Re: Justin Sukhara
ORB File No: 8778
Hearing Held On: Tuesday, September 23, 2025
Place of Hearing: Waypoint Centre for Mental Health
Pursuant To: Section 672.47(1) of the Criminal Code
Before: Alternate Chairperson: Ms. T. Mann Members: Dr. K. Hand Dr. G. Kerry Ms. A. La Viola Ms. R. Chopra
Parties Appearing: Accused: Justin Sukhara Counsel: Ms. C. Francis Person in charge of Hospital: Representative/Counsel: Ms. T. Newman Attorney-General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. S. Curry
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated November 25, 2025)
OVERVIEW
Justin Sukhara was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on March 3, 2025, on two counts of fail to stop, operate motor vehicle while pursued by peace officer, and dangerous operation of a conveyance, contrary to the Criminal Code. The Honourable Justice E. A. Carlton did not make a disposition, instead, Mr. Sukhara was remanded out of custody for a hearing at the High Secure Provincial Forensic Programs – Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care, before the Ontario Review Board.
On September 3, 2025, the Board received notice1 pursuant to Rule 14 from Waypoint, recommending that Mr. Sukhara be transferred to the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (“CAMH”), and that he be subject to a Conditional Discharge, with a number of reporting conditions.
A response from CAMH was received on September 19, 2025, stating that due to Mr. Sukhara’s previous history of not following treatment recommendations, his lack of insight and recent decompensation in his mental status – a Detention Disposition Order allowing for the possibility of hospital admission would be the best way to manage his risk if his condition were to worsen again. Further, the Mental Health Act or his voluntary agreement to attend for assessment or to be admitted to hospital was not considered sufficient to manage his risk to the safety of the public, especially since he does not have an established relationship with CAMH.
At the outset of the hearing, Counsel for the Hospital, Counsel for the Attorney General and Counsel for Mr. Sukhara submitted that in their respective views – Mr. Sukhara represents a significant threat to the safety of the public while also agreeing that managing his risk and his care did not require a maximum secure forensic setting. .
At the conclusion of the evidence, both the Hospital and Counsel for the Attorney General agreed with the recommendation by CAMH, as adopted by Dr. Mishra, submitting that although Mr. Sukhara is currently stable and not using substances, he has a history of stopping medication and may lack the insight to act before decompensation – a Detention Order allows for earlier intervention and is more protective of the safety of the public. Counsel for the Attorney General also supported the Detention Order with community living, and she added that the dangerous driving was due to psychosis, not substance use.
However, Counsel for Mr. Sukhara argued that the Board should consider a Conditional Discharge as previously recommended in the Risk Assessment Report dated August 19, 2025, filed as an exhibit at the hearing and per the Form 14 notice. At the conclusion of the evidence, Counsel asked the Board to consider a Conditional Discharge – asking the Board to decide whether a Detention Order is truly necessary. Ms. Francis submitted that Mr. Sukhara has been living in the community, waiting for the forensic team, and there is no evidence to suggest he has presented any management problems. He has moved in with his parents, and they are working on their relationship. Mr. Sukhara is willing to consent to a community treatment order. Crafting a Conditional Discharge that mirrors the conditions of a Detention Order would give him hope. Mr. Sukhara looks forward to working with CAMH’s team, does not intend to move from his parents’ home, and will do well under the Ontario Review Board regardless.
ISSUES
- On September 23, 2025, the Board convened at Waypoint for an initial hearing further to s. 672.47(1) of the Criminal Code to make a disposition. The Board was asked to determine whether Mr. Sukhara represented a significant threat to the safety of the public at the time of the hearing, and further, what the necessary and appropriate disposition is in the circumstances according to the factors set out in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
FINDINGS
- After reviewing the evidence and submissions presented at the time of the hearing, the Board concluded that Mr. Sukhara represents a significant threat to public safety. A Detention Order is required to be able to manage that risk. The high secure setting at Waypoint is not necessary and appropriate, and a Conditional Discharge is premature at this time. The Board concluded that Mr. Sukhara be transferred to CAMH, on a Detention Order with community living, in approved accommodations.
