Re Andy Ramroop, 2026 CanLII 18244

Ontario Review Board

Re: Andy Ramroop

ORB File No: 8854

Hearing held on: Tuesday, January 20, 2026

Place of Hearing: Providence Care Hospital

Pursuant to: Section 672.47(1) of the Criminal Code

Before: Alternate Chairperson: Mr. J. Hanbidge Members: Dr. R. Kunjukrishnan Dr. W. Loza Ms. K. Weisbaum Mr. A. Bouvier

Parties Appearing: Accused: Andy Ramroop Counsel: Mr. F. Bernhardt

Person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. T. Tom Representative: Dr. M. Chan

Attorney-General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. G. Skerkowski

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated February 12, 2026)

Introduction

[1]. On September 2, 2025, the accused, Andy Ramroop was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on charges of robbery and assault cause bodily harm, all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (“Criminal Code”). At the time of the finding of not criminally responsible, the Court did not make a finding and referred the matter to the Ontario Review Board.

[2]. On January 20, 2026, the Ontario Review Board convened at the Providence Care Hospital, hereinafter referred to as “the hospital”, to conduct Mr. Ramroop’s initial hearing pursuant to s. 672.47(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Ramroop was in attendance at his hearing and was represented by his counsel Mr. Frank Bernhardt.

[3]. The following documents were entered as Exhibits at the hearing:

• Criminal Code Information
• Release Orders (x2)
• Warrant of Committal
• Surety Declaration
• Non-communication Order
• NCR assessment order
• Order for attendance for examination
• Crown Brief Synopsis
• Transcription of court proceedings
• NCR assessment report dated April 25, 2025
• Hospital Report dated December 19, 2025

Initial Positions of the Parties

[4]. On behalf of the Providence Care Hospital (“the Hospital”), Ms. Tom took the position, as noted in the Hospital Report, that Mr. Ramroop continues to be a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the appropriate Disposition is a Detention Order as set out in the Hospital Report at page 11.

[5]. On behalf of the Attorney General of Ontario, Mr. Skerkowski agreed with the position of the Hospital.

[6]. On behalf of Mr. Ramroop, Mr. Bernhardt agreed that his client continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. He requested a Conditional Discharge, and that Mr. Ramroop continue to live with his mother.

Index Offences

[7]. The circumstances giving rise to the charges on the index offences is set out in the hospital report and summarized as follows:

""On the above date, at approximately 5:30 pm the victim was by herself, in her condo building lobby as she had just arrived home, waiting for an elevator.

The accused Andy RAMROOP, who is a stranger to the victim, without warning, violently attacked the victim.

The accused approached the victim, began yelling at her, and forcefully grabbed a pair of apple air pods from the victim's ears.

The victim defended herself and was able to retrieve the air pods from the accused.

The victim attempted to get away from the accused, however the accused followed the victim further into the lobby area where the accused grabbed a fire extinguisher off the wall and struck the victim multiple times in the head with the fire extinguisher.

The victim fled to a main floor washroom and tried to lock herself into the washroom for safety, however the accused followed her and continued to assault her.

While being attacked the accused stole a pair of keys from the victim's hands.

Eventually the accused fled, with the pair of keys to a unit in the building in which he was staying with family.

Police and EMS arrived on scene, and while tending to the victim, the accused the unit and was placed under arrest.

The accused was advised of his rights to counsel, and transported to 43 station to be held for a show cause hearing.

Injuries

Victim suffered a large gash or cut to the top of her head which will require stitches to close. She also suffered a scrape to her left wrist.

Property

The unit in which the accused fled to was attended to by police after the arrest. Family members answered, advised the accused is only visiting, and allowed police entry to retrieve the stolen set of keys. The keys were located sitting on a kitchen table within the unit."

Background History

[8]. Mr. Ramroop’s personal history is set out in detail in the Hospital Report. Briefly summarized, Mr. Ramroop reported having been born in Trinidad, but grew up in Scarborough from the age of three onward with his mother and two siblings. Mr. Ramroop's mother has elsewhere described her pregnancy as occurring during a time of emotional and financial stress, and that she tried to end her life via suicide when eight months pregnant. Mr. Ramroop's mother was a victim of intimate partner violence in the relationship with Mr. Ramroop's father. His parents were never married, and his father remained in Trinidad when his mother immigrated to Canada.

