Re: Gurjas Singh
ORB File No: 7999
Hearing held on: Tuesday, June 3, 2025
Place of hearing: Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences 700 Gordon Street, Whitby
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Ms. L. Banks
Members: Dr. M. Kalia Dr. T. Wilkie Mr. D. D’Intino Mr. S. Duffy
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Gurjas Singh Counsel: Mr. A. Rai
The person in charge of hospital: Representative: Mr. K. Dow
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. N. MacDonald
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated July 14, 2025)
Introduction
On December 17, 2021, Gurjas Singh was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (“NCR”) of Criminal Code charges of attempt murder, aggravated assault, assault with a weapon and weapons dangerous. At the time of the hearing, Ms. Singh was subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated March 19, 2024 detaining her at Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences (“Ontario Shores”) with privileges up to living in the community in accommodation approved by the person in charge.
On June 3, 2025, the Board convened a hearing in person at Ontario Shores Centre to conduct a hearing pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. The purpose of this hearing was to determine whether Ms. Singh continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public and if so, to determine the necessary and appropriate Disposition, which is also the least onerous and least restrictive means to protect the public in consideration of the circumstances.
Current Psychiatric Diagnoses:
- Schizoaffective, Bipolar Type
- Cannabis Use Disorder, Severe, In Early Remission
- Cocaine Use Disorder, Mild
Index Offences:
- The details of the index offences are extracted from the Hospital Report dated March 24, 2025 at pages 2-3, which are as follows:
According to Occurrence #: 17-1732685:
CHARGE #1: Aggravated Assault CHARGE #2: Assault with a Weapon CHARGE #3: Weapons Dangerous
It is believed that the victim and the accused are strangers to each other, and met on the morning of the incident. The accused has been living out of his car (sic) for approximately one month, and has been parking his (sic) vehicle in the lot of 305 Progress Avenue, in the City of Toronto.
On Sunday September 24th, 2017 at approximately 7:17 am, a witness called Police to advise that they had just been approached by the accused, who was bleeding and stating that she had just stabbed someone. At this time, the accused was located at Progress Avenue and Brimley Road, just east of where the victim was located. The victim was located a short while later sitting in his vehicle. The victim had four stab wounds to his chest. The victim was transported to Sunnybrook Hospital, and based on the investigation, the accused was placed under arrest and taken to 41 Division.
En route to the station, the accused made utterances indicating that she stabbed the victim because he stated that he was going to rape her. While at the station, the accused was afforded the opportunity to provide a statement with regards to her allegations, however she refused to provide a statement.
The victim was able to provide a brief statement to Police, indicating that he was throwing out garbage into a bin at the rear of the parking lot where his vehicle was parked. He alleges that the accused approached him and asked him for a ride. He refused and went about his business. The accused then noticed that the accused was standing in front of him brandishing a knife. The victim ran into his vehicle on the driver side. The accused managed to get into the passenger side, and started stabbing the victim.
The victim's vehicle, as well as the scene, were examined. A black handle of a kitchen knife was located in close proximity to the vehicle, in the parking lot, amongst numerous blood drops both outside and within the vehicle. The blade of the knife was located inside the vehicle.
The accused was held pending a show cause hearing.
At the time of the investigation, the victim's injuries were considered to be serious, but not life threatening.
**INJURIES: - four stab wounds to chest of victim - cuts to left arm - blood in lungs
It was noted in medical reports by CAMH that shortly after the index offences, police had received the videotape evidence. It appeared that Ms. Singh stabbed the victim unprovoked and that there was no evidence of sexual assault or uttering of threats.
Without Prejudice Position of the Parties:
At the commencement of the hearing, Mr. Dow presented the Hospital’s position, which was that the current Disposition should not be changed.
Ms. McDonald for the Attorney General agreed with this position.
Counsel for the accused, Mr. Rai, took the position that a Conditional Discharge was the necessary and appropriate disposition for Ms. Singh. He also proposed that the Disposition include a residence clause at her current TRHP housing, a consent to treatment condition pursuant to s. 672.55 CC and a Young clause requiring that Ms. Singh attend at the hospital for psychiatric assessment and readmission, if requested. Mr. Rai also suggested terms requiring Ms. Singh to abstain from the use of non-prescribed substances, a urine drug screening clause and a no weapons clause, while maintaining the current frequency of reporting to the Hospital.
