Re: Fahad A. Jeebhai
ORB File No: 8008
Hearing held on: Tuesday, March 4, 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. J. Goldenberg Members: Dr. W. Johnston Dr. S. Wiseman Ms. C. Murray Mr. S. Duffy
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Fahad A. Jeebhai Counsel: Ms. F. McNestry
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Mr. K. Dow
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. N. MacDonald
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated March 18, 2025)
Introduction
[1]. On January 12, 2022, Fahad A. Jeebhai was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (“NCR”) on a charge of attempt to commit murder, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (the “Criminal Code”).
[2]. On March 4, 2025, a panel of the Ontario Review Board (“Board” or “panel”) convened to review Mr. Jeebhai’s current Disposition pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. At the time of the hearing, Mr. Jeebhai was ordered detained within the General Forensic Unit at Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences (“Ontario Shores” or “the hospital”) with the most liberal of privileges being to live in the community is accommodation approved by the person in charge.
[3]. Mr. Jeebhai was present for his hearing and was represented by counsel, Ms. Fiona McNestry, throughout the proceedings.
[4]. A Hospital Report dated February 18, 2025, was entered as Exhibit 1.
[5]. The issues to be determined are whether Mr. Jeebhai continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public, 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.
[6]. For the reasons set out below and based on the evidence and opinions before us, the Board found that Mr. Jeebhai continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. The majority of the Board finds that a Conditional Discharge is the necessary and appropriate Order having regard to the safety of the public, which is the paramount concern, and also having regard to Mr. Jeebhai’s mental health, reintegration into society, and his other needs.
Current Psychiatric Diagnoses
[7]. Schizophrenia; Alcohol Use Disorder - In Full Sustained Remission; Cannabis Use Disorder - In Full Sustained Remission; and Traumatic Brain Injury.
Position of the Parties
[8]. At the commencement of the hearing, the parties were canvassed for their without prejudice positions. Kyle Dow, on behalf of the hospital, took the position that Mr. Jeebhai continues to present a significant risk to the public and the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a Conditional Discharge with terms as set out on page 25 of the Hospital Report. The hospital requested a hearing be scheduled for six months from now.
[9]. Counsel for the Attorney General, Ms. MacDonald, supported the position of hospital but requested the addition of a term that Mr. Jeebhai not be permitted within 100 metres of Halima Jeebhai’s place of work, place of worship, or residence.
[10]. In her initial position, counsel for Mr. Jeebhai, Ms. McNestry, conceded the issue of significant threat to the safety of the public. She joined the recommendation of the hospital in her initial position.
Index Offence
[11]. Details of the index offence from the agreed statement of facts are found on pages 2, 3, and 4 of the Hospital Report and are summarized herein as follows:
Mr. Jeebhai, his sister, and two brothers were living with their mother at the family home at the time of the index offence. On October 10, 2019, Mr. Jeebhai’s sister was sleeping in her bed. Mr. Jeebhai entered her bedroom with a hunting knife and stabbed her in the back while she was lying in bed. The victim sat up, noticed the hunting knife, and attempted to grab it from Mr. Jeebhai. He proceeded to stab the victim in the chest and face, saying that she was not part of the family and to “die already”. At some point, Mr. Jeebhai ended the attack and left. Severely injured, Mr. Jeebhai’s sister was able to make her way to the basement apartment to seek help. Mr. Jeebhai fled the scene and was later arrested after driving some considerable distance from the family home.
Background and History
[12]. The Hospital Report contains extensive information regarding Mr. Jeebhai’s background and history, the entirety of which need not be repeated here in detail. However, the following particulars are noteworthy.
[13]. Mr. Jeebhai is a 33-year-old single male born in Ontario.
[14]. Mr. Jeebhai was in a motor vehicle accident on April 5, 2008, while he was in grade 11. He suffered a head, neck and chest injuries. He was admitted to Sunnybrook Health Sciences Center until April 30, 2008, due to the injuries including a skull fracture, epidural hematoma, and numerous vertebral fractures amongst other injuries.
[15]. Following the index offence, Dr. Ali conducted a court assessment and concluded that Mr. Jeebhai was suffering from a neurocognitive disorder due to a traumatic brain injury with behavioural disturbance.
[16]. After completing high school, he enrolled in a Bachelor of Arts program at York University and majored in mathematics. He studied for two years until his father became ill. He stopped going to school in December 2012.
[17]. Mr. Jeebhai has worked part-time conducting market research, as a retail associate, as a baggage handler at Pearson Airport, and as a front clerk desk at a hotel. He has not worked since he left his hotel job in 2012. In 2013, Mr. Jeebhai received a settlement from the insurance company regarding his motor vehicle collision. This settlement contributed to his decision to remain out of the workforce.
[18]. Prior to the index offence, Mr. Jeebhai had not had any psychiatric admissions or interactions with the mental health system.
[19]. Mr. Jeebhai had involvement with police prior to the index offences in the context of family disputes. The Hospital Report notes that Mr. Jeebhai reported that he had been arrested or charged twice in 2015 for assaulting his mother and sister, but the charges were dropped or diverted through the mental health courts.