[9]. Mr. Ramroop explained that he has an older brother who he sees every few months, and a sister who he sees a few times per year. The siblings each have different fathers. He also reported a number of half siblings in Trinidad. His father passed away three years ago. Mr. Ramroop has previously reported getting along "fine" with his siblings and mother during his development. He has denied any history of abuse but did report corporal punishment from his mother on occasion. He also previously reported being the witness of intimate partner violence from a boyfriend of his mother's.

[10]. Mr. Ramroop's mother previously described Mr. Ramroop as a "helper," who was a quiet child who never brought home friends or socialized outside of the home. She was unaware of any behavioural or social difficulties.

[11]. Mr. Ramroop described himself as an "average" student in school, who generally kept to himself. He denied any suspensions and reported only a few detentions for being late to class. He apparently played football, soccer, and baseball. He reported having had some friends and denied any bullying or victimization. Mr. Ramroop graduated high school then started an architecture course at Centennial College but dropped out after about a year due to cost.

[12]. Mr. Ramroop had a variety of entry-level jobs as an adolescent and young man, including work at a factory, Swiss Chalet, and Shoppers Drug Mart in high school. He subsequently worked maintenance at a summer camp, then at Le Chateau and Zellers. Mr. Ramroop then held a 13-year position as a printing roll tender at a print shop; he lost this employment due to missed shifts following the onset of methamphetamines use (discussed below). He noted that his "thoughts were a little strange - thoughts were a joke, a conspiracy" at that time.

[13]. Collateral information suggests that Mr. Ramroop has had several romantic relationships, including two of several years in duration. He met one partner through a friend, and the relationship apparently lasted for two years, but ended as Mr. Ramroop "didn't see it going anywhere." Mr. Ramroop was subsequently married from 2003-2008. He noted that he had met his then-wife in the Philippines and brought her to Canada two years later in 2005.

[14]. Elsewhere, Mr. Ramroop described the relationship as "pretty good for the most part." However, after he started using methamphetamines around 2007, his wife left and filed for divorce in 2008. During the NCR assessment Mr. Ramroop's mother reported that the couple had argued because Mr. Ramroop was tired and wanted to stay in after work, whereas his wife wanted to "party."

[15]. In terms of personality, Mr. Ramroop described himself as "…reserved, quiet, keep to myself." He noted that he is not a funny person, per se, but "enjoys a laugh" at times. He reported getting along well with others. Prior to his house arrest, Mr. Ramroop attended a Pentecostal church with his mother and enjoyed playing darts.

Criminal History

[16]. As per the 2025 Criminal Responsibility Assessment Report, Mr. Ramroop had seven convictions between 2010 and 2016. These were primarily minor offences (Theft Under, Failures to Comply), but also included charges for Uttering Threats (2012) and Assault x2 (2016).

[17]. Mr. Ramroop described the previous charge of Uttering Threats that related to an incident at the Scarborough Library. He explained that he had wanted to leave his bike inside the library, and recalled swearing at the manager, who hid in the office. He did not recall uttering threats. He noted that he had been using methamphetamines at the time, and this could have been an "episode" (presumably of psychosis) due to substance use. He reported spending 30 days in custody.

[18]. Mr. Ramroop also reported an incident in which he pushed a woman at a bus stop outside a hotel in downtown Toronto. He had asked her for money, which she refused. He reported use of methamphetamines at the time. This is presumably one of the above listed 2016 incidents.

Psychiatric History

[19]. Mr. Ramroop’s psychiatric history is set out in detail in the Hospital Report and is summarized below.

[20]. Mr. Ramroop has a psychiatric history that precedes the current index offence. He has reported that he was diagnosed with schizophrenia in 2016 when he was admitted to hospital. He had seven hospital admissions in total. The admissions were prompted because his family took him to hospital, or because he was brought in by police. The admissions were at various dates beginning in March 2015 through to December 2018.

