Ontario Review Board
Re: Kanwardeep Johar
ORB File No: 8725
Hearing held on: Wednesday, May 21, 2025
Place of hearing: Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care 401 Sunset Drive, St. Thomas, Ontario Via Zoom Audio-Visual Technology
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Ms. M. Labrosse
Members: Dr. W. Hill Dr. A. Kerry Mr. D. Sandor Ms. K. Brisson
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Kanwardeep Johar Counsel: Mr. W. Glover
The Person in charge of Hospital: Counsel: Ms. J. Zamprogna
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. K. Dalrymple
REASONS FOR DECISION
(Dated June 16, 2025)
Introduction:
On April 3, 2023, Kanwardeep Johar, then 40 years old, was found not criminally responsible by way of mental disorder on charges of robbery and using an imitation firearm in the commission of an indictable offence, contrary to the provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada. He is subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, dated July 3, 2024, detaining him at the General Forensic Unit at the Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care, St. Joseph’s Health Care London (hereinafter referred to as “the Hospital”) with privileges up to and including that of living in the community of Southwestern Ontario in accommodation approved by the person in charge of the Hospital. That disposition also subjects him to certain conditions, including that of abstaining absolutely from the non-medical use of alcohol or drugs or any other intoxicant and that of submitting samples for the purpose of monitoring his compliance with the abstention condition.
On April 10, 2025, the Hospital sent a letter to the Ontario Review Board pursuant to the provisions of section 672.56(2)(b) of the Criminal Code, advising that Mr. Johar had been brought into the Hospital from his approved accommodations in Waterloo, Ontario and had been placed in seclusion, resulting in a restriction of his liberty. On May 21, 2025, a panel of the Ontario Review Board convened a hearing to review that restriction pursuant to section 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code. The hearing proceeded by way of Zoom Audio-Visual Technology. Mr. Johar was present for the hearing, represented by his lawyer Mr. Glover.
The record for the hearing included the Notice of Hearing, the last Disposition, dated July 3, 2024, the Reasons for that Disposition, the Restriction of Liberties Notification sent by the Hospital (as mentioned above), and the Board’s response to that Notification, dated April 15, 2025. On the consent of all parties, a cumulative Hospital Report dated March 15, 2025 was entered into evidence as exhibit 1 and an update dated May 11, 2025 was entered into evidence as exhibit 2.
The parties advised the Board that Mr. Johar remained in the Hospital but was no longer in seclusion. They also confirmed that the only issues before the Board were those associated with the restriction of Mr. Johar’s liberty. No changes were being sought by any party to the underlying Disposition and this hearing was not to constitute an early review of that Order.
The parties were canvassed for initial positions on the restriction of liberty. None disputed that Mr. Johar had experienced a serious restriction of his liberty departing from his liberty norm. Counsel for the Hospital, Ms. Zamprogna, expressed the position that the restriction was necessary and justified and represented the least onerous and least restrictive option available to the Hospital both at the time initiated and up to the date of the hearing.
The representative of the Attorney General agreed with the position taken by the Hospital. Counsel for Mr. Johar took no position on the issues before the Board.
For the following reasons, the Board has concluded that the restriction of Mr. Johar’s liberty was justified and necessary and represented the least onerous and least restrictive measure available to the Hospital when initiated and to the date of the hearing.
Evidence at the hearing
The evidence at the hearing came from the two exhibits mentioned and from the live evidence offered by Dr. J. Quinn. While Dr. Quinn is not Mr. Johar’s treating psychiatrist, he was such for over a year leading up to Mr. Johar’s discharge from the Hospital into his approved accommodations in the community of Waterloo on March 10, 2025. Dr. Quinn was involved with Mr. Johar from the time of his readmission to the Hospital through to his transfer to the treatment unit on April 1, 2025, where Mr. Johar is now under the care of Dr. Mokhbar.
Inasmuch as this hearing is limited to issues associated with a restriction of liberty and is not touching on matters pertaining to section 672.5401 or 672.54 of the Criminal Code, it is not necessary to review the many details associated with Mr. Johar’s personal, criminal, psychiatric history or history while under the jurisdiction of the Ontario Review Board. For context though, the following details regarding the index offences are drawn from exhibit 1, as also contained in the most recent Reasons for Disposition:
On June 15, 2022, at approximately 4:59pm, the accused Kanwardeep Johar attended at the Canada Post branch which is located the inside Rexall Pharmacy at Shoppers World Mall, 499 Main Street, in the city of Brampton. Ms. Brenda Winterdale was working at the Canada Post cash register that day, together with another employee.