PERSONAL BACKGROUND
The Risk Assessment Report dated August 19, 2025, was entered as an exhibit at the hearing.2 The following background information, including the events surrounding the index offences is summarized here as follows.
On November 19, 2023, police observed a dark Acura driving erratically in Bracebridge, later speeding well over 130 km in a 60 km zone, running a red light, and forcing other vehicles off the road in poor, icy conditions. Officers terminated a pursuit but recorded the vehicle registration, traced it to Justin Sukhara, and located the damaged Acura at a convenience store where Sukhara was arrested. A search of the vehicle revealed multiple packages and fresh buds of cannabis, burned ‘roaches,’ and a prohibited knife. Justin Sukhara exhibited altered behaviour. He was taken to the West Parry Sound hospital for blood sampling, charged, and released on an undertaking. Forensic testing later showed elevated THC levels, but no t alcohol was detected
Mr. Sukhara is 28 years old. Born in North York to Guyanese parents who migrated to Canada in the 1980s, he is the youngest of three siblings with a difficult family dynamic. He reported that he experienced his mother emotionally distant and controlling, and a caring but passive father who later became a restaurant owner in Brampton. His parents’ restaurant meant the children were often left to care for themselves from about age 10. He described limited parental involvement, strained sibling relationships, and close attachment to a maternal grandmother.
While attending school, Mr. Sukhara described that he felt like an outsider who was sometimes bullied and became regularly truant from Grade 9 onward. He dropped out in Grade 10 after failing English and subsequent courses, though when engaged his grades could reach the 70s–80s. He had no diagnosed learning disabilities, and was not highly disruptive, but his parents were largely disengaged, and he did odd jobs at the family restaurant from age 12. School problems included minor misconduct (rock‑throwing leading to community service), occasional running away to friends’ houses, and low motivation driven by poor relationships at home and with peers.
Mr. Sukhara began occasional cannabis use in high school but escalated beginning in 2019. He reported heavy use (about 4–6 grams daily plus high‑dose edibles and concentrates) claiming it made him calmer and less agitated. He stopped using cannabis after the index offences and, by August 6, 2025, denied use since December 2023 (urine tests in June 2025 confirmed abstinence). He drank alcohol socially but denied heavy drinking or withdrawal.
Mr. Sukhara worked intermittently at the family restaurant from age 12 but found full‑time work there stressful. After his first child was born, he left home at age 20 and entered the automotive trade, doing oil changes and mechanical work for several years, and also doing construction/renovations.
Mr. Sukhara moved between Brampton and Bracebridge for work and housing, left the family restaurant due to conflict with his mother, planned to obtain his high school diploma and mechanic certification, and has been unemployed since the index offences, occasionally helping at the family restaurant. He has two young children who live with their mother and whom he visits periodically. He had a long-term relationship with their mother, which he described as ‘toxic.’ He used cannabis to cope with life's challenges but recognized that it worsened his auditory hallucinations and paranoia.
A check of the Canadian Police Information Centre database shows that Mr. Sukhara has never been charged with a criminal offence and has no criminal convictions.
PSYCHIATRIC BACKGROUND
Mr. Sukhara’s current psychiatric diagnoses are Schizophrenia, Cannabis Use Disorder (currently in sustained remission, by self report). He has been found capable of making decisions about his medical treatment, and capable of managing his finances. He is financially supported by the Ontario Works program.
Mr. Sukhara has a history of mental health issues. In May 2023, he was admitted to Soldier's Memorial Hospital with complaints of hearing voices and believing he was hypnotized. He reported cannabis use and was treated with olanzapine.