Evidence at the Hearing:
The Board had available the evidence and documents forming the Record, the Exhibits, and oral evidence from Dr. Derek Pallandi.
Dr. Pallandi adopted the contents of the Hospital Report, which he coauthored and was dated March 24, 2025.
Dr. Pallandi had no updates to provide since the report was written. He testified that in the past year Ms. Singh has had some medication changes – she discontinued use of buspirone and sertraline of her own volition and without input from her treatment team without any real changes in her mental status.
Ms. Singh is currently on Abilify 30mg daily. Dr. Pallandi’s opined that although she is optimally treated at this point, that may change going forward as her presentation is prone to fluctuation.
Ms. Singh has continued to struggle with substance use, having submitted some positive urine drug screens this past year, however she has not engaged in any aggression or violence, no self-destructive behaviour and has been generally manageable in the community, save for one voluntary admission to Hospital.
Dr. Pallandi testified that despite residing in the community, Ms. Singh requires a high level of support. Canadian Mental Health Association (“CMHA”) staff are involved with her, Dr. Pallandi sees her regularly and she is required to submit regular urine drug screens. All that being said, Dr. Pallandi testified that he doesn’t envision any drastic changes to the management of Ms. Singh in the foreseeable future.
Shortly after her discharge from Hospital, there was a situation where Ms. Singh had purchased a cat but found that its cries reminded her of a child crying, which caused her some anxiety and ultimately the cat needed to be rehomed. Dr. Pallandi was not certain one way or the other if this interpretation was a residual psychotic symptom or not, but he did say that absent this one occurrence, Ms. Singh does not appear to be psychotic.
Dr. Pallandi further testified that Ms. Singh has reasonable insight into her mental health. She acknowledges that she has a mental illness, she is committed to taking her prescribed medication, she avails herself of the support of the Hospital and CMHA, but one area of her insight where more progress is needed is in respect of her substance use and how that affects her mental status.
Dr. Pallandi testified that in the coming year, Ms. Singh needs to demonstrate a prolonged period of clinical stability - which has eluded her thus far. She recently required a voluntary admission to Hospital from October 11-18, 2024, and had two positive UDS for a cocaine metabolite and another for Gabapentin. She is experiencing a number of potentially significant stressors, including seeking employment and dealing with her daughter, which singularly and collectively could destabilize her.
Dr. Pallandi also expressed some concern about the anxious and depressive symptoms that Ms. Singh continues to experience and testified that with schizoaffective disorder – which is an amalgam of psychotic and mood disorders – that:
…if you are seeing fluctuations in the mood, it's telling you that perhaps there is an instability in that diagnosis or in that symptom cluster. So, you use it as a marker that something is going on. And anxiety very commonly coupled with depression as well. So, she is having symptoms, generally speaking, not necessarily psychotic symptoms, but she is experiencing symptoms and as during this year. So, is there a possibly this is on a spectrum, and this will become more severe and potentially accompanied by psychosis? Yeah. So that's a pretty realistic concern.
Should her mood symptoms persist, Dr. Pallandi believes that further medication changes are possible which could destabilize Ms. Singh. He opined that for all of the above reasons, Ms. Singh is not at the point where the Hospital believes she is ready for a Conditional Discharge. Dr. Pallandi also believed that the provisions of the Mental Health Act would be insufficient to return Ms. Singh to the Hospital quickly, as she would not likely meet the criteria to be found certifiable. He noted for example that during the most recent readmission in October 2024, Ms. Singh likely would not have met the criteria for involuntary admission, despite the decompensation in her mental status.
In response to questions from defence counsel, Dr. Pallandi confirmed that Ms. Singh’s readmission to Hospital was voluntary and was due to anxiety triggered by external factors. Ms. Singh has been compliant with her medications and has some insight into her mental illness and the need for treatment.
Dr. Pallandi confirmed that Ms. Singh was doing some telemarketing work, has been free of psychotic symptoms for some time.
