Ontario Review Board
Re: Sonya K. Sekhon
ORB File No: 8336
Hearing held on: Wednesday, July 23, 2025
Place of hearing: St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton West 5th Campus, 100 West 5th Street
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before: Alternate Chairperson: Ms. T. Mann Members: Dr. A. Park Dr. G. Kerry Mr. D. D’Intino Ms. C. Plyley
Parties Appearing: Accused: Sonya K. Sekhon Counsel: Ms. S. Feldman
The Person in Charge of Hospital: Counsel: Mr. S. O’Brien
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. J. McKenzie
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated September 23, 2025)
Introduction
On June 23, 2023, Sonya Sekhon was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCR) on a charge of manslaughter, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (“Criminal Code”). She is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the “Board” or “ORB”) dated July 30, 2024, detaining her at the Forensic Psychiatry Program of St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton (“SJHH” or “the Hospital”), with privileges up to and including entering the community of Hamilton accompanied by staff or person approved by the person in charge.
On July 23, 2025, the Board convened a hearing to conduct the annual review of Ms. Sekhon’s Disposition pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Ms. Sekhon was present at the hearing and represented by her counsel, Ms. Feldman. Ms. Feldman advised the Board that Ms. Sekhon’s parents, who had intended to attend the hearing, would not be present due to a miscommunication as to timing.
Mr. G. Ladouceur and Mr. M. Ladouceur, the husband and son of the victim of the index offence, Mrs. E. Ladouceur, were also present as observers at the hearing, accompanied by their counsel, Mr. B. Adsett.
The issues to be determined at the hearing were whether Ms. Sekhon continued to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public as defined in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code and, if so, the necessary and appropriate disposition taking into account the factors set out in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
Positions of the Parties
- At the commencement of the hearing the parties were asked to provide their initial without prejudice recommendations regarding the issues before the Board. Counsel for the Hospital sought a finding that Ms. Sekhon represented a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate disposition was a continuation of the terms and conditions of the current detention order, with the added privilege of entering the community of Hamilton, indirectly supervised. Counsel for the Attorney General supported the Hospital’s position. Counsel for Ms. Sekhon also supported the Hospital’s position but requested Ms. Sekhon be granted the additional privilege of overnight passes to her parents’ home, accompanied by an approved person – in this case, Ms. Sekhon’s mother.
Findings
- For the Reasons that follow, the Board finds that Ms. Sekhon continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a continuation of the current detention disposition order with the added privilege of entering the community of Hamilton, indirectly supervised.
Index Offence
- The circumstances surrounding the index offence are summarized in last year’s Reasons for Disposition, as follows:
“On February 26, 2023 at approximately 8:40 p.m. two vehicles were travelling eastbound on Ridge Road West in the Town of Grimsby. The front vehicle was being driven by Gerald Ladouceur and the front seat passenger was Elaine Ladouceur. The second vehicle was being driven by Sonya Sekhon.
Ms. Sekhon rear ended the Ladouceur vehicle with such force that the Ladouceur vehicle became airborne and severed a hydro pole. Ms. Ladouceur died from the injuries sustained in this collision and Mr. Ladouceur was treated at hospital. Ms. Sekhon was initially charged with murder and attempt murder, and was found NCR for the offence of manslaughter.
Ms. Sekhon gave a statement to the police at the scene. She stated, “I was flooring it and I want to get rid of the car, it’s bad news, I wanted to sacrifice.” She advised the police that she hit the car on purpose.
Background Information Regarding the Accused
Ms. Sekhon is 46 years old. Her history is set out in detail in the Hospital Report and as such will not be repeated fully here. Briefly, Ms. Sekhon was born in Hamilton, Ontario and raised in Stoney Creek. Ms. Sekhon reported having a difficult childhood in which she experienced physical, verbal, sexual and emotional abuse. Ms. Sekhon had a considerable degree of responsibility in terms of caring for her younger brother while her parents worked long hours outside of the home. Ms. Sekhon was the target of race-based bullying at school and had difficulty making friends.
