Ontario Review Board
Re: Colin Sookram
ORB File No: 8148
Hearing held on: Friday February 21, 2025
Place of Hearing: St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. R. Bigelow
Members: Dr. S. Simpson Dr. M. Kalia Mr. S. Doherty Ms. L. Maunder
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Colin Sookram Counsel: Mr. M. Schloss
The Person in Charge Counsel: Mr. S. O’Brien
Attorney-General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. C. Gzik
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated April 2, 2025)
Introduction
On August 31, 2022, Colin Sookram was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCR) on a charge of manslaughter contrary to the Criminal Code. He is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the Board) dated February 09, 2024 (as amended on November 13, 2024 pursuant to the direction of the Court of Appeal) ordering his detention at the Forensic Psychiatry Program of St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton (the Hospital) with privileges up to and including residence in the community in accommodation approved by the person in charge subject to Board approval.
On February 21, 2025, the Board convened a hearing to review Mr. Sookram’s disposition pursuant to section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Sookram was present at the hearing and represented by Counsel, Mr. Schloss. Also present at the hearing were Mr. Sookram’s mother, Dallah Sookram, and his brother, Daniel Sookram.
The issues to be determined at the hearing were whether Mr. Sookram continued to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public as defined in section 672.5401 of the Criminal Code and, if so, what was the necessary and appropriate disposition which was also the least onerous and least restrictive, taking into account the factors set out in section 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
Initial Positions of the Parties
At the commencement of the hearing the parties were requested to provide their initial without prejudice positions with respect to the issues before the Board. Counsel for the Hospital indicated that it was the Hospital’s position that Mr. Sookram continued to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate disposition was a continuation of the detention order with the changes set out at pages 52 and 53 of the Hospital Report.
Counsel for the Attorney General supported the Hospital position.
Counsel for Mr. Sookram submitted that the necessary and appropriate disposition that was also the least onerous and least restrictive was a conditional discharge and that his client would consent to a treatment clause pursuant to section 672.55 of the Criminal Code.
Evidence at the Hearing
- The evidence at the hearing consisted of the Hospital report dated January 22, 2025, the oral evidence of Dr. Lee a forensic subspecialty resident working under the supervision of Dr. Ferencz, Mr. Sookram’s treating psychiatrist, and the oral evidence of Ms. Dallah Sookram, Mr. Sookram’s mother.
Findings:
- For the Reasons that follow, the Board finds that Mr. Sookram continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate disposition is a continuation of the current detention order with the changes recommended by the Hospital at pages 52 and 53 of the Hospital Report.
Index Offence(s):
- The circumstances surrounding the index offence taken from last year’s reasons for disposition are as follows:
Reference should be made to the hospital report for more detail, but very briefly, Mr. Sookram had given a ride to Mr. Lopez, who was a stranger to him, after Mr. Lopez had been assaulted in a bar. They went to the home of a friend of Mr. Lopez, where the victim rented a room. All three smoked some hash together and then, as Mr. Sookram and Mr. Lopez were leaving, without warning Mr. Sookram stabbed the victim. He and Mr. Lopez then continued on to Mr. Lopez’s home where their interactions continued. Mr. Lopez did not report the homicide until after his arrest on an unrelated matter, and Mr. Lopez subsequently was arrested and jailed for his involvement after the homicide. The information from Mr. Lopez ultimately led to Mr. Sookram’s arrest and trial……... It should be noted, however, that Mr. Sookram was not arrested until approximately four months after he killed the victim.
Background Information Regarding the Accused:
Mr. Sookram was born in the United Kingdom and resided there for the first two years of his life while his father studied at university there. The family then moved to Trinidad and then to Canada when he was five or six years of age. Mr. Sookram has 2 siblings, a brother who is 10 years older and a sister 11 years older. When Mr. Sookram was in high school his father moved back to Trinidad where he now lives, although he visits Canada every few months, and continues to be employed as an accountant. His mother and siblings remained in Canada. His brother is a civil engineer, and his sister has a doctorate in neurology and is employed by a pharmaceutical company.
Mr. Sookram dropped out of school in grade 12 indicating that “couldn’t take it no more, pain in the head, paranoia, couldn’t focus, losing my mind.” After dropping out of school his father took him to Trinidad where he worked helping his father and completed his grade 12 education. His father enrolled him in an accounting course in Trinidad, but he dropped out after a short time as he could not concentrate and returned to Canada.
After his return to Canada Mr. Sookram was involved in an altercation at a bar in 2014 and was stabbed in the abdomen and neck. He reports that following the stabbing he experienced nightmares and flashbacks for three or four years.
Alcohol and Drug Use History:
- Mr. Sookram reported that he began smoking marijuana when he was high school but has provided inconsistent information about his marijuana use subsequently. However, it appears that he used cannabis at least once every two or three weeks and that cannabis use resulted in an increase in paranoia and auditory hallucinations. He does recall that someone gave him some marijuana on the night of the index offences although he claims not to recall if he used it despite evidence of use. He states that he started drinking beer when he was 19 and he would drink a couple times a week having two or three beers on each occasion. He denied ever having problems related to alcohol consumption. He has indicated both that he only used cocaine one occasion and also that he used cocaine infrequently. His family reports that they were aware of his use of cocaine, cannabis and ecstasy.
Psychiatric History
Mr. Sookram reports that he began hearing voices and seeing things that others did not see as early as when he was five years old. In high school he began hearing the voice of God who would sometimes tell him to do things.
