Subodh Kumar (Re), 2025 CanLII 144710

Ontario Review Board

Re: Subodh Kumar

ORB File No: 5742

Hearing held on: Tuesday, December 2, 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. R. Cormier Mr. D. Sandor Mr. A. Bouvier

Parties Appearing:

Accused: Subodh Kumar Counsel: Ms. K. Irwin

Person in charge of hospital: Representative: Dr. F. Wood

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

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated December 31, 2025)

Introduction

1. On November 5, 2010, Mr. Subodh Kumar was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, on a charge of assault, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (“Criminal Code”).

2. Mr. Kumar is subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the “Board”), dated December 5, 2024, which discharges him from the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre (“Royal Ottawa”), on conditions set out therein.

3. On December 2, 2025, the Board convened a hearing at Royal Ottawa to conduct the annual review of the current Disposition.

4. Mr. Kumar was present at the hearing and was represented by his counsel, Ms. Kate Irwin.

5. A Hospital Report, dated November 3, 2025 (the "Hospital Report"), was entered as Exhibit 1.

6. The issues at this hearing were whether Mr. Kumar 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 concluded that Mr. Kumar continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. The Board found that the necessary and appropriate Disposition in the circumstances is a continuation of the existing Conditional Discharge order.

Current Psychiatric Diagnoses:

• Schizophrenia, continuous
• Cannabis Use Disorder
• Crack Cocaine Use Disorder

Position of the Parties

8. Dr. Wood, as representative of the hospital and most responsible physician, recommended a continuation of the existing Conditional Discharge, with the possible addition of a clause requiring that the person in charge give prior approval to any travel outside the City of Ottawa-Gatineau area and its itinerary.

9. Counsel for the Attorney-General agreed with the Hospital’s recommendation. She suggested that Mr. Kumar be allowed to travel only within Canda with the prior approval of an itinerary by the person in charge.

10. Counsel for Mr. Kumar advised that she was seeking no change to the current Disposition. She also advised that the issue of significant threat was not in dispute for the purposes of this hearing.

Index Offence

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

On May 21, 2010, Mr. Kumar was at the Food Court at the Rideau Centre. The report states that the victim and her husband were also at the Food Court. For no apparent reasons, Mr. Kumar approached the victim and started punching him in the face and head. Both victims fell to the ground and Mr. Kumar kept on punching them until other customers managed to restrain him and security arrived.

Personal History, Criminal History and Psychiatric History

12. Mr. Kumar’s personal, criminal, and psychiatric history are outlined in the Hospital Report, and they are accurate summarized in last year’s Reasons:

“Personal History

Little information was provided regarding Mr. Kumar’s personal history. It is noted that he was born in India and came to Canada in 1995. His parents are both deceased. He has a brother and other relatives living in the Ottawa area. He reported that he had been a good student, but only completed grade 11. He has expressed an interest in completing a high school diploma but has not followed through with this. His employment history includes working in several unskilled jobs in the hospitality industry over the years.

Mr. Kumar has smoked marijuana since he was 15 years of age and by the age of 18, he smoked regularly. There is also a history of some alcohol abuse. In 2006, he started using crack cocaine on a daily basis and it was around that time that he started presenting with disorganized thoughts and auditory hallucinations.

Criminal History

Mr. Kumar has no prior reported criminal record.

Psychiatric History

As stated above, Mr. Kumar’s psychiatric history dates back to approximately 2006 and appears to have been related to when he started consuming crack cocaine. He was then presenting with disorganized behaviour and hallucinations. His first reported contact with psychiatric services was when he presented at a hospital emergency in October 2006. Since then, he has had nine reported hospitalizations at the Civic and/or General Campus of the Ottawa Hospital. He has also been under the supervision of the First Episode Psychiatric Program in January 2007, and he was subsequently transferred for follow-up by an ACT Team.”

Course Since Last Disposition

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

“Similar to last year’s ORB, Mr. Kumar largely had an uneventful year aside from three occasions of drug use.

The only other major change was the recent announcement that his group home was being closed, thus the need for Mr. Kumar to move to another group home under the umbrella of Salus Ottawa. The identified group home felt to meet his needs was the Crichton residence, which would position him for a future opportunity to move into a shared living townhome once Crichton is eventually sold and replaced.

He was agreeable to move to Crichton on November 17, 2025, and there is a plan for him to attend several of the meals at the home to become more familiar with the other residents.”

Evidence at the Hearing

14. The Board had available to it the evidence and documents forming the Record, the Exhibits, and oral evidence from Dr. Wood. Dr. Wood co-authored the Hospital Report, and he testified as follows:

a) Mr. Kumar has largely refrained from substance use over the past year. There were three positive urine drug screens, in February, July, and September. On two of these occasions, he disclosed his substance use to the treatment team before the results of his urine drug screens came back. On the third occasion, he admitted his use only after the results came back. Each instance was a one-time use, and none of them resulted in any relapse into psychosis or required any hospitalization.

b) Continued involvement, from both the forensic team and Salus, is seen as critical for relapse prevention purposes, going forward.