Ms. Sekhon was a good student. She completed a degree in child and youth studies at Brock University in St. Catharines, Ontario, receiving an honours Bachelor of Arts degree in 2001. She then enrolled in teacher’s college at the University of Toronto and received a Bachelor of Education degree in 2003. For a brief period of time following the completion of teacher’s college, she was employed as an elementary school substitute teacher. She then went on to pursue graduate studies, receiving a master’s degree in Developmental Psychology and Education from the University of Toronto in 2005, but had difficulty securing a full-time teaching position thereafter.
After completing her second university degree in 2003, Ms. Sekhon started to experience a decline in her mental health. Between 2004 and 2010, she was hospitalized on many occasions due to severe symptoms of mood instability, psychosis and suicidality. Records indicate she was repeatedly non-compliant with her prescribed medication and that this played a significant role in her hospitalizations.
The initiation of treatment with clozapine in 2010 presaged a lengthy period of stability in Ms. Sekhon’s mental state. However, by 2020, following non-adherence to her prescribed antipsychotic medication, Ms. Sekhon once again experienced instability in her mental health and was hospitalized several times. On one occasion in 2020, she was on a flight from Toronto to Aruba and was acting in a bizarre and agitated manner, compelling the plane to return to Toronto. In 2020 alone, Ms. Sekhon was hospitalized on six occasions; three of these admissions followed intentional overdosing with Tylenol.
In the three or so years leading up to the index offence, Ms. Sekhon was receiving outpatient care from the Mood Disorders Clinic at SJHH for medication management, as well as vocational and recreational support. Following an in-hospital psychological assessment for diagnostic clarification in June/July of 2020, her diagnosis was changed from Bipolar Disorder to Schizoaffective Disorder.
At the time of the index offence in late February 2023, Ms. Sekhon had not seen her psychiatrist since November 2022 nor had she been taking her medication as prescribed for approximately one year. She further advised that she had been using cannabis in the past but had stopped in December 2022. For a year prior to December 2022, she was consuming cannabis daily.
Ms. Sekhon is currently diagnosed with Schizoaffective Disorder – Bipolar Type and Cannabis Use Disorder – in remission in a controlled environment. She is capable of consenting to treatment with psychiatric medication and is currently deemed capable of managing her own finances.
Ms. Sekhon does not have a criminal record. However, of note to the Board, Ms. Sekhon was hospitalized for injuries sustained in a single-vehicle accident in 2003; records indicate she was psychotic at the time.
Evidence at the Hearing
The Board had available to it the documents forming the Record, the Hospital Report dated June 16, 2025, which was filed as Exhibit 1, as well as the oral evidence of Dr. Ferencz who has been Ms. Sekhon’s attending psychiatrist since her admission to SJHH on April 17, 2023. The Board also received a Victim Impact Statement dated July 10, 2025 prepared by Mr. M. Ladouceur and carefully reviewed by the Board. At the request of the Board, the social worker on Ms. Sekhon’s clinical team, Ms. H. Eden, provided additional information on the Hospital’s approved person process.
In his oral evidence, Dr. Ferencz confirmed he had read the Hospital Report and adopted its contents. Dr. Ferencz then gave an overview as to Ms. Sekhon’s progress during the review period.
Dr. Ferencz advised that overall Ms. Sekhon has had a successful year under the jurisdiction of the Board. She has been adherent to psychiatric treatment and amenable to health teaching and direction from clinical staff. There has not been aggressive or inappropriate conduct. She has not been violent or threatening. Ms. Sekhon has not used substances of any kind. All urine and drug screens have been negative for licit and illicit drugs. Ms. Sekhon has participated in a wide variety of rehabilitative programs. She has successfully completed some online academic courses which also included elements of in-person classwork. Dr. Ferencz described Ms. Sekhon as being very diligent, spending long hours reading and studying to get good grades, as she would like to engage in competitive employment in the future.