In November 2023, he was taken to West Parry Sound Health Centre after the index offences. He admitted to hearing voices telling him to ‘get high and drive.’ Subsequent evaluations revealed disorganized thought, religious delusions, and bizarre behaviour. He was then admitted to Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care. While initially denying substance use, he later admitted to using cannabis daily. He has been prescribed medication but has been non-compliant. Throughout his admissions, he exhibited varying degrees of insight into his condition, at times acknowledging his psychosis and at other times denying it.
EVIDENCE AT THE HEARING
Dr. A. Mishra, the author of the Risk Assessment Report, gave evidence at the hearing. Dr. Mishra consistently emphasized that Mr. Sukhara remains a significant threat, with the core issue centering on whether detention is appropriate and necessary. Although initially indicating that a Conditional Discharge was suitable, Dr. Mishra revisited this position after reviewing additional information, including the correspondence from CAMH, authored by Dr. P. Darby. Recognizing that Dr. Darby’s team is well acquainted with the surrounding catchment area of CAMH, Dr. Mishra ultimately recommended a Detention Order, explaining that detention could better facilitate management of Mr. Sukhara’s risk, particularly through hospital oversight, without the need for the lengthy process as the Mental Health Act thresholds.
In supporting his revised position as to the necessary and appropriate disposition, Dr. Mishra highlighted Mr. Sukhara’s recent history of dangerous behaviour, including the index offence of intoxicated driving, and his previous attempts at self-harm, such as a post-index offence attempted suicide, which led to hospitalization. He noted that a Detention Order allows for more proactive risk management, as it enables the hospital to approve accommodations and intervene more effectively. Moreover, Dr. Mishra discussed Mr. Sukhara’s limited engagement with mental health teams, the added stress related to accessing his children through legal proceedings, and its potential adverse impact on his mental health. He expressed that a Detention Order offers an additional layer of protection and would not restrict his privileges unnecessarily, providing a balance of safety without overly constraining him.
Regarding Mr. Sukhara’s mental health history, Dr. Mishra pointed out past non-compliance with medication, including discontinuation of antipsychotics and failure to attend appointments, all demonstrating fluctuating insight and poor judgement. He emphasized that when symptoms exacerbate, Mr. Sukhara would likely be less inclined to seek voluntary hospitalization prior to experiencing significant deterioration in his mental state, as happened at the time of his attempted suicide. Substance use was also identified as a concern, although Mr. Sukhara has reported abstinence, he later admitted to stopping medications, missing appointments, and resuming cannabis use, which can adversely affect symptoms and overall mental health. Dr. Mishra also noted the lack of rapport with the Canadian Mental Health Association, and the absence of established therapeutic relationships, which could hinder effective risk management.
Lastly, Dr. Mishra indicated that while Mr. Sukhara has expressed a willingness to engage in programs such as the Early Psychosis Intervention, and other community services, he has not yet fully engaged or spoken extensively with providers. Dr. Mishra concluded that living in the community and being engaged with treatment programs could be beneficial, especially if placed under a Detention Order, providing better safety measures, access to care, and a safeguard against relapse.
After further inquiries, Dr. Mishra asserted that Mr. Sukhara’s current risk profile warrants continued caution due to the development of Schizophrenia, which is independent of substance use, and the history of dangerous behaviour associated with the index offences. Dr. Mishra agreed that this risk escalated rapidly, notably through the dangerous driving incident, which occurred while he was living alone, ill, and undermedicated. These circumstances demonstrate that, without adequate treatment and oversight, the risk to public safety remains significant. Furthermore, his familial relationships are fragile, and this instability may influence his ability to maintain safe and independent living arrangements.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
(a) Significant Threat
The Board must first determine whether Mr. Sukhara is a significant threat to the safety of the public as defined in Winko v. British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute), 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625. Based on the totality of the evidence, including the testimony of Dr. Mishra and the most recent clinical and risk assessment findings, the Board concludes that Mr. Sukhara continues to meet the legal threshold for a significant threat.
