Re: Yeshudyan Ragbir
ORB File No: 7264
Hearing held on: Monday, June 2, 2025
Place of hearing: Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences 700 Gordon Street, Whitby
Pursuant to: Sections 672.48(1) and 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Ms. L. Banks
Members: Dr. P. Prendergast Dr. M. Kalia Ms. C. Murray Mr. S. Duffy
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Yeshudyan Ragbir Counsel: Mr. A. Rai
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Mr. K. Dow
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. N. MacDonald
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated June 19, 2025)
Introduction:
On November 17, 2017, Mr. Yeshudyan Ragbir was found unfit to stand trial on account of mental disorder (“unfit to stand trial”) on a charge of murder, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (“Criminal Code”).
Mr. Ragbir is currently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (“ORB” or the “Board”), dated June 7, 2024, finding him unfit to stand trial and detaining him within a Secure Unit of the Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences (“Ontario Shores” or “the hospital”).
On June 2, 2025, the Board convened a hearing at Ontario Shores to conduct the annual review of the current Disposition.
Mr. Ragbir was present at the hearing and was represented by counsel, Mr. Rai, throughout.
Evidence at the hearing included a Hospital Report, dated May 21, 2025 (the "Hospital Report"), which was entered as Exhibit 1, and the viva voce evidence of Dr. Darmant Bhullar.
In accordance with s. 672.48(1) of the Criminal Code, the Board must determine if Mr. Ragbir remains unfit as of the date of the hearing within the meaning of s. 2 of the Criminal Code. If he remains unfit, the necessary and appropriate Disposition to manage that risk must be determined, bearing in mind the criteria set out in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
For the reasons set out below and based on the evidence before us, the Board concludes that Mr. Ragbir remains unfit to stand trial. The Board finds that a continuation of the existing Detention Order Disposition is necessary and appropriate.
Current Psychiatric Diagnoses
- Schizophrenia
Position of the Parties
- At the commencement of the hearing, the parties were canvassed for their positions. Counsel for the hospital, Mr. Kyle Dow, took the position that Mr. Ragbir remains unfit to stand trial as of the date of this hearing. He submitted that the necessary and appropriate disposition is a continuation of the existing Detention Order Disposition with a change in security level to Forensic Service. Counsel for the Attorney General of Ontario, Ms. MacDonald, supported the hospital’s position. Counsel for Mr. Ragbir, Mr. Rai, did not dispute the issue of significant threat. Mr. Rai agreed with the change in security level as recommended by the hospital but also requested the addition of a clause for community living in accommodation approved by the person in charge.
Outstanding Charges
- The Hospital Report provides the details of the offences alleged against Mr. Ragbir. Briefly, the allegations are that on September 13, 2017, at 4:40 pm, the father of the accused called the police and reported that he had just returned home from work to find his wife (the accused’s mother) on the floor in a pool of blood. He thought she was dead. Emergency services responded to the call. Shortly after they arrived, the accused (Mr. Ragbir) arrived home. One of the police officers observed a bloodied knife in the kitchen sink and blood on the accused’s right hand. Homicide detectives attended at the scene after the victim was pronounced dead and took carriage of the investigation. The accused admitted to the detectives that he had stabbed his mother in the neck several times and confined her to her bedroom until she collapsed.
Background and History
The Hospital Report contains detailed information regarding Mr. Ragbir’s background and psychiatric history, the entirety of which need not be repeated here in detail. In brief, Mr. Ragbir was born in Trinidad. The family immigrated to Canada when he was six years old.
Mr. Ragbir dropped out of high school in his mid-teens when his grades started dropping.
Mr. Ragbir started withdrawing into his own world by the age of 16. He had at least ten psychiatric admissions between 2010 and 2017 with some admissions arising from a Mental Health Act Form 1. A hospitalization at North York General Hospital in May 2017 noted that there were several psychosocial factors perpetuating Mr. Ragbir’s illness and, in the past, more assertive treatment options were declined by Mr. Ragbir’s mother, who acted as his Substitute Decision Maker (“SDM”). Involvement with an ACT Team was declined. He had been diagnosed with chronic schizophrenia with paranoia since adolescence and also with cannabis use disorder.
Mr. Ragbir has a history of cannabis use, but according to hospital reports and the reports of family members, he had not used substances for some time prior to the alleged offence.
Mr. Ragbir has no criminal record prior to the alleged offence.
Mr. Ragbir’s schizophrenia is considered treatment-resistant.
Clinical Course Since Last Disposition
Mr. Ragbir has remained on the secure Forensic Rehabilitation Unit (FRU) for the past reporting year.