Dr. Ferencz advised Ms. Sekhon’s insight has improved over the review period. She now demonstrates a better understanding of her Schizoaffective Disorder and appreciates its connection to the index offence. Ms. Sekhon continues to have good support from her family. She has had visits in the community, accompanied by her mother, who is an approved person. All of the visits have been unremarkable, with no untoward events or reports of inappropriate behaviour of any kind.
Clinically, Ms. Sekhon has had some breakthrough symptoms during the year, primarily manifesting as anxiety accompanied by brief periods of insomnia and excessive preoccupation with cleanliness of her clothing, bedding and personal hygiene. In addition, Ms. Sekhon engaged in internet gambling via her cellphone and lost a significant sum of money, both of which she was dilatory in disclosing to her treatment team. The debt she incurred proved to be a very significant stressor. The treatment team reviewed her medication regimen and it was determined the behaviour was likely a rare side effect of her long-acting injectable antipsychotic medication, aripiprazole. Adjustments were made to her dosage and the gambling behaviour subsided somewhat. However, given Ms. Sekhon’s established history of OCD behaviours, some diagnostic uncertainty remains. Going forward, this situation will be closely monitored
Ms. Sekhon self-referred to the community-based Alcohol Drug and Gambling Services (ADGS) as the in-hospital psychological services available to her do not cover gambling addiction. Ms. Sekhon completed the intake process and has reported finding the ADGS program helpful.
Dr. Ferencz indicated that the treatment team found Ms. Sekhon’s non-disclosure of her gambling to be concerning and part of a long-standing pattern of guardedness on Ms. Sekhon’s part. Dr. Ferencz said that Ms. Sekhon was ashamed of her behaviour and wanted to deal with the consequences of it herself; however, he was direct in telling her that hiding the situation from her clinical team was inappropriate. To her credit, Ms. Sekhon understood the doctor’s point and agreed to be more open with her team in the future. Trust-building between Ms. Sekhon and the clinical team continues to be a work in progress.
Ms. Sekhon became hypomanic about a month ago. Her medications were adjusted, and her symptoms abated. Dr. Ferencz indicated that Ms. Sekhon has been very amenable to recommended changes to her medication regimen.
Dr. Ferencz is cautiously optimistic that Ms. Sekhon will continue on a positive trajectory and that she will do well over the longer term. Dr. Ferencz emphasized that forward movement in terms of liberalizing Ms. Sekhon’s privileges must be done very cautiously, given the fragility of her mental state and the seriousness of the index offence.
Turning to the issue of significant threat, Dr. Ferencz advised that Ms. Sekhon's risk was almost entirely related to her illness, notwithstanding evidence of her heavy use of cannabis in the year prior to the index offence. Dr. Ferencz observed that the index offence was not the first time that Ms. Sekhon had engaged in risky behaviour involving a motor vehicle when psychotic. The treatment team's concern is that a resurgence of her psychotic illness will be associated with similar behaviour in the future, thus putting the public at serious risk of harm. As such, close monitoring of Ms. Sekhon’s mental status, behaviours and medication compliance remains critically important for the foreseeable future.
Dr. Ferencz opined that if Ms. Sekhon were no longer under the jurisdiction of the Ontario Review Board, neither the provisions of the Mental Health Act nor non-forensic psychiatric support would be adequate to manage Ms. Sekhon’s risk. Ms. Sekhon needs to be seen at least weekly and Dr. Ferencz does not think this would happen were she to be in the community without the legal structure of a Disposition providing extrinsic support for her adherence to medication. Dr. Ferencz pointed out that Ms. Sekhon was in fact being followed for mental health issues in the civil system at the time of the index offence, which speaks to its insufficiency in managing her risk to public safety. During the same timeframe, Ms. Sekhon was in regular contact with her family. Despite knowing her illness history, they did not identify she was decompensating. Were either of these circumstances were to reoccur, the Mental Health Act would not adequately mitigate Ms. Sekhon’s risk to the safety of the public.
