do have concern about Mr. Iyer’s propensity to damage property when he becomes frustrated. Dr. Pearce stated that the individual sessions have been modified in order to accommodate Mr. Iyer’s deficits. Dr. Pearce stated that Mr. Iyer has been regularly exercising the privilege of taking taxis and has always obtained the permission as required by his Disposition. He stated that the treatment team are requesting the ‘taxi’ clause removal as it no longer serves any useful purpose given Mr. Iyer’s current level of stability.
Neither Ms. MacDonald nor Ms. Boissonneault called evidence at the hearing.
Submissions
- At the conclusion of the evidence, all counsel reiterated the joint submission made at the outset of the hearing. The submission was that Mr. Iyer continued to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate Disposition was a continuation of the current Detention Order with amendments to the passes and deletion of the ‘taxi’ clause.
Analysis and Disposition
The Board was presented with a joint submission that the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a continuation of the current Detention Order with some minor amendments. The Board is unanimous in accepting the recommendations of the parties as well founded on the evidence of Dr. Pearce and the contents of the Hospital Report.
As set out in the Hospital Report an Empirically Based Assessment of Risk was completed on October 17, 2025, by a staff psychologist in the Forensic Program. The risk assessment conducted by Dr. Gibas found that there was clear evidence of recent problems with instability, symptoms of major mental disorder, and treatment and supervision response. There was also partial evidence of issues with violent ideation, intent, and insight. Mr. Iyer’s violence risk arises from interpersonal conflict, either actual or perceived, which is influenced by residual psychotic symptoms of paranoia, his intellectual disability, and challenges with social skills and attachment. To Mr. Iyer’s credit, despite current episodes of lability and occasions where agitation and verbal outbursts with violent themes occurred, there has been no directed physical violence towards peers or staff. Staff intervention has been needed on a number of occasions. Mr. Iyer’s insight is considered fair, and he continues to be compliant with his medication regimen. The risk assessment found that were Mr. Iyer to be awarded a Conditional Discharge then his risk to perpetrate violence would be moderate to high. Given Mr. Iyer’s current situation, none of the parties suggested that a Conditional Discharge would be a necessary or appropriate disposition. The Board agrees with their assessment of the appropriateness of that possible disposition.
The Clinical Assessment of Risk is summarized as follows on page 62 of the Hospital Report:
“Mr. Iyer’s risk factors are described by the HCR-20. Of particular relevance is his mental illness (schizophrenia), substance use disorders, and limited intellect and coping skills. Absent a Disposition of the Board, he would migrate to unsuitable housing. He would resume and increase his use of substances, and he would become non-compliant with his medications and psychiatric care providers. In these circumstances, there is a high risk that he would cause serious physical and/or psychological harm to members of the public.”
The Board is unanimous in agreeing with the assessment.
- The index offences in this matter involved acts of violence directed at a taxi driver. Mr. Iyer’s history reflects that it was not the first time that he engaged in violent offending against taxi drivers. This no doubt was the rationale behind including a term which prohibited Mr. Iyer from utilizing taxis unless he had the specific permission of the hospital. As set out in Dr. Pearce’s evidence, given Mr. Iyer’s level of stability and the potential that he will be moved into community housing as soon as a suitable residence becomes available for him, there is no useful purpose in continuing term 2(g) of the Disposition. The Disposition shall also be amended to clarify that the passes contemplated by paragraphs 2(d) and (e) will be for up to seven days on an itinerary approved by the person in charge.
DATED this 30^th^ day of December 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.
Mr. G. Beasley Alternate Chairperson
____________________________
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board