c) Because of the closure of his previous residence, Mr. Kumar has moved into new accommodations. This new residence is in a much safer, and more affluent, area. Mr. Kumar will continue to be supported by a Salus worker in his new residence. He has very good relationships with both his Salus worker and the treatment team.

d) Mr. Kumar attends all appointments on time and regularly participates in both outpatient hospital programs and peer groups. Substance use remains a significant risk factor, as it could cause him to become more impulsive and to engage in unpredictable behaviour.

e) Without forensic oversight, Mr. Kumar’s relapse risk would be higher. Ongoing monitoring of his substance use and adjustment to his new housing are still needed.

f) Mr. Kumar takes his oral clozapine independently, and he has been adherent since the last Review hearing.

g) Mr. Kumar has not been able to obtain as many shifts at his current employment as he would like. This situation has led to boredom and stress, which are linked to his occasional return to substances.

h) Mr. Kumar has recently connected with the March of Dimes; he is hoping to obtain more stable, regular employment through them. Employment stability is seen as a protective factor against a future relapse.

i) Mr. Kumar does stay overnight at his cousin’s house, occasionally. He manages these visits appropriately and discloses these visits beforehand to his residence.

15. In response to questions from counsel for the Attorney General, Dr. Wood testified:

a) Mr. Kumar has strong compliance with all the requirements from his treatment team, including appointments, drug screen attendance and medication adherence. He is also dedicated to obtaining employment.

16. In response to questions from the panel, Dr. Wood testified:

a) Mr. Kumar is not eligible for an Assertive Community Treatment Team because he has not had any recent hospital admissions. It is also very hard to find a psychiatrist in the community. Mr. Kumar has developed a very strong therapeutic alliance with the forensic team over the years.

b) Mr. Kumar’s only contact with his family is with his cousin.

c) While Mr. Kumar does have internal motivation to abstain from substances, he still needs the external control of a prohibition in his current Disposition. The abstinence clause also reinforces to him the serious risk that using substances poses to his mental stability.

d) Before he would recommend an Absolute Discharge, he would like to see the following:

(a) at least one full year of sobriety from Mr. Kumar, with no positive urine drug screens;

(b) establishment of a stable residence; and

(c) development of a comprehensive civil treatment plan, including guaranteed access to a psychiatrist in the community to prescribe clozapine, versus a psychiatrist in the hospital.

17. No other evidence was called.

Analysis and Conclusions:

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

19. 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. Wood, in addition to the documentary evidence before us.

20. While Mr. Kumar has shown progress in treatment engagement with his care team, the combination of the following factors support the need for the continuation of a Conditional Discharge:

a) his treatment-refractory form of Schizophrenia

b) his substance use history, including three instances of cocaine use in 2025

c) his limited insight into his mental illness, the impact of substances on his mental state, his risk of violence, and stress-related triggers

21. In particular, the Board relies on the following paragraphs set out in the hospital report:

“Mr. Kumar continues to have a treatment-resistant form of schizophrenia, with persisting positive psychotic symptoms and a long history of rapid decompensation in response to substance use or missed medication doses. While there have been no observed decompensations over the past year, this is largely the result of Mr. Kumar being more open and forthcoming with the treatment team shortly after using substances and then engaging in increased supports. This was with the exception of July 2025, when Mr. Subodh did not disclose his drug use until afterwards despite having a meeting with the team shortly before the result of his urine drug screen.

The team also considered the potential of an Absolute Discharge. In viewing this, It is the team’s opinion that the therapeutic alliance that had been built with Mr. Kumar over the years has been a major protective factor, allowing him to be more open and honest while also reaching out for support. It is also the team’s opinion, however, that the external pressures of the ORB and team involvement is the main stabilizing factor in maintaining daily life skills, processing information, problem solving, and managing finances independently (e.g., bills, rent increases, etc.).

Without this intensive involvement, Mr. Kumar would be at significant risk of deterioration while his risk of violence quickly escalating.

Nonetheless, even with his propensity to decompensate rapidly, it is the writer’s opinion that his violence risk can be appropriately managed with a conditional discharge over the following year.

22. The only remaining issue before this panel was whether any restriction on his travel was necessary and, if so, what this restriction should be. The Board notes that Mr. Kumar has a very good rapport with Dr Wood, Salus staff and all members of his forensic psychiatric team. Mr. Kumar has been compliant with his psychiatric appointments and has had good attendance at his group programs over the past year. He appreciates the need for his medications and has been taking it independently. He is dedicated to obtaining, and maintaining, paid employment. His current Disposition does not contain any travel restrictions, which has not caused any issues. In fact, Mr. Kumar has notified his residence of his occasional overnight stays with his cousin. Mr. Kumar may be on a path to an Absolute Discharge, if he can maintain a year of sobriety. The Board has an obligation to craft a Disposition that is the least onerous and least restrictive option. Therefore, the Board feels that a travel restriction is neither necessary nor appropriate.

23. In consideration of all the evidence, submissions of the parties and criteria set forth in s. 672.54, the paramount consideration being the safety of the public, in addition to the mental condition of Mr. Kumar, his reintegration into society and his other needs, the necessary and appropriate Disposition is to continue with his Conditional Discharge Order.

DATED this 31st day of December 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.

Mr. J. Weinstein Alternate Chairperson

__________________

Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board