In view of Ms. Sekhon’s positive progress over the last year, the Hospital is recommending that her privileges be liberalized to include indirectly supervised access to the community of Hamilton. Ms. Sekhon is on a long-acting injectable anti-psychotic medication which minimizes the likelihood of non-adherence posing any immediate concerns for public safety. Dr. Ferencz noted that Ms. Sekhon has gone out and about the Hospital without difficulty and that clinical staff would not have recommended any expansion of Ms. Sekhon’s privileges if there was any worry about her ability to do so safely.
Dr. Ferencz indicated that Ms. Sekhon’s treatment team is opposed to recommending overnight passes at this juncture. Their concern is centred on Ms. Sekhon’s lack of candour with her family in disclosing symptoms such as her gambling behaviours. In view of the family’s difficulty in recognizing Ms. Sekhon’s deteriorating mental status prior to the index offence, the treatment team wishes to be satisfied that the family will be able to recognizes changes in Ms. Sekhon’s mental status and behaviours and report them through the appropriate channels when concerns arise.
In terms of next steps, Dr. Ferencz would like to see Ms. Sekhon sustain her current level of stability and continue to build trust with her treatment team.
Further medication adjustments may need to be made as Ms. Sekhon’s prolactin levels are still an issue and a change in medication always carries with it the possibility of destabilizing her mental state. Ms. Sekhon is showing some symptoms of pseudo-parkinsonism, including slowed movement. At this point, the slowing symptoms are not impairing her functioning; she herself does not identify them as problematic but the treatment team has noticed certain changes occurring. Dr. Ferencz explained it is important to find the right medication regimen because the presence of troublesome side effects increases the risk of non-adherence.
In response to questions from counsel for the Attorney General, Dr. Ferencz confirmed that aggression can always manifest when an individual becomes hypomanic or manic, including Ms. Sekhon, whose index offence was serious and criminal, but not violent or aggressive in the way those descriptors are commonly understood. Dr. Ferencz was as yet unsure as to how Ms. Sekhon’s OCD behaviours were connected to her gambling behaviour. Dr. Ferencz noted that the OCD features of Ms. Sekhon’s presentation were not entirely new and that stressors, including financial constraints and the ongoing civil lawsuit, could worsen them. Dr. Ferencz agreed that Ms. Sekhon’s response style is to portray herself in a more positive light than is the case and that this may very well have played a role in her wanting to hide her gambling behaviour. Fortunately, the clinical team members were able to pick up on symptoms of decompensation that Ms. Sekhon herself did not recognize. Her ability to recognize her symptoms, while improving, is not yet adequate. Dr. Ferencz agreed that Ms. Sekhon has been “in the [mental health] system” wherein people often learn what to say and so it is difficult to tell if Ms. Sekhon’s improved insight is sincere or learned. Dr. Ferencz is inclined to believe that Ms. Sekhon’s improved insight is genuine and not manipulative, in part because of her amenability to treatment. Close monitoring remains necessary. Dr. Ferencz does not believe that Ms. Sekhon is currently ready for indirectly supervised access to the Hamilton community; it will happen gradually over the course of the year, provided Ms. Sekhon continues on her current positive trajectory.
In response to questions from counsel for Ms. Sekhon, Dr. Ferencz agreed that the stress of the civil claim has abated somewhat now that the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee is involved.1 In response to questions as to how much of a role aripiprazole and Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (“OCD”) could have had in Ms. Sekhon’s gambling behaviours, the doctor indicated that this was currently hard to determine. Dr. Ferencz admitted that Ms. Sekhon's mother had contacted the unit to advise that Ms. Sekhon was using her cell phone to access gambling sites. Dr. Ferencz clarified he was not implying that Ms. Sekhon’s mother is oblivious to her symptoms but that the history demonstrates she was not as aware of them as one would hope. Dr. Ferencz emphasized that Ms. Sekhon had been ill for a very long time with numerous hospitalizations over the years, many while she was living with her family and still, they did not appreciate how ill she was.
