Re: Soyab Patel
Re: Soyab Patel
ORB File No: 5979
Hearing held on: Wednesday, May 14, 2025
Place of hearing: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health 1001 Queen Street West, Toronto
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. J. Goldenberg
Members: Dr. B. Sheppard (via Zoom) Dr. M. Mamak Ms. C. Murray Mr. S. Duffy
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Soyab Patel Counsel: Mr. I. McCuaig
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. A. Marshall
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. M. Feindel
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated June 17, 2025)
Introduction
On October 6, 2011, Mr. Soyab Patel was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (“NCR”) on charges of arson – damage to property, and mischief – endangering life, all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (the “Criminal Code”).
On May 14, 2025, a panel of the Ontario Review Board (“Board” or “panel”) convened to review Mr. Patel’s current Disposition pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. At the time of the hearing, Mr. Patel was subject to a Disposition of the Board dated March 5, 2024, which discharges him on certain terms and conditions, including provisions that he:
a. Reside at 2511 Wrenwood Crescent, Mississauga, Ontario, L4T 2V8; and
b. Report to the person in charge of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto (the “hospital” or “CAMH”), or his or her designate, not less than once every four weeks.
Mr. Patel did not attend his hearing. Efforts were made to contact Mr. Patel by phone. His counsel, Mr. Ian McCuaig, advised that Mr. Patel was stuck in traffic. Mr. McCuaig made it clear to the Board, and the Board accepts, that Mr. Patel is usually prompt for meetings and appointments. The Board waited thirty minutes past his scheduled time to commence the hearing. Mr. McCuaig advised that he had instructions regarding the hearing and was prepared to proceed. The chairperson noted that all parties agreed to this hearing date one week ago at a pre-hearing conference. It was also raised that this annual review hearing is three and a half months late for various reasons. The Board had concerns that an adjournment of this hearing would create a delay that would impact on the fair administration of justice. Therefore, an order to proceed with the hearing in Mr. Patel’s absence was made pursuant to s. 672.5(10)(a).
Mr. Patel was represented by Mr. McCuaig throughout the proceedings.
A Hospital Report dated January 2, 2025, was entered as Exhibit 1.
The issues to be determined are whether Mr. Patel 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.
For the reasons set out below and based on the evidence and opinions before us, the Board found that Mr. Patel continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. The Board orders that the necessary and appropriate Disposition in the circumstances is the continuation of the existing Conditional Discharge with no change to the terms.
Current Psychiatric Diagnoses
- Schizophrenia, chronic paranoid type
Positions of the Parties
At the commencement of the hearing, the parties were canvassed for their without prejudice positions. The hospital took the position that Mr. Patel continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate disposition is a Conditional Discharge with no change to the terms of the Disposition Order.
Counsel for the Attorney General, Mr. Feindel, supported the recommendation of the hospital.
Mr. McCuaig also supported the recommendation of the hospital on Mr. Patel’s behalf.
Index Offence
- Page 5 of the Hospital Report sets out the detailed circumstances of the index offences as follows:
“On Monday March 15, 2010 at approximately 2:50 pm, Mr. Patel was present in his residence at 3642 Morningstar Drive in Mississauga. Also present was his wife, Mumtaj, his youngest son, Abdurrahim, his sister-in-law, Mehrunnisa, and her four children. Two of the children, Abdurahhim and his cousin, were instructed by Mr. Patel’s wife to go downstairs to play. Mr. Patel became angry as he interpreted this as a sign that the family thought he was homosexual and sexually interested in the children. Mr. Patel entered the kitchen in the presence of the children and lit a piece of paper on fire. Once ignited, he threw the paper into a crawl space located beside the kitchen. Some of the packaged insulation began to burn and Mr. Patel’s nephew ran upstairs to advise his mother. The police department were contacted and arrived along with the fire department. Mr. Patel reportedly assisted in putting out the fire and later explained that he was “out of control” and “could not control his anger”. At times, he has endorsed the belief that “jinns” or spirits were bothering him and reported that he experienced auditory hallucinations commanding him to set the fire. Shortly after the index offence, Mr. Patel explained that his intent was to harm his wife. However, multiple other parties were present, including five children, who were clearly placed at potential risk.”
Background and History
The Hospital Report contains extensive information regarding Mr. Patel’s background and history, the entirety of which need not be repeated here in detail.
However, in summary, we note that Mr. Patel was born in Shah, India on April 26, 1971. He enjoyed good family relationships.
Mr. Patel immigrated to Canada in 1995 and resided in Toronto where his parents, wife, and brother already lived. Two years after arriving in Canada, he found a job as a machine operator where he worked for seven years. He has not worked since leaving that job. He remains unemployed and is supported by Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP).
Mr. Patel has two children (aged 19 and 5) with his now deceased wife. His wife passed away in 2017.
Mr. Patel does not have a history of substance use.
Prior to the index offences, Mr. Patel did not have a history of involvement with the legal system.
Mr. Patel has suffered in the past from delusional beliefs regarding the identity of his wife and children, claiming that his wife is not the woman he married and his children are not his own. Since the prescription of paliperidone in 2013, he no longer holds those beliefs.
