Ontario Review Board
Re: Nevishath Indrakanthan
ORB File No: 7698
Hearing held on: Monday, January 27, 2025
Place of Hearing: Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. C. Flanagan
Members: Dr. R. Sheppard Dr. M. Kalia Ms. J. Greenwood Mr. J. Cyr
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Nevishath Indrakanthan Counsel: Ms. J. Boissonneault
Person in charge of hospital: Representative: Dr. K. De Freitas
Attorney-General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. N. MacDonald
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated March 6, 2025)
Introduction
On February 20, 2020, Mr. Indrakanthan was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCR) on charges of aggravated assault, assaulting a peace officer, assault with intent to resist arrest (x2), possession of a weapon dangerous, attempt to disarm a peace officer (x2), indecent act in a public place (x2), failure to comply with probation (x6), and failure to comply with recognizance, all contrary to the Criminal Code.
Mr. Indrakanthan is currently subject to the terms and conditions of a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (“ORB”) dated February 7, 2024, detaining him at the Forensic Program of the Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences (“Ontario Shores” or “the Hospital”) with certain privileges including to live in the community in supervised accommodation approved by the person in charge.
On January 27, 2025, a panel of the Board convened to review the Disposition in accordance with the requirements of s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Ms. J. Boissonneault, counsel for Mr. Indrakanthan, attended the hearing, as did Mr. Indrakanthan. A Hospital Report dated January 3, 2025, was filed as Exhibit 1 at the hearing.
The issue to be determined are whether Mr. Indrakanthan continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public, as defined in section 672.5401 of the Criminal Code, and if so, the necessary and appropriate Disposition to manage that risk, having regard to the criteria set out in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
Initial Position of the Parties
At the outset of the hearing, the parties were canvassed as to their recommendations to the Board.
Dr. De Freitas, on behalf of the Hospital, recommended no change to the current Disposition. She submitted, however, that the Hospital did not object to Mr. Indrakanthan’s proposed changes to the terms and conditions of the current Disposition.
Ms. MacDonald, on behalf of the Attorney General of Ontario, supported the recommendation of the Hospital together with the proposed changes by Mr. Indrakanthan.
Ms. J. Boissonneault, on behalf of Mr. Indrakanthan, conceded significant threat and supported the continuation of the Detention Disposition. She requested two changes be made to the current Disposition, namely, clauses 2(d) and 2(e) to be extended from 72 hours to 7 days. She also requested the addition of a term to read “international travel passes for up to two weeks accompanied by an approved person and subject to an itinerary approved by the person in charge” to allow him to visit his grandmother in Sri Lanka.
Index Offence
- The circumstances of the index offences are taken from last year’s Reasons as follows:
“By way of background to the numerous breaches of probation comprising several of the Index Offences, it is noted that on April 12, 2017, Mr. Indrakanthan was found guilty of two counts of assault and two counts of failure to comply with recognizance in connection with an incident involving his wife that occurred on April 6, 2016. He received a suspended sentence and was placed on a period of probation for two years, which included a condition that he “keep the peace and be of good behaviour.
(1) Indecent Act, Fail to Comply Probation x2
On August 5, 2017, Mr. Indrakanthan allegedly walked into a Shoppers Drug Mart with his genitals exposed. He approached a staff member at the store and requested oral sex. He then touched himself inappropriately next to the pharmacy counter for five minutes. Mr. Indrakanthan was on probation at the time of this offence.
(2) Assault Resist Arrest, Assault PO, Take Weapon of PO, Indecent Act, Fail to Comply with Probation x2
On August 6, 2017, Mr. Indrakanthan openly masturbated on his front porch, where he could
be seen by bystanders. When the police arrived, he became aggressive and attempted to resist arrest by kicking the officers. He struck one officer in the face, resulting in his glasses being broken. He reached around the officer and attempted to take his weapon. Mr. Indrakanthan was on probation at the time of this offence. Police later learned that Mr. Indrakanthan had previously been registered for a sex offence and that there was a public school about 100 metres away from his home. Police also became aware of the fact that Mr. Indrakanthan was possibly the perpetrator of the indecent act at the Shoppers Drug Mart the day before.
(3) Take Weapon of PO, Assault Resist Arrest, Fail to Comply Probation x2
On August 7, 2017, Mr. Indrakanthan was in police custody at Centenary Hospital on a Form 1. Constable Griffen was serving Mr. Indrakanthan with court documents when Mr. Indrakanthan allegedly lunged at the officer, grabbing his handgun with both hands. Two officers were able to gain control of the handgun and placed Mr. Indrakanthan into handcuffs with the assistance of hospital security staff. Mr. Indrakanthan was on probation at the time of this offence.