Course Since Last Disposition
[20]. Mr. Jeebhai has been attending college for his Pharmacy Technician diploma. His internship is partially completed.
[21]. Mr. Jeebhai in a Collaborative Residents Enabling Transitional Engagement (CREATE) Kirkland home in Oshawa where there was direct supervision of staff four hours daily, with staff “on-call” 24/7. In December 2024, Mr. Jeebhai moved to an independent living apartment through LOFT, which is a Canadian Mental Health Association (CMHA) housing program. This transition went without incident.
[22]. Mr. Jeebhai has been compliant with his long-acting injectable medication. He has not complained of any side-effects. He has not experienced any breakthrough psychotic symptoms. Mr. Jeebhai’s insight into his mental illness and need for medication is well-developed. He reports that he will continue to take his medication “forever”.
[23]. Mr. Jeebhai has remained abstinent from substances in the community. All random urine drug screens have been negative for illicit substances.
[24]. As of January 17, 2025, Mr. Jeebhai has visits from Forensic Outpatient Services (FOS) biweekly.
[25]. Mr. Jeebhai recently obtained part-time employment at a local hotel. He is financially supported by this job and ODSP.
[26]. Mr. Jeebhai’s mental state was stable and unchanged throughout the entire reporting period. There is no self-reported or observed evidence of active symptoms.
Evidence at the Hearing
[27]. The Board had available to it the evidence and documents forming the Record, the Hospital Report, and oral evidence of Dr. Pallandi, Mr. Jeebhai’s outpatient psychiatrist and author of the Hospital Report.
[28]. Dr. Pallandi testified that Mr. Jeebhai has been living in his apartment through the CMHA LOFT program since December 2024. This is a stable housing situation.
[29]. There have been no incidents since Mr. Jeebhai transitioned to the community.
[30]. Mr. Jeebhai is on a long-acting injectable medication, which controls his symptoms well. Mr. Jeebhai is good about reminding the hospital when it is due. His insight has evolved and is now quite good, he acknowledges his illness, knows his symptoms, and agrees he needs medication to control his symptoms in perpetuity.
[31]. Mr. Jeebhai’s risk is in the low range if he is conditionally discharged. Dr. Pallandi testified that he is certain that Mr. Jeebhai would seek assistance of the hospital if he experienced a decline in mental status. He is also certain that Mr. Jeebhai would attend at the hospital if he were requested to do so.
[32]. Dr. Pallandi testified that the Mental Health Act would be sufficient to manage Mr. Jeebhai’s risks if he did not agree to come back to hospital. His symptoms would be observable and render him certifiable.
[33]. Dr. Pallandi testified that Mr. Jeebhai has not sought to have the substances prohibition removed from the Disposition. He confirms that substances don’t have any part in Mr. Jeebhai’s life now.
[34]. Dr. Pallandi testified that the hospital is not seeking a place of residence be stipulated in the disposition as it is not needed. Mr. Jeebhai makes good day to day decisions, is very committed to treatment, and has independently sought out resources for mental health.
[35]. Dr. Pallandi advised that he would like to see a review of Mr. Jeebhai’s Disposition in six months rather than the annual hearing. He testified that the timing of this hearing is just shy of him recommending an Absolute Discharge and he would like to see a further six months of Mr. Jeebhai’s stability in the community.
[36]. Upon questions of Ms. MacDonald for the Attorney General, Dr. Pallandi testified that the treatment team “kicked the ball around a little bit” as to whether Mr. Jeebhai needs a Conditional Discharge or Absolute Discharge. Their final determination was that they would like to cement Mr. Jeebhai’s good compliance with a little more time under a Disposition and would like to see that he is able to function well with less supervision, and thought Mr. Jeebhai would succeed. He agreed with Ms. MacDonald that a no contact clause with written revocable consent of the victim would be appropriate.
[37]. In response to questions from Ms. McNestry, Dr. Pallandi testified that Mr. Jeebhai’s medications are optimized. He also stated that Mr. Jeebhai, sensibly, stood back from the practical part of his pharmacy diploma because the expectations of him were too great. Dr. Pallandi commended Mr. Jeebhai for being able to recognize that it was overwhelming for him at that particular placement in the Costco pharmacy. He confirmed that the LOFT housing is permanent if Mr. Jeebhai so chooses.
[38]. In response to questions of the panel, Dr. Pallandi testified that the traumatic brain injury is not a current problem and should not appear as a diagnosis on the Hospital Report. Mr. Jeebhai was likely ill for a few years before the index offences. Mr. Jeebhai is not exhibiting psychotic symptoms. He is able to follow direction to not contact the victim and, therefore, the 100 metre radius for no contact is not needed.
Submissions
[39]. Mr. Dow maintained the hospital’s position for a Conditional Discharge. He reiterated the hospital’s position that they would like a Board review of the Disposition in six months.
[40]. Counsel for the Attorney General supported the hospital’s position. She held to her request that the terms of the Disposition be amended to include a 100-metre radius restriction of Mr. Jeebhai to the victim, Halima Jeebhai.