Dr. Ferencz agreed that Ms. Sekhon is able to acknowledge when she is down and anxious but when her mood is elevated, she is not as aware of symptoms. Ms. Sekhon’s acceptance of ODSP is a positive step and a marker of improved trust in her social worker.2 Ms. Sekhon continues to experience a degree of guilt and a need to confess which is believed to be an illness symptom. Dr. Ferencz praised Ms. Sekhon for completing her educational courses which he confirmed speaks to her drive and motivation to become well. Dr. Ferencz also said that Ms. Sekhon’s ability to successfully carry out academic work shows her illness symptoms are minimally disruptive to her day-to-day functioning, which is a positive sign. Dr. Ferencz confirmed that when Ms. Sekhon was being managed by the civil system, she was not subject to a Community Treatment Order.
Dr. Ferencz indicated that liberalization of Ms. Sekhon’s indirectly supervised passes would occur in a very slow and incremental fashion, over the course of several months. Early steps would likely include opportunity for brief passes to go shopping or to eat a meal in the community. He was firm in his opinion that overnight passes to the family home were not indicated at this time.
In response to questions from the Board regarding the approved person process, particularly the issue of what psychoeducation is given to applicants, Dr. Ferencz was unable to provide the Board with any details regarding the process as it is carried out by other professionals on the clinical team.
The Board then called upon the social worker connected to Ms. Sekhon’s team, Ms. Eden, to provide an overview of the approved person process. Ms. Eden confirmed part of the psychoeducation given to potential approved persons includes the necessity for closely observing the accused for any indication that their condition is or may be changing and reporting it to the clinical team.
Dr. Ferencz confirmed that if Ms. Sekhon were to have overnight passes to the family home, it would increase her ability to access the family's vehicle. Currently, the family has not allowed her access to any vehicles, but it is not out of the range of the possible. The issue of increased access to a vehicle and whether she has an interest in driving has not yet been explored with Ms. Sekhon.
Submissions
Counsel for the Hospital submitted that the Hospital’s recommendations as to significant threat, the necessity and appropriateness of a detention disposition and its terms were amply made out on the evidence. Mr. O'Brien complimented Ms. Sekhon on her progress and credited the care she has received in hospital as well as the slow, cautious approach to liberalizing her privileges as being instrumental in her recovery. The positive progress that Ms. Sekhon has made warrants granting her a higher level of privileges so that the team may assess her ability to independently access the community safely. The Hospital does not strenuously object to overnight passes with an approved passes being granted but has concerns as to the degree of supervision her approved person would be able to provide.
Counsel for the Attorney General submitted that Ms. Sekhon’s threat to public safety is not characterized by violence and aggression but in the use of her vehicle as a weapon. As such, Ms. Sekhon’s recovery and degree of risk cannot be ascertained solely on the absence of problematic behaviour but require a differently-nuanced risk assessment. Counsel submitted that overnight privileges were not warranted at this time and not supported by the evidence. In support of this contention, Counsel emphasized that Ms. Sekhon was still symptomatic and although she is closely monitored, still demonstrates a tendency to minimize and not disclose symptoms to others. Although there has been no evidence of problems in terms of the way in which Ms. Sekhon has exercised the privileges granted to her to date, she is not yet ready for overnight visits as illustrated by the lack of candor that continues to be an issue between herself and the treatment team. Moreover, the seriousness of the index offence indicates that extreme caution in managing Ms. Sekhon’s access to the wider community is warranted.
Counsel for Ms. Sekhon emphasized the very good year Ms. Sekhon has had. She has made significant strides in terms of upgrading her education with a view to obtaining competitive employment. Ms. Sekhon is now receiving ODSP which shows significant progress. Ms. Sekhon is taking advantage of all rehabilitative options that are being offered to her. There has been no evidence of any inappropriate behaviour during passes with her approved person. Her family is doing their best to monitor and notice changes in Ms. Sekhon’s presentation. Her insight has also grown, and Ms. Sekhon has not refused medication. Ms. Feldman reminded the Board that its role is to grant the necessary and appropriate Disposition that is also least onerous and least restrictive, putting the protection of the public first but keeping the client’s liberty interests in mind as well.