(4) Aggravated Assault, Weapons Dangerous to the Public Peace, Fail to Comply Recognizance
On May 16, 2019, Mr. Indrakanthan allegedly attacked the victim, a 70-year-old man who was not known to him, with a garden hoe. The garden tool had one flat side and one spiked side. He was observed hitting the victim over the head with the garden tool several times, until witnesses intervened and restrained him until police arrived. Witnesses stated to police that they believed the victim would have been killed without intervention. The victim sustained a fractured skill and an intracranial hemorrhage. Eleven staples were required to close the wound.
Mr. Indrakanthan was bound by a recognizance dated March 8, 2018 for two separate incidents which required him to stay in his residence unless with his surety or for medical reasons and to not possess any weapons. By being out of his residence without his surety, Mr. Indrakanthan did commit the offence of Failure to Comply with Recognizance (a term of judicial interim release) contrary to the Criminal Code.”
Personal Background/Psychiatric History
Mr. Indrakanthan’s personal background and psychiatric history are extensively reviewed in the Hospital Report filed as an exhibit at the hearing.
Briefly, Mr. Indrakanthan was born in Toronto, Ontario. His older brother was murdered in a stabbing when Mr. Indrakanthan was 16 years old. He and his younger brother have a close relationship and get along well.
Mr. Indrakanthan attained a Bachelor of Arts in Justice and Criminology from the University of Ontario, Institute of Technology. He subsequently attended Humber College to take post-graduate studies in research analysis. He was unable to complete his studies because of the onset of his mental illness.
Mr. Indrakanthan worked full-time during the summers, part-time during the school year, and then returned full-time after he graduated. During the school year, he was employed as a part-time Research Assistant and at the Registrar’s Office. His employment ended in 2015 following an arrest for sexual assault. In 2016, he obtained a position at Bell Canada, which ended when he was charged with domestic assault.
Mr. Indrakanthan was married in March 2015. In September 2015, his spouse gave birth to a daughter. After his domestic assault charge in April 2016, he and his spouse separated. He agreed to have his spouse assume custody of their daughter and he moved back in with his parents. He resided with his parents at the time of the index offences.
Mr. Indrakanthan began using cannabis in grade 9. He admitted that his psychotic symptoms worsened with cannabis use, along with sexually- related thoughts.
Mr. Indrakanthan has a criminal history. On October 26, 2015, a charge of assault against him was withdrawn and he entered a 1-year Peace Bond pursuant s.810 Criminal Code. On April 6, 2017, he was convicted of sexual assault and received a suspended sentence (30 days pre-trial custody), probation for two years, and a weapons prohibition for five years. On April 12, 2017, he received a suspended sentence for two counts of assault (30 days pre-trial custody) and two counts of fail to comply with a recognizance (10- and 11-days pre-trial custody), two years’ probation and a five-year weapons prohibition.
In 2015, following the murder of his brother, Mr. Indrakanthan’s sought help for his anxiety. His symptoms were attributed to attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and he was prescribed medication which was ineffective. In February 2017, he was admitted to hospital after ingesting mosquito spray. At the time, he was experiencing psychotic symptoms and believed that killing himself would bring him closer to God. The discharge diagnoses were cannabis-induced psychosis vs a primary psychotic illness, Cannabis Use Disorder and possible Personality Disorder. In May 2017, his parents brought him to the hospital after he stabbed himself in the neck with scissors claiming it would make him “in charge of the whole world”. He was discharged with a diagnosis of Schizophrenia.
Mr. Indrakanthan committed offences in August 2017 and May 2019. During this period, he was hospitalized multiple times for increased paranoia and auditory hallucinations. His parents helped him stay compliant with antipsychotic medication, including injectables. He remained suicidal, religiously preoccupied, and sexually disinhibited. His parents were concerned about the effectiveness of his medication and his adherence to oral antipsychotic medication.
On July 2, 2019, Mr. Indrakanthan was admitted to Ontario Shores, pursuant to an assessment order under the Criminal Code. At that time, his mental illness manifested itself in the belief that he needed to harm himself to bring about “the Rapture” with command hallucinations to kill himself. Despite treatment with antipsychotic medication, he was floridly psychotic and unpredictably aggressive to co-patients and staff. He was sexually disinhibited and acted on hallucinations which commanded him to touch others sexually and expose himself and masturbate in public.