In response to questions from the panel, Dr. Pallandi confirmed that Ms. Singh tapered and then stopped taking her mood medications without the foreknowledge of the Hospital, and that they discovered this later. This raise concerns regarding her lack of transparency and cooperation with the treatment team.
Dr. Pallandi also testified that Ms. Singh has been using cannabis in a “responsible way” such that it does not seem to have affected her mental status at all. However, the doctor stated that her use of stimulants is problematic and would be likely to erode her insight.
He further confirmed that while Ms. Singh has missed some appointments with CMHA and the Forensic Outpatient Service in the past, that this is not a present concern, and that Ms. Singh is no longer associating with the individual whom she was allegedly trafficking substances with back in 2023.
Dr. Pallandi confirmed that the treatment team remains concerned about the recent positive UDS screens, particularly those which were positive for cocaine metabolites, because firstly, Ms. Singh was not honest about consuming the substance, and secondly, because cocaine-seeking was a factor in her index offences. Dr. Pallandi further confirmed that Ms. Singh is not currently engaged in any substance abuse programming, although she had been in the past.
Lastly, Dr. Pallandi testified that the reasoning behind the recent re-admission to Hospital was due to depression and a result of persistent deterioration in Ms. Singh’s mental and physical health. Over a period of months, she struggled with weight loss, poor personal hygiene, apathy, anxiety and agitation, but no signs of psychosis. The treatment team was absolutely convinced that this was a depressive episode – although Ms. Singh disagreed – and eventually the anxiety overtook the depression, leading Ms. Singh to agree to the voluntary hospitalization.
Analysis and Conclusions
Having heard and considered the entirety of the evidence as well as the submissions from the parties, the panel agrees with the Hospital’s position that Ms. Singh remains a significant threat to the safety of the public and a continuation of the existing Detention Order Disposition with no changes to its terms and conditions is the necessary and appropriate and the least onerous and least restrictive option in consideration of all of the circumstances.
Ms. Singh suffers from a psychotic disorder that also includes mood disorder components, among other diagnoses. The psychotic symptoms of her schizoaffective disorder is well treated with her current medication regime, but the mood components of this disorder have presented some recent challenges and a resultant decompensation in her mental status.
Despite improving with mood stabilizing medication upon readmission to Hospital, Ms. Singh unilaterally discontinued those medications without consulting the treatment team, which raises concerns about overall medication compliance in the future, and particularly, her compliance with antipsychotics notwithstanding,
Ms. Singh has continued to struggle with substance abuse, most recently with amphetamines and cocaine, as well as one instance of consuming Gabapentin. She has not been forthcoming about her substance use with her treatment team and is not currently engaged in any substance abuse counselling or treatment, despite being amenable to it in the past.
Her continued substance abuse is of great concern to the panel, particularly given that cocaine use, or at least cocaine-seeking behaviour was a factor in the index offences, which were very violent in nature.
Ms. Singh has some insight into her mental illness, the need for medication and the impact of substances on her mental status, but there is room for improvement in this regard, particularly as it concerns the importance of abstinence from substances.
While Ms. Singh has been compliant with her anti-psychotic medication, she has recently discontinued her mood stabilizing medications without the prior knowledge or consent of her treatment team.
Her current lack of engagement in substance abuse counselling or treatment is another factor that the panel took into account when assessing whether Ms. Singh meets the threshold for significant threat to the safety of the public.
The panel unanimously finds that, absent a Detention Order and the strict oversight of the Hospital, it is likely that Ms. Singh would disengage from treatment, become medication non-adherent and continue or even increase her substance use. This would lead to an exacerbation of her psychotic and mood symptoms, which in the context of the index offences, led to violent consequences.
The panel further finds that the provisions of the Mental Health Act would be insufficient to return Ms. Singh to the Hospital quickly in the event of a deterioration in her mental status, nor does the panel believe she would readmit herself voluntarily if she became psychotic.
Therefore, the panel agrees with the Hospital, that Ms. Singh poses a significant threat to the safety of the public and that a continuation of the existing Detention Order with privileges up to and including residing in accommodation, approved by the Person in Charge, is the necessary and appropriate, least onerous and least restrictive Disposition in consideration of all of the circumstances.
DATED this 14th day of July 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Mr. D. D’Intino Legal Member
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board