Analysis and Conclusion
Having heard and considered all of the evidence and the submissions from the parties, the Board agrees with the joint position that Ms. Sekhon poses a significant threat to the safety of the public. However, apart from the joint submission, the Board has no difficulty coming to an independent conclusion that Ms. Sekhon’s current constellation of symptoms and behaviours supports a finding that she continues to pose a significant threat. In this regard, Ms. Sekhon’s risk flows from her major mental illness, Schizoaffective Disorder – Bipolar Type, under the influence of which she carried out a very serious and criminal offence resulting in the death of the victim and incalculable loss to the victim’s family.
Notwithstanding treatment with antipsychotic medication, Ms. Sekhon continues to demonstrate residual (breakthrough) symptoms, primarily manifested as behaviours consistent with OCD, anxiety, and periodic fluctuation in her moods, albeit much attenuated by her adherence to her medication regimen. Her mental state is best described as fragile. Ms. Sekhon tends to be less than forthcoming with respect to disclosing her symptoms to her treatment team, which is risk-enhancing. She remains stress-vulnerable and has difficulty recognizing certain thoughts as not being reality based; for example, her scrupulosity/need to confess. Her insight into her index offence, mental illness and need for medication, while much improved, is still evolving. The Board adopts and relies upon the risk assessments at pages 41 through 61 of the Hospital Report, as well as pages 58 through 60.
Currently, in the context of the current Detention Order and the clinical support available to her, Ms. Sekhon’s risk of serious criminal re-offending is low, overall. The Board notes that within a structured and supportive hospital setting, Ms. Sekhon has made good progress this year. She is compliant with her medication regimen and cooperative with recommended changes. She has not presented any behavioural management difficulties and exercises her privileges appropriately. She has demonstrated a high degree of engagement in her treatment plan. She has remained abstinent from substances. She also maintains a good relationship with her parents and continues to benefit from their support.
Having found significant threat, the Board must determine the necessary and appropriate Disposition. Although Ms. Sekhon’s ability to cope with stress has improved, ongoing stressors, such as litigation in connection with the index offence, continue to impact her and will likely continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Her medication is not yet optimized and requires further adjustment, with uncertain effect and possible destabilization of her mental state. Moreover, there remains some question as to her diagnosis and the role that obsessive compulsive behaviours may have played in the commission of the index offence. This will be further explored over the coming year. Ms. Sekhon’s current level of stability and low risk to public safety is due to the support and supervision she receives within the framework of a detention disposition. The Board finds that a detention disposition order is the appropriate means by which to manage Ms. Sekhon’s risk and her care.
The Board is persuaded by the submissions of Hospital counsel, counsel for the Attorney General and counsel for Ms. Sekhon that she be granted the privilege of indirectly supervised access to the community of Hamilton. All indicators point to Ms. Sekhon being able to exercise such privileges safely and the Board is confident that the Hospital will exercise a high degree of caution with respect to implementing those privileges over time. The Board notes that in practice the current disposition allows Ms. Sekhon to spend up to 16 hours a day in the community with an approved person. Ms. Sekhon has not yet maximized the privileges currently available to her. The team has not explored the issue of extended, overnight passes with Ms. Sekhon’s approved person or Ms. Sekhon’s interest in driving a motor vehicle. Ms. Sekhon continues to be guarded with her treatment team and with her family which increases her risk. The seriousness of the index offence, coupled with her history of operating a motor vehicle while psychotic, indicates that extreme caution in managing Ms. Sekhon’s access to the community is warranted. On the record before the Board, there is no factual basis to grant an expansion of Ms. Sekhon’s privileges to include overnight passes with an approved person at this time.
None of the foregoing detracts in any way from the good year Ms. Sekhon has had. The Board urges her to continue developing trust with her treatment team and to maintain the high level of engagement she has shown in treatment plan. The Board wishes her well over the coming year.
DATED this 23rd day of September 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Ms. T. Mann Alternate Chairperson Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board