Re: Apoorva Dube
ORB File No: 8578
Hearing held on: Wednesday, April 30, 2025
Place of hearing: Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(2) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Ms. L. Maunder
Members: Dr. W. Johnston Dr. S. Wiseman Mr. D. Sandor Ms. K. Brisson
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Mr. A. Dube Counsel: n/a
Person in charge of Hospital: Representative: Dr. J. Hwang
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. J. Wright
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated July 2, 2025)
Introduction
On June 12, 2024, Apoorva Dube was found not criminally responsible on Criminal Code charges of attempt to commit indictable offence, mischief – endangering life (x 2), possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose (x2), assault with a weapon, mischief over $5,000 (x2), breaking and entering (intent). At the time of the hearing, Mr. Dube was subject to a conditional discharge that, among other things, required that he reside at a specific address, abstain from all intoxicants, have no contact with various people, refrain from possessing weapons, and report to the person in charge of the Royal Ottawa not less than once every two weeks. On April 30, 2025, the Board convened an early hearing, as requested by the hospital, to review Mr. Dube’s disposition.
Mr. Dube had counsel at the Board’s initial hearing in September 2024. At this hearing, Mr. Dube confirmed he wanted to represent himself – he viewed the matter as straightforward since everyone was agreed he should be able to travel. We encouraged Mr. Dube to seek the assistance of counsel for his next hearing – the hospital acknowledged that an absolute discharge may well be within reach at that time.
All parties agreed that Mr. Dube’s disposition ought to allow him to travel to the United Kingdom for a family wedding this summer. That was the purpose underlying the request for an early hearing. After some discussion, all parties were content for the panel not to make any changes to the disposition if we concluded that his existing disposition allowed international travel and if our reasons clarified this. Otherwise, all parties agreed that Mr. Dube continued to meet the significant threat threshold and the necessary and appropriate disposition was a continuation of the conditional discharge on the same conditions.
For the reasons set out below, the panel agreed that the significant threat threshold continued to be met and that a continuation of a conditional discharge on the same terms and conditions was the necessary and appropriate disposition. We agreed that it was appropriate for Mr. Dube to travel internationally but saw no need to change his current disposition because in our view it already allowed for international travel.
The Index Offences
The Hospital Report recounts the index offences as set out in the original police synopsis. We had no further information, so have summarized the essential facts based on the synopsis.
In April 2023, Mr. Dube went to a home and using a nail gun, shot into the garage of the home. He then shot at the front door. Nails broke the glass and lodged into a wall of the home. He unlocked the door and entered the home. Once inside he threatened the residents. He demanded to know what government they worked for and said, “I know what you did”. When Mr. Dube left, he said he would be back. The homeowners called 911.
Mr. Dube then went to another nearby home and once again shot into the garage and the front door. This time he was unable to unlock the front door. He saw a woman at a window and shot at her, through the glass, but missed. Dr. Dube called: “who do you work for?” to the residents.
The damage to each home (glass, walls, cars) was over $5,000.
Background / Context
Mr. Dube was born and raised in India. His parents were both physicians. He experienced depression in his teens and attempted suicide.
Mr. Dube came to Canada after high school. He enrolled in a construction engineering program at a college, but he found the adjustment very difficult and returned to India. Mr. Dube returned to Canada after he married a woman who was already living in Canada. That was approximately 30 years ago. They remain together and have two children.
Mr. Dube worked several jobs (baker, installer of countertops) before going to college to become a gas technician. He then worked as a gasfitter.
In 2014, Mr. Dube saw a doctor for depression and began taking antidepressants. In 2020, he had a brief psychotic episode that resolved with medication. In consultation with his family doctor, he stopped taking antipsychotics after a few months. After a time, Mr. Dube began to hear voices again “in the background”. He was otherwise functioning well so did not seek assistance. In November 2022 (a few months before the index offences), Mr. Dube’s wife heard him talking to himself. He also seemed distracted and disengaged. Nonetheless, he continued to work full-time so she did not worry too much.
Mr. Dube has no criminal record and prior to the index offences, no involvement with the police. He had no psychiatric hospitalizations in his history.
Mr. Dube is diagnosed with schizophrenia, multiple episodes, in full remission, and major depressive disorder, recurrent episode, in full remission.
At the time of the index offences, Mr. Dube was experiencing command hallucinations. He believed he worked for the CIA and that there was something wrong with the two houses he went to. He was told he had to go and find out what was going on in those houses. He had a nail gun in his car and took it with him “to be prepared”.
After he was arrested and released on bail, Mr. Dube sought care from his family doctor who immediately started him back on an antipsychotic medication. His symptoms improved. He was seen by a psychiatrist and over several months adjustments were made to his medications to effectively treat his symptoms while minimizing side-effects.
The Current Year
Dr. Jiyoung Hwang, Mr. Dube’s outpatient forensic psychiatrist and author of the Hospital Report, offered an update on Mr. Dube’s condition.