Mr. Ragbir continues to be incapable of consenting to psychiatric treatment. His brother, Yeshua, is his SDM.
Mr. Ragbir is compliant with his scheduled medications. In November 2024, Mr. Ragbir’s clozapine dose was adjusted due to elevated serum levels. Following a neurology consult, in January 2025 his seizure medication was switched from Lorazepam to Clobazam for seizure prophylaxis, which resulted in an improvement in his mental state, improved his drowsiness, and hygiene. The medication change has improved his chewing and swallowing of food, but he is still a high risk for choking. Mr. Ragbir receives maintenance ECT every two weeks.
For much of the reporting year, Mr. Ragbir had difficulties with urinary and bowel frequency and urgency. He was occasionally incontinent while off the unit and had to urinate or defecate while outdoors on a walk with a group.
Mr. Ragbir has difficulty with memory. He also presents with paranoia at times. He occasionally responds to unseen stimuli, usually by laughing or mumbling quietly.
Mr. Ragbir receives support through the Ontario Disability Support Program and receives a Personal Needs Allowance.
Mr. Ragbir has been referred to Developmental Services Ontario (“DSO”), which is assessing his eligibility for funding. DSO is now in the process of evaluating his ability to participate in the assessment.
Mr. Ragbir continues to engage in weekly fitness education with psychology and nursing staff.
Fitness to Stand Trial
Mr. Ragbir began fitness education with Dr. Mascioli in January 2025. As of the date of the Hospital Report he had participated in 14 sessions. Over the reporting year, Mr. Ragbir has been unable to identify his charge of murder. He routinely disagrees that his mother was the victim. Since February 2025, some improvement was noted in his fitness in that he identified potential plea options. He was unable to explain the consequences of pleading guilty or not-guilty, though he was able to explain that a not-guilty plea meant that “I didn’t do it.” Additionally, he was able to understand the role of the defence lawyer in simple terms. However, he was unable to meaningfully understand the role of the Crown and the judge or what would happen during a trial. He had limited understanding of an oath and perjury. He stated that an oath is “a promise…to meet Mrs. Pope.” Mr. Ragbir has not been able to demonstrate an ability to apply the fitness information reviewed to himself or to understand the relevance of fitness education in his current situation.
Mr. Ragbir’s level of alertness improved in February 2025. However, he continued to exhibit disorganization, thought blocking, and difficulty retaining information. He had fluctuating incoherent speech during the fitness sessions. Generally, he is able to tolerate fitness education sessions of approximately 20 minutes in duration, after which time his responses become increasingly disorganized.
Oral Evidence
In her oral evidence, Dr. Bhullar, Mr. Ragbir’s treating psychiatrist since he was transferred to Ontario Shores approximately two years ago, testified that he was most recently assessed for fitness on May 29, 2025. In Dr. Bhullar’s opinion, Mr. Ragbir remains unfit to stand trial. He continues to believe that his outstanding charges are for assault. He does not believe that the victim was his mother. He is able to identify the role of a judge but confuses the roles of the defence lawyer and crown attorney. He doesn’t have an appreciation of the meaning of an oath. He has a limited understanding of the nature and possible consequences of legal proceedings. His psychotic symptoms impair his ability to meaningfully participate in legal proceedings and instruct and communicate with his lawyer.
Dr. Bhullar testified that, since drafting the Hospital Report, Mr. Ragbir has met with the DSO team and an assessment is in process to determine if Mr. Ragbir would be eligible for DSO funding. All documentation necessary has been forwarded to DSO for the assessment process.
Dr. Bhullar testified that Mr. Ragbir is quite low functioning. He requires near constant staff support and supervision. He requires a nurse to sit with him during meals due to his risk of choking. He also requires much support on outings to the community.
Mr. Ragbir has a history of suffering a head injury when young. It appears that there was a decline in functioning at that time in addition to the onset of schizophrenia. Therefore, the treatment team is investigating whether there is a resulting cognitive issue arising from the head injury.
Dr. Bhullar testified that despite treatment with clozapine, biweekly ECT, and a mood stabilizer, Mr. Ragbir continues to have a plethora of symptoms including disorganized speech and thinking, word salad, and disinhibited behaviour.
Mr. Ragbir is currently residing on a secure forensic unit. There are no plans to transfer him to a general forensic unit at this time. He is not yet able to use indirectly supervised privileges due to his psychotic symptoms and need for constant staff support. The hospital is recommending that his Disposition include detention on Forensic Service because, if he qualifies for DSO funding, DSO will be able to provide the same level of support on a General Unit that he is currently receiving on the Secure Unit. This would potentially facilitate a transfer from a Secure Unit to a General Unit. Dr. Bhullar plans on adding Mr. Ragbir to a waitlist for housing once DSO funding is solidified. It is not necessary to have community living in the Disposition in order to add him to housing wait lists. It is recommended that the security level be changed to Forensic Service to allow the treatment team to assess Mr. Ragbir’s ability to live on a General Unit before transferring him to DSO community living. DSO housing is the only appropriate housing option for Mr. Ragbir given the intense level of staff supports he requires.