Before the index offence, he threatened to burn down the house on several occasions. He also threatened his wife with a knife.
In May 2011, Mr. Patel was assessed by Dr. Angus McDonald. He presented with paranoid ideation and auditory hallucinations. He attributed his experiences to being victimized by spies, sorcerers, or black magic. These ideas appeared to be of a long-standing nature. He was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia at that time.
Mr. Patel was found incapable of consenting to psychiatric treatment on November 1, 2012. Mr. Patel’s father is his substitute decision maker.
Course Since Last Disposition
The Hospital Report outlines Mr. Patel’s course since the last Disposition. In summary, Mr. Patel continues to reside with his in-laws, sons, daughter-in-law and two grandchildren at 2511 Wrenwood Crescent, Mississauga, Ontario. His current living situation is stable and he enjoys good support from his in-laws.
Under close supervision of the Forensic Outpatient Serve at CAMH, Mr. Patel has remained compliant with his medications since he was discharged to the community in September 2013. However, he continues to have an almost total lack of insight into his illness and the need for medication. Mr. Patel has indicated that he would not attend any psychiatric appointments absent an order of the Board as he believes he does not have a mental illness.
Evidence at the Hearing
The Board had available to it the evidence and documents forming the Record, the Exhibit, and oral evidence of Dr. Nnamdi Ugwunze, Mr. Patel’s psychiatrist and author of the Hospital Report.
Dr. Ugwunze testified that he has been Mr. Patel’s treating psychiatrist since September 2022. He has met with Mr. Patel in person on a monthly basis since the date of the Hospital Report and there has been no change in Mr. Patel’s mental status.
Dr. Ugwunze testified that the Composite Risk Assessment contained within the Hospital Report remains valid.
Dr. Ugwunze testified that Mr. Patel would not take medication or follow up with psychiatric care if he were Absolutely Discharged and not under the auspices of the Board. Mr. Patel has told Dr. Ugwunze that he is not mentally ill. He has also told Dr. Ugwunze that he does not need medication and would not take it if not ordered by the Board to do so. Mr. Patel’s insight is extremely limited, or non-existent. Dr. Ugwunze stated that Mr. Patel only engages with the treatment specified because he is under the auspices of the Board and receives follow-up care from CAMH Forensic Outpatient Services.
Mr. Patel is currently living with his family in a multi-generational home. Dr. Ugwunze stated that in his conversations with Mr. Patel’s family, he was not able to determine whether they would be able to notice the signs of decompensation. The family advised Dr. Ugwunze that Mr. Patel stays in his room a lot and doesn’t engage much with the family. The family would not be able to facilitate medication administration long-term and it would be unreasonable to impose the caregiving of Mr. Patel on them.
Dr. Ugwunze testified that in order to receive an Absolute Discharge Mr. Patel would need to acknowledge that he has a mental illness and commit to taking the treatment that keeps him well. He would also need to be accepted by a community mental health service. He currently lives outside of the CAMH catchment area, but CAMH has been trying to find a community mental health team that he could ultimately transition to.
Dr. Ugwunze testified that Mr. Patel was put on a community treatment order (CTO) in 2020. The CTO was largely unsuccessful because Mr. Patel didn’t want to transition to the community treatment team. He is comfortable with his CAMH Forensic Outpatient Services team and does not want to change this treatment team.
Analysis and Conclusions
Significant Threat
Having heard and considered the entirety of the evidence as well as the submissions from the parties, the Board independently finds that Mr. Patel remains a significant threat to the safety of the public.
Mr. Patel’s index offences were serious. He suffers from schizophrenia. When unwell, he presents with paranoid delusional beliefs, which have resulted in conduct that caused serious physical or psychological harm to the public.
Mr. Patel continues to have virtually no insight into his illness, the need for medication, and the association between his mental illness and risk of reoffending. He has been clear with his treatment team that he would not follow up with his psychiatric appointments, including his long-acting injectable administration, if he were not under the jurisdiction of the Board. His lack of insight necessitates ongoing therapeutic intervention.
Given these issues, Mr. Patel continues to meet the threshold for significant threat to the safety of the public.
Necessary and Appropriate Disposition
In light of the Board’s finding of significant risk, it is charged with shaping a Disposition for the coming year.
Mr. Patel has done well in the community due to the excellent support of the treatment team. He is compliant with treatment only under the close supervision of the Forensic Outpatient Service at CAMH. He continues to require this support.
Despite having done well in the community, Mr. Patel would have no commitment to taking medication were he not under an order of the Board.
Due to Mr. Patel’s near complete lack of insight and the likelihood that he would disengage from treatment, an Absolute Discharge would not be appropriate at this time. Given the totality of the evidence before us, the Board believes that Mr. Patel would stop his medications due to a lack of insight if he were not subject to a Conditional Discharge. Discontinuing medication would likely result in decompensation of his mental health, re-emergence of psychotic symptoms, and ultimately serious harm to members of the public.
After considering all evidence and joint position of the parties, the Board finds that that the necessary and appropriate, least onerous and least restrictive Disposition, is continuation of a Conditional Discharge with no change to the terms, as set out in our formal Disposition.
DATED this 17^th^ day of June, 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Ms. C. Murray Legal Member
__________________ Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board