[21]. Mr. Ramroop’s substance use history includes crystal methamphetamine approximately twice per week between 2007 and 2015. He first used cannabis in 2011 while living in a shelter in the Toronto area. He would use 0.5 grams in a day and a total of 2 grams per week on average. He denied any negative impacts on his mental state. He also denied using alcohol on a regular basis. He also denies any substance use history of psilocybin, other stimulants, and opioids. He has denied a history of mental health issues or suicides within the family. His father struggled with alcohol use.

[22]. In a Psychological Risk Assessment excerpt dated December 16, 2025, Dr. R. Douglas noted that Mr. Ramroop was diagnosed with late-onset schizophrenia. His psychosis appears to have developed in the context of methamphetamine and cannabis use, both of which began in his thirties. Prior to the onset of substance use and psychosis, Mr. Ramroop had no criminal record and maintained stable employment, which is a positive prognostic factor. However, he appears to have been relatively socially isolated for much of his life. All known violent behaviour has occurred in the context of psychosis combined with substance use (initially methamphetamine, later cannabis). As such, both schizophrenia and substance use disorders represent predisposing factors, with acute psychotic symptoms—such as disorganization, grandiosity, and paranoia—likely precipitated by medication non-adherence. Auditory hallucinations and thought insertion or broadcasting may also have been present. The specific thought content leading to the index offense is unknown, as Mr. Ramroop reported no recall of the incident.

[23]. Dr. Douglas considered substance use and medication non-adherence to be perpetuating factors. Mr. Ramroop’s mental state and behaviours have been stable for at least the past year and a half while under house arrest in the community. During this time, he has adhered to his medication regimen and release conditions. His methamphetamine use disorder has been in sustained remission for approximately ten years, though he continued to use cannabis until about five months ago.

[24]. Dr. Douglas noted that she used a structured professional judgment approach using HCR-20^V3 to assess Mr. Ramroop’s risk and protective factors for violent reoffending. His risk of violence appeared to have been well managed over the past year and a half under his current release conditions. She anticipated his risk would remain low in the short term if he remains in the community under a Disposition of the Board. However, in the absence of forensic oversight, she would expect his risk to increase to at least a moderate level over the longer term.

[25]. In his entries in the Hospital Report of December 19, 2025, Dr. M. Chan endorsed the findings of Dr. Douglas that Mr. Ramroop’s psychotic relapses over the past ten years were in the context of missing his injection, or cannabis usage. or both. He notes that Mr. Ramroop is a significant risk, given his recent entry into the Ontario forensic system. With respect to any future decompensation, Dr. Chan writes

“At the first sign of psychotic relapse there would need to be aggressive intervention from us with hospitalization if indicated to our unit and not to the local Belleville General Hospital.”

Dr. Chan adds:

“While his schizophrenic illness had only been diagnosed in his 40s, he struggled with depression after his marriage ended earlier when he was struggling to cope, stimulant usage exacerbated the descent into paranoid psychosis which also impacted the marriage period he had been functional when married and worked at a print shop locally in Toronto. The stimulant usage began to help him work the overnight shift which then negatively impacted mental wellness.”

Current Diagnoses

[26]. Mr. Ramroop’s current diagnosis is chronic schizophrenia.

Evidence at the Hearing

[27]. The hospital’s evidence was presented through its Report as well as through the oral testimony of Dr. Chan. This evidence is summarized below.

[28]. In response to questions from Ms. Tom, Dr. Chan stated Mr. Ramroop is currently being treated by his family doctor in Tweed, Ontario, with Dr. Chan acting as Mr. Ramroop’s supervising psychiatrist. He has met with Mr. Ramroop. Dr. Chan is the author of Hospital Report and adopted its contents, including the opinion regarding significant threat.

[29]. Dr. Chan stated that Mr. Ramroop is from Scarborough. He first met Mr. Ramroop ten years ago. Mr. Ramroop breached a condition on recognizance from an assault charge. At that time, Dr. Chan diagnosed Mr. Ramroop with schizophrenia; he was then discharged back to court. He has lived with his mother in Tweed over the past ten years.