Mr. Dube has been under the jurisdiction of the Board for approximately eight months. His care has been transferred to Dr. Hwang. She or someone from the team sees Mr. Dube every two weeks. Mr. Dube is compliant with his oral medications, as confirmed by monitoring through urine screens.
Mr. Dube has not experienced hallucinations or delusions since shortly after the index offences.
Mr. Dube has continued to live with his wife, parents and one of his sons. Both Mr. Dube and his wife now appreciate that his condition is chronic. Mr. Dube’s wife knows to be alert for symptoms of psychosis or mood changes and what these symptoms might look like.
Mr. Dube has found new work, as a safety inspector for fire alarms in residential properties, and has gradually increased his hours. He has resumed driving (prohibited while he was on bail) without issue.
Mr. Dube is careful to avoid the victims of his offences, all of whom live near him. When he leaves his home, he travels away from their homes, even when this requires him to backtrack / extend his trip.
Dr. Hwang assessed Mr. Dube’s risk as low using the HCR-20, version 3. Dr. Hwang explained that in her opinion the significant threat threshold continues to be met because of the potential for future risk. Mr. Dube’s index offences were very serious, and they occurred not that long ago. While Mr. Dube has been compliant with medications and oversight, not much time has passed. Mr. Dube has not faced significant stressors. Dr. Hwang wants more time to see how Mr. Dube does with stress (for example, returning to full-time work) and to ensure his current trajectory holds over time.
Significant Threat
- The panel found that Mr. Dube remains a significant threat to the safety of the public for the reasons specified by Dr. Hwang. Mr. Dube is on a very positive trajectory – his schizophrenia is in remission on medication, he has been compliant with medication and oversight, and he has improved insight into the chronicity of his condition. On the other hand, he has been under the oversight of the Board for only eight months. Given the seriousness of the index offences (although no one was hurt, they may well have been), it is important that Mr. Dube remain under supervision to ensure his insight is lasting, that he continues to take his medication, and that psychosocial stressors don’t destabilize him such that he decompensates and once again engages in dangerous, delusional behaviour.
Necessary and Appropriate Disposition
The panel agreed with the parties that the necessary and appropriate disposition remained a conditional discharge with conditions including weapons prohibitions, no contact with victims, no use of intoxicants, urine screening and reporting not less than once every two weeks. Mr. Dube needs oversight but he seems to be very motivated to work with the team and to remain well. He has excellent support from his wife and family. He is back to working, although not yet full-time. There were no concerns about Dr. Hwang’s ability to intervene to protect the public if necessary – any decompensation was likely to take place over time, both Mr. Dube and his wife were better educated about warning signs, and Mr. Dube seemed likely to voluntarily come in if requested to.
The panel also agreed with the parties that it was appropriate that Mr. Dube be permitted to travel internationally. In conjunction with his other conditions (in particular, reporting to the hospital at least once every two weeks and abstaining from all intoxicants), we were entirely satisfied that international travel did not pose an undue risk to the safety of the public. It was also beneficial to Mr. Dube’s reintegration into society and other needs.
Mr. Dube’s disposition was silent on travel. The hospital asked for an early hearing to allow for travel. Dr. Hwang explained that the hospital was aware the disposition did not explicitly prohibit travel but was concerned that the condition requiring Mr. Dube to reside at a specific address might prevent him from doing so. In the hospital report, the hospital recommended that Mr. Dube be allowed to travel internationally “for a maximum of two weeks with an approved itinerary and an approved person”. At the hearing, Dr. Hwang stated she was not requesting a term that would be more onerous or restrictive than Mr. Dube’s prior disposition. She agreed that if Mr. Dube’s disposition already permitted international travel, she was not requesting an added term.
Counsel for the Attorney General and Mr. Dube were content to leave the issue with the Board.
As the panel understands the legislative scheme, under a conditional discharge an accused is entitled to all liberty not explicitly limited by the terms of the disposition. Thus, a conditional discharge that is silent on travel means that the accused is permitted to travel without restriction so long as they remain compliant with other conditions set out in their disposition. Thus, under the terms of his disposition as ordered last year, Mr. Dube is permitted to travel without restriction so long as he complies with the other terms of his disposition.
Mr. Dube is required to report to the hospital not less than once every two weeks. This condition will necessarily restrict Mr. Dube’s travel to durations of less than two weeks.
The other condition raised as a potential impediment to Mr. Dube’s travel is the condition that he reside at a specific address (his home in Ottawa). In the panel’s view the reside condition does not impede travel, including overnight travel, away from one’s home on a short-term basis. Such an interpretation is contrary to the ordinary meaning of “reside”. We also note that it is not uncommon for conditional discharge dispositions to include a condition that requires an accused to advise the hospital of any absence from their residence of 24 hours or more. This further supports our interpretation of the reside condition as not preventing absences from the residence overnight on a temporary basis – i.e., travel. Accordingly, the panel made no change to Mr. Dube’s disposition. He will remain on a conditional discharge on the same terms as last year. That disposition permits him to travel internationally.
DATED this 2nd day of July 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Leslie Maunder
Alternate Chairperson
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board