Mr. Sookram’s first hospitalization with respect to mental health issues was in June 2017 when his parents contacted police because he told them that he wanted to kill them. His family reported that he had behaved aggressively towards them on many occasions punching them, kicking them and threatening their lives. His family also reported that since he was stabbed, he has demonstrated numerous fear related behaviours and insecurities. He kept knives in his room and vehicle, replaced locks at the house weekly and sealed all windows. On admission he endorsed auditory hallucinations and was placed on a Form 1. He showed little insight into why his parents had contacted the police, claimed to have no recollection of threatening them and did not recall how he got into the hospital. It was unclear if he had been using substances prior to his admission. His urine drug screen only showed positive for benzodiazepines taken during the admission.
After commencing antipsychotic medication his mental health improved, however he declined long-acting injectable medication as he did not believe he had schizophrenia and did not believe in taking medication He was discharged with a diagnosis of schizophrenia and referred to outpatient follow-up.
Mr. Sookram’s next hospitalization with respect to mental health related issues was in June 2018 when his parents contacted police and advised that he had not been taking his medication for five months and was behaving aggressively and violently. On admission he was guarded and suspicious and a urine toxicology report revealed a positive result for cocaine although he denied the use of substances. After commencing antipsychotic medication his mental status improved, and he ceased to display any psychotic symptoms. He indicated he would continue taking oral medications after discharge and attend the outpatient clinic.
Current Diagnosis
- Mr. Sookram’s current diagnoses are
Schizophrenia
cannabis use disorder, currently in sustained remission in a controlled environment
Legal History:
- Mr. Sookram’s only involvement with the criminal justice system prior to the index offence was a charge of theft over in 2017 which was withdrawn by the Crown.
Evidence of Dr. Lee
Dr. Lee advised that Mr. Sookram arrived at the Hospital in August 2024, and she had been involved in his treatment since that time. She noted that Mr. Sookram took the transition to the Hospital well, that there had been no behavioural issues, and he had been compliant with recommended medications. She noted there had been one stressor that had occurred when his medications were being modified and he suffered a minor deterioration in his mental status becoming agitated about the speed of his movement through the pass system ladder.
Dr. Lee noted that Mr. Sookram was on two types of antipsychotic medication, one long acting and one oral. She also noted that he is quite motivated to move forward although impatient. His mother had applied for and was being reviewed with respect to becoming an approved person and a decision is expected soon.
Dr. Lee indicated that Mr. Sookram’s mental status was fragile, and he was quite susceptible to external stressors. She noted that he had so far only accessed the community accompanied by staff.
Dr. Lee advised that initially Mr. Sookram stated that he wished to be discharged to his mother’s home in Shelburne Ontario but subsequently applied for entrance to Mohawk College in Hamilton. Mr. Sookram requires a slow and closely monitored approach to accessing the community and would initially require a residence which could monitor his adherence to prescribed medications.
In response to questions from counsel for the Attorney General, Dr. Lee indicated that Mr. Sookram has some insight into the impact of medication on his mental health. She advised that, although his family was in contact with the hospital, they had not received any education with respect to his mental illness or how to recognize early symptoms of decompensation. She advised that, should Mr. Sookram stop medication, she would anticipate a rapid decompensation in his mental health.
Analysis and Conclusion, Significant Threat:
Although the issue of significant threat was not contested at the hearing, the Board nevertheless makes an independent finding that Mr. Sookram does represent a significant threat to the safety public. Mr. Sookram suffers from a major mental illness, schizophrenia, and has a history of acting out aggressively, paranoia, auditory command hallucinations and failure to adhere to recommended medications or other treatment in the community. He also has a history of possession of weapons including possession of a knife which was used to cause the death of the victim of the index offence.
Although Mr. Sookram has been adherent to prescribed medication and has not displayed any aggressive behaviour or other significant psychotic symptoms since his arrival at the hospital, he has had only limited access to the community accompanied by staff. His mental state remains fragile and his commitment to medication, his ability to abstain from substances and his ability to tolerate stressors has yet to be tested in a less supervised setting. When unwell Mr. Sookram constitutes a significant threat of serious life-threatening physical and psychological harm to members of the public.
Analysis and Conclusion, Necessary and Appropriate Disposition:
The Board finds that the evidence amply supports a finding that the necessary and appropriate disposition is a detention order on the terms as recommended by the Hospital. Although it is clear that he has strong support from his family, he was residing with his family the time of the index offences and had been nonadherent to medication for a number of months which was known to the family. Although the Hospital and the family have been in communication, as of yet there has been no education provided to them with respect to monitoring Mr. Sookram’s mental health. It is also noteworthy that Mr. Sookram’s family now lives outside of the catchment area of the Hospital which would make it more difficult for the Hospital to be able to appropriately monitor his mental stability should he reside there.
The evidence of Dr. Lee with which the Board agrees is that in order to manage risk a discharge into the community needs to be gradual and closely monitored to ensure that Mr. Sookram is adherent to medication, abstinent from substances and that the early signs of decompensation would be noted, so that he could be returned to hospital prior to meeting the admission criteria under the Mental Health Act. The Hospital required the ability to approve housing in order to ensure that the required monitoring is in place and accordingly a conditional discharge is not sufficient to mange his risk.
DATED this 2nd day of April 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Robert Bigelow
Alternate Chairperson
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board