On February 20, 2020, Mr. Indrakanthan was found NCR on the index offences. Initially, he was placed at Waypoint Centre for Mental Health (Waypoint), until transferred to Ontario Shores on June 23, 2022, where he remained at the time of the hearing.
Current Diagnosis
- Mr. Indrakanthan’s diagnoses include Schizophrenia and Cannabis Use Disorder, in remission in a controlled environment.
Evidence at the Hearing
The Hospital’s evidence was presented through the oral testimony of Dr. K. De Freitas to supplement the Hospital Report, filed as an exhibit at the hearing.
Dr. De Freitas advised that Mr. Indrakanthan has had a very good reporting year. He remained on the general Forensic Community Reintegration Unit (FCRU) and has been fully compliant with his medication regimen. He has no symptoms of his illness, follows all the rules and regulations and has no occurrences of elopement during the reporting year. The doctor confirmed that since his transfer to Ontario Shores in 2022, there have been no episodes of violence or aggression.
Dr. De Freitas agreed that Mr. Indrakanthan’s cannabis use disorder is in sustained remission. She acknowledged that there has been no evidence of substance use since 2020, despite having access to substances on indirectly supervised passes into the community.
Mr. Indrakanthan has participated in Concurrent Disorders Counseling at the hospital. Dr. De Freitas advised that there remains a concern, however, that Mr. Indrakanthan be more involved in community activities. Mr. Indrakanthan has indicated that he plans on returning to school to complete his graduate degree and is taking steps towards temporary employment.
Dr. De Freitas confirmed that Mr. Indrakanthan is classified as alternate level of care (ALC). This means he does not require any ongoing services from the inpatient unit and is suitable for discharge to the outpatient service in the community. The doctor advised that Mr. Indrakanthan is not able to reside at the family home. The treatment team wants him to be in a place where his mental state, substance use, and medication compliance can be properly monitored. In this regard, Dr. De Freitas highlighted the index offences were committed while Mr. Indrakanthan was living at home and there was a previous occasion where his mother attempted to prevent her son’s spouse from calling police during a domestic assault by her son. The doctor elaborated that despite his family's best intentions, Mr. Indrakanthan often hid his symptoms and falsely claimed he was taking his medication. Finally, Dr. De Freitas commented that there is also concern that living at home would prevent Mr. Indrakanthan’s proper reintegration into the community.
Dr. De Freitas reported that Mr. Indrakanthan is currently ranked first and second on the waitlist for supported housing through the Collaborative Residents Enabling Assisted Transitional Engagement (CREATE) program, administered by the Canadian Mental Health Association (CMHA) in Durham. The doctor further indicated that it is highly probable a bed will become available for Mr. Indrakanthan within the next reporting year.
When asked about inappropriate sexual behavior in the context of community living, Dr. De Freitas advised that such behavior is strongly linked to cannabis use, which is not currently an issue. However, she expressed concern if Mr. Indrakanthan were to stop his medication or resume cannabis use.
Dr. De Freitas supported the proposed changes to the terms of Mr. Indrakanthan’s Disposition. The doctor advised that his home visits have gone well, and she had no difficulty expanding the passes from 72 hours to 7 days, which in any event, requires the approval of an itinerary by the person in charge.
The doctor also agreed that the addition of an international travel term to visit family was reasonable. Mr. Indrakanthan would be traveling with his father, who is an approved person, and very reliable. He understands his son’s illness and the role of medication, and such a trip requires a specific approved itinerary by the person in charge. The doctor added that Mr. Indrakanthan is on long-acting injectable antipsychotic medication. Since his family is in Sri Lanka, Dr. De Freitas agreed to limit the travel condition to Sri Lanka for the next year.
Dr. De Freitas advised Mr. Indrakanthan continues to be a significant threat to the safety of the public. The doctor advised that his significant risk would be violence and/or sexually- assaultive behavior. The doctor adopted her risk assessment outlined on page 29 of the Hospital Report, which stated in part:
“He suffers from treatment resistant schizophrenia, which has been described as brittle. He has a history of decompensating rapidly when he is noncompliant with treatment, or when he consumes substances. He also has a history of noncompliance with medication. When unwell, he experiences paranoid and religious delusions, and auditory hallucinations, and these have led to him committing serious acts of violence, as well as sexually inappropriate behavior.”