When Mr. Sukhara experiences symptoms of his mental illness, specifically his history of dangerous driving while experiencing psychosis, his actions demonstrate a real potential for causing significant physical and psychological harm to others. The behaviours occurred during an acute psychotic episode when Mr. Sukhara was not compliant with treatment, and when his psychotic symptoms, including delusions and hallucinations, were aggravated by cannabis use. The index offences involved driving in a dangerous manner and causing significant damage to his car, while putting other drivers at serious risk of harm. The HCR-20 scores highlight the ongoing nature of these risk factors, showing that despite treatment, the potential for relapse and subsequent dangerous behaviour remains a concern.
We note that the HCR assessment identified numerous static and dynamic risk factors across all domains. Within the historical domain, factors included a history of relationship problems, cannabis use starting at age 19, and a major mental disorder of Schizophrenia. The clinical domain revealed ongoing symptoms of psychosis, even with treatment. The risk management domain highlighted potential problems with future treatment compliance, limited access to personal support outside of his family, and difficulties developing appropriate coping strategies to deal with stress. These factors, collectively contribute to an elevated risk profile.
(b) Necessary and Appropriate
The Board must next determine the disposition that is the least onerous and least restrictive of Mr. Sukhara’s liberty interests, which is consistent with public safety, his mental condition, and his reintegration into society, as required by s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
Given the severity of the potential consequences of relapse and considering the clinical risk management assessments highlighting Mr. Sukhara's history of non-compliance, limited independent support systems, and the presence of ongoing psychotic symptoms – the current level of community structure is not sufficient. The persistence of these risk factors suggests a higher level of protection is required to adequately manage Mr. Sukhara's risk and ensure public safety. In light of the evidence presented, the Board finds that Mr. Sukhara's detention in a secure forensic facility, with the ability to live in the community, is necessary and appropriate.
While a Conditional Discharge may seem like a less restrictive alternative, it is not appropriate in Mr. Sukhara's situation due to the significant level of risk he continues to pose to public safety. The HCR-20 assessment clearly identifies a pattern of risk factors, including a history of non-compliance with treatment while in the community, ongoing psychotic symptoms, substance use, and limited professional and relapse prevention support systems. These factors, together with the severity of his index offences (dangerous driving during psychosis), necessitate a higher level of security and oversight than a Conditional Discharge can provide at this time, particularly as early days in the forensic system require both assessment and strict monitoring to prevent possible relapse.
While CAMH is a forensic institution, Mr. Sukhara is not known to their treatment team. Developing and implementing a treatment plan for a patient with a history of serious risk factors requires careful assessment and monitoring, which can be best facilitated by a Detention Order. This will enable CAMH to fully evaluate Mr. Sukhara's mental condition, ensure adherence to treatment, and develop an individualized risk management plan within a secure setting, if necessary, prior to considering any potential transition to a conditional discharge.
A Detention Order is the most appropriate and necessary course of action to protect the public, given Mr. Sukhara's level of risk, the transfer to an unfamiliar treatment team and his relatively early stage within the forensic system. It allows for comprehensive monitoring, treatment adherence, and development of a robust risk management plan within a secure environment. This takes into account public safety and sets the stage for a responsible and well-managed potential transition to less restrictive conditions in the future, when and if his risk profile demonstrably improves. While community treatment orders can be beneficial, the safety of the community remains paramount, and a Detention Order offers the necessary safeguards to manage potential escalation of symptoms and Mr. Sukhara’s risk behaviours effectively.
DATED this 25th day of November, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Ms. A. La Viola Legal Member
___________________ Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board
Footnotes
- Ontario Review Board Rules of Procedures, Schedule A, Rule 14 – in the case of an ‘initial’ hearing, transfer requests from one hospital to another, when an accused is not detained, notice must be sent to the Board, including the prospective receiving hospital, if one is identified.
- The Risk Assessment Report contained an error – the NCR date was March 3, 2025, not November 19, 2023