Dr. Bhullar is not confident that Mr. Ragbir could use indirect privileges safely. There are no realistic plans, absent DSO funding, to transfer Mr. Ragbir to a General Unit. Without DSO funding, Mr. Ragbir would remain on a Secure Unit for the coming year to determine if the addition of adjunctive antipsychotic would help Mr. Ragbir.
The treatment team is considering adding Abilify to his medication regimen. Depending on his response to this medication addition, it could help Mr. Ragbir achieve unescorted grounds privileges. It is not currently appropriate to leave Mr. Ragbir alone to wander the hospital unescorted due to his memory issues. Another reason the Hospital is recommending detention on Forensic Service is to explore the types of privileges he might be able to exercise given his memory issues.
Although a community living clause is not necessary to place Mr. Ragbir on DSO housing wait lists, a community living clause would be required to transfer him to community living in DSO housing. Dr. Bhullar was clear that Mr. Ragbir is not ready for community living. He is not even ready for indirect privileges. He needs to do well on a General Secure unit before any community living is explored. It is Dr. Bhullar’s opinion that it is premature to recommend a community living clause. She further pointed out that a community living clause is not necessary to place him on any housing wait lists, whether DSO or otherwise.
Without ECT treatment, Mr. Ragbir was very aggressive. When he was transferred to Ontario Shores from Waypoint, he had been receiving weekly ECT treatments. Dr. Bhullar reduced ECT to bi-weekly. There is a possibility that the treatment team will be able to reduce ECT treatment frequency further in the future depending on his response to medication optimization.
Dr. Bhullar testified that the inclusion of a community living clause in the Disposition would “possibly” be therapeutic for Mr. Ragbir. She testified that she was unable to point to and evidence that a community living provision in the Disposition would endanger the public. However, she was clear that there was no air of reality to him achieving community living this year.
Risk Assessment
- Mr. Ragbir’s risk factors for re-offence include treatment-resistant schizophrenia, his history of violence including the most serious index offence of murder and his verbal, environmental and physical aggression while in hospital, his lack of insight into his mental illness and need for treatment, and past problems with treatment or supervision response. He continues to exhibit disorganized, tangential thinking with thought blocking and loose associations. He has been observed to respond to internal stimuli as well as voice grandiose delusions.
Analysis and Conclusions
Fitness
Having heard and considered the entirety of the evidence as well as the submissions from the parties, the Board finds that Mr. Ragbir is currently unfit to stand trial, based on the guidance as set out in R v Bharwani, 2023 ONCA 203. Mr. Ragbir would not be able to be meaningfully present nor meaningfully participate in a trial at this time. Although there appears to be some improvement in his understanding of the process since February 2025, Mr. Ragbir’s level of cognitive disorganization, thought blocking, and inability to retain fitness information severely limits his ability to make decisions, understand available options, and communicate regarding court proceedings.
Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the Board accepts the joint position the Mr. Ragbir is unfit to stand trial. There have been recent, very modest improvements. Therefore, there is not conclusive evidence that Mr. Ragbir is permanently unfit.
Necessary and Appropriate Disposition
Having found Mr. Ragbir unfit to stand trial, but not permanently so, the Board must make a Disposition that is necessary and appropriate, considering the criteria delineated in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
Mr. Ragbir requires intensive staff support. The treatment team is confident that he will not be able to utilize indirectly supervised privileges in the upcoming reporting year, nor be in a condition that renders him appropriate to transfer to a General Unit without DSO funding. Because DSO would be able to provide the level of support on a General Unit that he is currently receiving on a Secure Unit (in the event that Mr. Ragbir’s assessment finds he qualifies for DSO funding) the Board finds that the least restrictive and least onerous measure is detention within the Forensic Service at Ontario Shores.
The Board then considered at length the issue of the request by Mr. Rai for the addition of a community living clause to the Disposition. In coming to its conclusion, the Board considered in depth the guidance found within Kelly (Re) 2014 ONCA 269, Simonic (Re) 2024 ONCA 573, and Sookram (Re) 2024 ONCA 823.