Dr. De Freitas agreed that at this juncture, a Conditional Discharge Disposition was unrealistic for Mr. Indrakanthan. To ensure that he is well supervised, the hospital needs the ability to approve his housing. The doctor opined that if Mr. Indrakanthan had the ability to choose his housing, he would be living at home. He has not yet been tested to live in the community and there remains a risk that he will relapse from medication non-compliance or substance use. The doctor advised that the hospital needs the ability to bring him back quickly without having to wait to meet the criteria of the Mental Health Act (MHA), which would not suffice to manage the risk. Dr. De Freitas opined that if Mr. Indrakanthan suffered significant decompensation, he likely would not be able to recognize his symptoms and not return to hospital voluntarily.
No further evidence was presented at the hearing.
Final Submissions of the Parties
Dr. De Freitas, on behalf of the Hospital, maintained her initial position that Mr. Indrakanthan remained a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the existing Detention Disposition was the appropriate Disposition and supported the proposed changes to the terms of the Disposition.
Ms. MacDonald, on behalf of the Attorney General of Ontario, maintained her initial position and supported the proposed changes to the terms of the Disposition.
Ms. Boissonneault, on behalf of Mr. Indrakanthan, submitted that he has had a good year and maintained stability, and has been compliant with his medication regimen. He has not used substances for over four years, despite the ability to do so. There have been no signs of aggression or violence since he has been admitted to Ontario Shores in 2022. Mr. Indrakanthan is now classified as alternate level of care and can be discharged into the community and is on a very short waiting list for CREATE housing. Finally, Ms. Boissonneault submitted that the joint submission with the proposed changes is the most appropriate and least onerous and least restrictive Disposition.
Conclusion and Disposition
Having considered all the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board finds that Mr. Indrakanthan continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public as set out in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code. We make this finding based on the evidence of Dr. De Freitas and the evidence contained in the Hospital Report filed as an exhibit at the hearing, notwithstanding the joint position on significant threat of the parties.
Mr. Indrakanthan’s index offences involved the use of violence and included a very serious attack with garden hoe on an elderly man which resulted in significant injuries. He suffers from treatment resistant schizophrenia and when unwell, he experiences paranoid and religious delusions, and auditory hallucinations, and these have led to him committing serious acts of violence, as well as sexually inappropriate behavior. His risk factors include a history of substance abuse and non-compliance with treatment which have yet to be fully tested on a discharge to community living.
To his credit, Mr. Indrakanthan had a good reporting year. He has been compliant with his medication regime, remained abstinent from substances and exhibited no signs of violence or aggression. He is classified as alternate level of care (ALC) and is presently suitable for discharge to the community. As stated by Dr. De Freitas, there remains a concern that Mr. Indrakanthan needs to become more involved in community activities. In this regard, this panel finds Mr. Indrakanthan's plans for part-time work and finishing his graduate degree encouraging.
Given the risk factors enunciated by Dr. De Freitas and outlined in the Hospital Report, which this panel accepts, a transfer to supported and supervised accommodation seems appropriate at this juncture. Mr. Indrakanthan has yet to be discharged to community living and it is important that he initially be transitioned to a place where his mental state, substance use, and medication compliance can be properly monitored. Accordingly, he is on a very short waiting list for supported housing via the CREATE program through the CMHA in Durham.
This panel agrees with the proposed changes to the terms of his Disposition save and except that the international travel condition should at this time be restricted to Sri Lanka, given the location of family and the purpose of the trip. In this regard, Mr. Indrakanthan’s father is an approved person and has been reported to be a very reliable contact for the treatment team.
Although not advanced by the parties, we find that a Conditional Discharge Disposition has no air of reality. At this point in time, the hospital needs to approve of his supported and supervised accommodation and retain the ability to return him quickly should he mentally deteriorate. In this regard, the MHA would not suffice to manage his risk in the community.
For the reasons set out above, we came to the unanimous conclusion that Mr. Indrakanthan remains a significant threat to the safety of public and that the most appropriate and necessary Disposition was the continuation of the existing Detention Disposition with the following amendments:
clauses 2(d) and 2(e) to be extended from 72 hours to 7 days; and
clause to be added to allow for international travel to Sri Lanka for up to two weeks accompanied by an approved person and subject to an itinerary approved by the person in charge.
- In reaching our decision, the Board has considered the safety of the public, Mr. Indrakanthan’s mental condition, his reintegration into society, and his other needs.
DATED this 6th day of March 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Mr. C. Flanagan
Legal Member
______________________
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board