Mr. Johar approached Ms. Winterdale’s register with a slip to retrieve his mail. In accordance with Canada Post procedures, Ms. Winterdale asked Mr. Johar for photo ID. He provided her with a very obviously fake “passport” which was handwritten in marker on brown paper. Ms. Winterdale advised that this was not a sufficient form of identification, and declined to provide him with his mail without proper ID.
A verbal disagreement ensued, during which Mr. Johar produced a revolver-style handgun and pointed it at Ms. Winterdale and demanded that she obtain his mail. Ms. Winterdale went to the back room where she pretended to locate Mr. Johar’s mail, but instead she called mall security. Security guards attended and began to speak to Mr. Johar calmly, who was still holding the gun which he then placed down on the counter. He stated to security that he was a Freeman, that “they are robbing me”, and that Trudeau is a bully because he banned guns and he doesn’t like being bullied so he brought a gun with him to prove a point. Security was able to distract him and then physically subdued Mr. Johar on the ground, kicked the gun away from his reach, and held him until the arrival of police.
Police attended and took over the arrest of Mr. Johar. It was determined that the gun was an imitation firearm, being an antique toy cap gun. PC Chisholm #3924 placed Mr. Johar under arrest and read him his rights to counsel and cautions. He noted that upon police arrival Mr. Johar was screaming and singing, and he continued singing in response to each of the rights to counsel questions. Mr. Johar refused to get up off the ground and went limp. He had to be carried to a cruiser by police. Mr. Johar was held pending show cause.”
Mr. Johar is currently diagnosed with Schizoaffective Disorder, Rule Out – Bipolar Disorder. His major mental illness has historically caused him to experience referential and disorganized thinking that he perceives as “receiving messages from the universe.” When manic, he has acted out on those messages. He has a history of substance use that includes alcohol, cannabis and hallucinogens, with psilocybin being his drug of choice. He has a history of noncompliance with treatment in the community and in that context has engaged in risky sexual behaviours, high-speed driving, and aggressive lashing out at people such as police and health care workers that are called on to intervene. His strengths include his intelligence, his historic ability to demonstrate self-control and emotional regulation in a supervised setting and his respect towards all members of his treatment team.
Exhibit 2 explains the circumstances of the restriction of Mr. Johar’s liberty as summarized in the Restriction of Liberty Notification that formed part of the record for this hearing. On January 31, 2025, Mr. Johar began a transition to approved accommodations at his familial home in the community of Waterloo. On March 10, 2025 he was discharged to the forensic outreach team under the psychiatric care of Dr. N. Mokhber.
Towards the end of March, 2025, Mr. Johar began making statements that suggested violent themes. Then, on March 26, 2025, Mr. Johar called Mr. M. Segal who functioned as the alternate chairperson for the Ontario Review Board at Mr. Johar’s last annual review. Mr. Segal redirected Mr. Johar, appropriately, to Dr. Mokhber, Mr. Glover, or to Mr. Johar’s case manager. Thereafter, Mr. Johar called Mr. Segal again and left a voicemail expressing grievances that he alleged Mr. Segal was causing and threatening to “find” the alternate chairperson and “murder” him.
As a result, on March 27, 2025, a Warrant of Committal was issued and the police attended at Mr. Johar’s residence to transport him to the Hospital. Mr. Johar was aggressive, threatened the police with a kitchen knife and was tasered approximately six times before being apprehended. When admitted to the Hospital, he was acutely psychotic, switching between laughing and crying and making nonsensical, disorganized remarks. He engaged in bizarre behaviours that included spinning in circles and drinking and bathing in his own urine. As he persisted in violent ideation directed toward staff, Mr. Johar was placed in seclusion. From that time, he showed lack of insight into his mental illness, the benefits of treatment or the consequences of refusing medication. He was found incapable of consenting to treatment on March 31, 2025. He refused food, attacked staff, scratching one person sufficiently to break skin and was treated by injection. He refused food and continued to demonstrate hostile and unpredictable behavior even when sedated.
On April 4, 2025, Mr. Johar began eating bananas and drinking small amounts of water. On April 9, 2025 he was removed from seclusion but returned on April 17 as he refused his antipsychotic injection. Finally, on April 22, 2025, he was placed out of seclusion and into the main campus of the Hospital subject to constant observation.
In his evidence to the Board, Dr. Quinn adopted the contents of both exhibits 1 and 2. He explained that, at the time of Mr. Johar’s last annual review, he was resistant to medication and had in fact been off of his antipsychotic medications for nearly a year. This had led to some consideration of revisiting his diagnosis. Dr. Quinn explained that it is unusual to go for a year without treatment for schizophrenia without having a relapse of symptoms. He explained that Mr. Johar, at that time, was not experiencing any actual psychotic symptoms. He exercised passes appropriately. The Hospital did not suspect or detect substance use of any kind. While Mr. Johar himself did say that he was sleepless, nurses checking at night found that in fact he was sleeping well. Where Mr. Johar would claim that he would spend hours looking at the sun, his optometrist saw no indications that this was happening. The Hospital formed the opinion that Mr. Johar was engaging in provocative behaviours that were meant to raise the alarm of caregivers, but even this behaviour did not amount to evidence of acute psychosis. Accordingly, the determination was made to permit him to transition to living in approved accommodations with his brother in the community.