[41]. Mr. Jeebhai’s lawyer’s position, after hearing the evidence of Dr. Pallandi, was that there is not evidence to support a finding of significant threat. The evidence doesn’t reveal any issue or challenges and Mr. Jeebhai should receive and Absolute Discharge.
Analysis and Conclusions
MAJORITY REASONS
(J. Goldenberg, Dr. S. Wiseman, S. Duffy)
[42]. Having heard and considered the entirety of the evidence as well as the submissions from the parties, the majority of the Board finds that Mr. Jeebhai remains a significant threat to the safety of the public.
[43]. Mr. Jeebhai suffers from a major mental illness. Although he continues to meet the diagnostic criteria for schizophrenia, he has been fully compliant with medication, and as such, his symptoms have abated to the point that his illness can be described as being in remission.
[44]. Mr. Jeebhai’s index offence was serious and had the potential to be lethal. The offence occurred while experiencing symptoms of his illness. He has a history of substance use. Additionally, he exhibited violence prior to his index offences. Although, he is currently doing remarkably well, he is early on in his forensic care and needs to be tested in the community with the freedoms of a Conditional Discharge before consideration will be given to an Absolute Discharge.
[45]. The ‘Summary and Risk Management Plan’ notes that Mr. Jeebhai’s risk for violent reoffending is estimated to fall in the ‘low’ range when considering a Conditional Discharge but ‘moderate’ under an Absolute Discharge. In the context of an Absolute Discharge, a moderate risk would be an unacceptable risk to the public safety.
[46]. Given Mr. Jeebhai’s improved insight into his illness and the need for medication, his current level of independence and educational and vocational progress, and his compliance with treatment, Mr. Jeebhai can be safely Conditionally Discharged on the terms set out in our formal Disposition.
[47]. The Board agrees that, should Mr. Jeebhai continue on his current trajectory, the hospital may request an early hearing if they feel that it is warranted and that there is compelling evidence to do so. The majority of the Board does not find that the addition of a ‘100 metre radius’ clause is necessary or warranted. There is no evidence to support the addition of such a clause.
[48]. The majority notes the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Winko v. British Columbia (1999) 2SCR625, an in particular the court’s statement at paragraph 61 that “perhaps, most importantly, the recommendations provided by the experts who have examined the NCR accused”. The majority accept the evidence of Dr. Pallandi and the unanimous opinion of the clinical team.
[49]. The majority find that a six-month review is neither necessary nor appropriate.
[50]. The majority of the Board finds that there is evidence to support the recommendation for a Conditional Discharge. The necessary and appropriate, least onerous and least restrictive Disposition is a Conditional Discharge on the terms set out in our formal Disposition.
DISSENTING REASONS
(Dr. Johnston, C. Murray)
[51]. The Hospital Report indicates Mr. Jeebhai has “had a very successful year,” and indicates he is living independently in a LOFT apartment. He has “had no medication changes, and has been compliant with his ongoing treatment… [without] adverse effects… [and] has not experienced any breakthrough psychotic symptoms.” The Hospital Report further states “there have been no conflicts” with roommates or neighbours. Mr. Jeebhai remains substance free and “reports he does not experience cravings for substances and does not intend to engage in substance use.” He has the support of family (excluding the victim) and follows the no contact provision regarding the victim. He is engaged in educational retraining. In oral evidence, Dr. Pallandi did not provide any contrary evidence.
[52]. The re-offence scenario outlined in the Hospital Report indicates this would involve “a recurrence of Mr. Jeebhai’s psychotic symptoms and delusional beliefs secondary to non-compliance with medication, substance use, disengagement from professional supports, and/or psychosocial stressors.” The Board did not hear any evidence to suggest these difficulties were anywhere on his horizon, nor a real concern of the hospital.
[53]. In oral evidence, Dr. Pallandi was fulsome in his positive remarks about this patient.
[54]. The Crown, in her cross-examination, asked Dr. Pallandi, having read the report and heard his evidence, why he was not recommending an Absolute Discharge. Dr. Pallandi testified that he felt a little longer period of stability would be ‘good to see’ and suggested strongly that the Board should order a six-month early hearing, with the expectation that an Absolute Discharge would then be the recommendation.
[55]. The minority doubt that there are further gains to be made in the next six months that will impact on the assessment of risk. Though the minority is mindful of the seriousness of the index offence, the hospital did not, in the minority opinion, present risks that would get over the threshold of significant risk as contemplated in the jurisprudence. Winko requires us to make evidence-based findings of significant threat, defined as “a real risk of physical or psychological harm”. We did not hear evidence of there being a real risk. Ms. McNestry submitted that a miniscule risk of great harm does not meet the legal test, and the minority finds that there is no evidence to support a finding of risk that is beyond miniscule.
[56]. The minority was unable to find a significant threat to public safety and, therefore, the minority must find in favour of an Absolute Discharge.
DATED this 18th day of March 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Ms. Christine Murray Legal Member
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board