In Kelly the court held at paragraph 11 that “The Board’s refusal was inconsistent with the overriding need to achieve a disposition that is the least onerous and least restrictive. As a practical matter, there is a shortage of available beds in supervised accommodation and a significant waiting list. In our view, the Board should take that practical reality into account, especially where there is evidence that the requested provision is also recommended for therapeutic reasons. The inevitable result of the Board’s refusal to consider the provision recommended by the treatment team would be to subject the appellant to a more severe restraint than is warranted by his condition.”
The court in Simonic stressed that even without any reasonable prospect of qualifying for community living in the coming year, a community living clause can be included to provide a powerful incentive to improve behaviour and motivate the accused. The court further found that including a community living clause in a Disposition may also facilitate the accused’s placement on housing lists and reduce the duration of their stay in hospital when they are ready for discharge.
In Sookram the court notes that the Board considered public safety in declining to order the community living term. It did not consider the appellant’s reintegration into society. Nor did it analyze the appellant’s mental condition. The court found that all of the relevant factors found within s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code need to be balanced and weighed against each other.
In Mr. Ragbir’s circumstances, the evidence was clear that Mr. Ragbir can be placed on wait lists for community living regardless of the existence of a community living clause in the Disposition. Though a community living clause would be necessary if Mr. Ragbir eventually becomes ready for and accepted to community housing, Dr. Bhullar was clear that it is premature to include community living in the Disposition. She testified that Mr. Ragbir is not ready for community living and, in fact, is not even ready for indirect privileges. She said that there is no air of reality to Mr. Ragbir achieving community living this year. In fact, transfer off of a Secure Unit is not likely this year without DSO supports due to Mr. Ragbir’s condition and ongoing need for intensive staff supports. This Board finds that there clearly is no reason include a community living clause specifically for the purpose of placing him on wait lists for housing. A community living clause in Mr. Ragbir’s Disposition this year would not serve to assist with his reintegration into society in any way.
In response to a question of the Board, Dr. Bhullar testified that the inclusion of a community living clause is “possibly” therapeutic for Mr. Ragbir. She did not provide an explanation as to how it could be therapeutic nor motivating. However, she was quick to stress that it is his illness that is preventing him from moving forward in the forensic system. The Board notes that Dr. Bhullar was careful not to state that a community living clause ‘would’ be therapeutic. The Board also notes that the addition of a community living clause was not a recommendation made by the hospital, treatment team, or Dr. Bhullar. The Board relies on the expertise of Dr. Bhullar. In submissions at the conclusion of the evidence, the hospital continued to oppose a community living clause. Mr. Dow specifically made submissions with reference to Sookram. He emphasized that Dr. Bhullar appropriately weighed the factors delineated in s. 672.54 and determined that Mr. Ragbir is a long way from being ready to have community living. Counsel for the Attorney General of Ontario adopted Mr. Dow’s submissions.
In further considering whether the inclusion of a community living clause ‘would’ be therapeutic for Mr. Ragbir the Board noted that Mr. Ragbir has significantly impaired cognition. He is unable to process information that is relevant to his proceedings. He continues to suffer a multitude of symptoms including memory issues, disorganization, disinhibited behaviours, thought blocking and loose associations. His behaviours are driven by his illness; there is no evidence that his behaviours are due to a lack of motivation. He was described by Dr. Bhullar as being quite low functioning. The Board is satisfied that Mr. Ragbir would not understand the meaning of a community living clause nor its application to his circumstances. As such, we find it unlikely that a community living clause would be a motivating factor or provide therapeutic benefit.
In considering a community living provision, this Board notes that in the Simonic case, there was evidence of clinical progress. Such evidence is lacking in Mr. Ragbir’s circumstances. The risk assessment, oral and documentary evidence is clear regarding the continuing severity of Mr. Ragbir’s illness.
Though Dr. Bhullar testified that inclusion of a community living clause would not increase Mr. Ragbir’s threat of harm to public safety, the Board recognizes that this is because there is no air of reality to his discharge to the community in the coming year. Although Dr. Bhullar did not provide evidence of negative consequences of the inclusion of a community living term, the Board finds that the exclusion of a community living clause in the 2025/26 disposition avoids Mr. Ragbir’s potential expectation for community living that might interfere with the therapeutic relationship. To ultimately achieve improvements in his mental health, it is important that Mr. Ragbir maintain a good therapeutic relationship with the treatment team.
In consideration of the criteria set out in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code and based on the documentary and viva voce evidence, and in particular the safety of the public, the mental condition of Mr. Ragbir, his other needs, the Board unanimously agrees that the least onerous and least restrictive disposition is Detention on Forensic Service with no change to the terms (excepting level of security), as set out in our formal Disposition.
DATED this 19th day of June 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.
Ms. C. Murray
Legal Member
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board