Dr. Quinn confirmed that Mr. Johar remained incapable of consenting to treatment and that treatment was being administered. Dr. Quinn said that Mr. Johar has returned to presenting as he did normally when not experiencing the type of severe regression that was seen on his readmission to the Hospital. He said that the Hospital needed to re-engage Mr. Johar in diagnostic consideration and that, to this end, personality and cognitive testing was contemplated. There is still some question as to what the factors were that led to this most recent decompensation. Dr. Quinn confirmed that neither the Hospital nor Mr. Johar’s family saw clear warning signs of approaching psychosis. In fact, Mr. Johar’s brother was surprised by the decompensation, and it was only in retrospect that he noted that “perhaps” Mr. Johar was a “little more rigid in his thinking” and a “little more withdrawn than normal.”
In his evidence Dr. Quinn explained the difficulty associated with determining where Mr. Johar’s major mental illness begins, and where his personal libertarian philosophy as a “freeman upon the land” ends. Mr. Johar engages in negative perception management. These factors make it difficult for the outreach team to identify early signs of deterioration because of the overlay in Mr. Johar between philosophy, psychology and major mental illness in him.
Dr. Quinn confirmed that while the Hospital could not rule out that Mr. Johar had returned to use of psilocybin, Mr. Johar had denied it. Dr. Quinn explained that psilocybin is difficult to detect in urine drug screenings. He confirmed that Mr. Johar continues to express interest in using that substance. He explained that it would take some time before Mr. Johar could be considered for discharge back into the community. He stated that the Hospital needed to optimize Mr. Johar’s treatment and complete psychological testing and opined that eventual transition to the community may end up requiring a higher degree of supervision than can be offered at Mr. Johar’s home with his brother.
Submissions
- At the end of the hearing the Hospital and the representative of the Attorney General renewed their submissions as set out at the hearing’s commencement. They agreed that a restriction of Mr. Johar’s liberty had taken place and that it was justified and necessary and represented the least onerous and least restrictive course available to the Hospital at the time. They further agreed that the restriction remained justified and necessary. Counsel for Mr. Johar made no submissions.
Analysis and conclusion
The Board agrees with the submissions made by the Hospital and the representative of the Attorney General. Clearly there was a significant increase in the restriction of Mr. Johar’s liberty when he was returned to the Hospital and placed in seclusion. That restriction continues as he is maintained in the Hospital with limited pass privileges. This is a significant change from the liberty norm he was experiencing when living in the community with his brother.
This restriction was clearly justified and necessary. Mr. Johar had rapidly become floridly psychotic. His decompensation to this degree was entirely unexpected. He had threatened to kill a member of the Ontario Review Board that exercises a judicial function. When police sought to bring him to the Hospital on a warrant of committal, he was violent and on his return to the Hospital he was manifesting signs of severe psychosis. He was not in a state where supportive outreach services could be expected assure the safety of the public which remains the Hospital’s primary objective. When at the Hospital, Mr. Johar was violent towards staff, unpredictable, and refusing medications. The decision to place him in seclusion was, therefore, also necessary to assure the safety of the public in the form of staff and co-patients.
While Mr. Johar had stabilized to some degree by the time of the hearing, it remains necessary and appropriate to continue with the restriction of his liberty until such a time as the Hospital can optimize medication and complete psychological and personality testing to determine how to balance the twin objectives of assuring the safety of the public and working towards the ultimate objective or reintegrating Mr. Johar into the community. Given the seriousness of the index offence, the severity and suddenness of this most recent deterioration, and the complex overlap of philosophical, psychological and psychiatric overlay fueling Mr. Johar’s difficulties, the Board is convinced that the Hospital has no other option but to proceed cautiously, maintaining the restriction of Mr. Johar’s liberty at this time. The Hospital’s treatment plan is appropriate both in terms of ensuring the safety of the public and addressing Mr. Johar’s mental health and other needs and can be undertaken under the authority of the reigning disposition.
Accordingly, the Board has concluded that the significant increase in the restriction of Mr. Johar’s liberty was and remains justified and necessary and the least onerous and least restrictive means available to the Hospital to ensure the safety of the public and address his mental health and other needs.
The panel thanks those who participated in this hearing for their assistance.
DATED this 16th day of June 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
D. Sandor
Legal Member
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board