[30]. Mr. Ramroop has a chronic schizophrenic illness. Dr. Chan believes that when Mr. Ramroop “got into trouble a few years ago” in October 2023, it was because he stopped taking his antipsychotic medication. Mr. Ramroop’s risk is entirely related to his illness and stopping his antipsychotic medication; he becomes psychotic and gets into confrontations, which is what happened at the time of his past assaults.

[31]. Dr. Chan first met Mr. Ramroop ten years ago, with no contact since then. Mr. Ramroop’s involvement with the psychiatric system over those ten years included connecting with his family doctor for his antipsychotic medication, which is an injection of Invega Sustenna every four weeks. Oral medications caused him metabolic issues.

[32]. Dr. Chan would be concerned if Mr. Ramroop came off his antipsychotic medication. Mr. Ramroop has a history of going off his medications, relapsing and getting into confrontations. “It’s very important” that he stay on his medication. Decompensation might take a few weeks and not necessarily occur in a “dramatic” way, rather, he would “fly under the radar,” which might be what happened in the past related to past assaults and confrontations.

[33]. With respect to Mr. Ramroop’s treatment team at the hospital, the treatment team would have a good idea if he is starting to decompensate. Mr. Ramroop has said that this mother would be able to detect signs of decompensation through small changes in his behaviour at home. His sister is helping his mother at home at the present time.

[34]. It would be important for his team to be able to bring him into the hospital; they could bring him in before a crisis begins and could stabilize him quickly. If this happened, he would be brought to the forensic unit at the hospital. In the past, when necessary, Mr. Ramroop was taken to the general hospital in Belleville, but there would be a lag in coming into Providence Care Hospital and those at the general hospital in Belleville would have to evaluate whether to admit him, or not. However, with his forensic statis, he can be automatically admitted and stabilized.

[35]. According to the Hospital Report, Mr. Ramroop has a history of substance use. When he lived in the greater Toronto area (“GTA”) ten years ago, he took stimulants, and that lead to him using methamphetamine, which was likely the start of the emergence of his schizophrenia. He requires a clause in his Disposition not to use substances. There would be a concurrent clinical management strategy.

[36]. Mr. Ramroop’s current bail conditions are quite restrictive. His mother requested he stay in the home and go out only if accompanied. He is able to venture out for walks. Under a Detention Order Disposition, the hospital is not seeking further restrictions. If he needs to travel outside of the town of Tweed, he will need transportation and would rely on his relatives. The hospital would want to be made aware of when he travels outside of Tweed, e.g. to travel to the GTA to visit family. He would need to rely on relatives to travel, e.g., his sister came to assist him to attend the current hearing. He can have passes to travel for up to seven days.

[37]. The hospital supports Mr. Ramroop living with his mother, as he has been for the past ten years. His charges relate to times when he was in the GTA. For his Detention Order Disposition, there is a clause being requested (clause 10) related to approval of his accommodation in the community; there are no related problems anticipated, as he has lived with his mother for ten years without incident, and will continue to live with her.

[38]. The anticipated focus for Mr. Ramroop over the coming year will include his family doctor continuing to prescribe his antipsychotic medication and the team at the hospital providing him with aftercare. Mr. Ramroop will attend online virtual appointments, which he has done previously, because of the distance he would need to travel from home to Kingston. His appointments will be coordinated by clinical staff. The hospital will continue to get to know Mr. Ramroop over the coming year.

[39]. In response to questions from Mr. Skerkowski, Dr. Chan stated that Mr. Ramroop knows that he cannot use stimulants, or cannabis, for reasons that have been explained to him, (i.e., that it would negatively impact his schizophrenia). Mr. Ramroop has been taking injectable Invega Sustenna for five years.

[40]. Mr. Ramroop’s index offence occurred in October 2023. He disconnected from his family doctor, and no one sought him out. If that happened now, his family doctor, who continues to provide him with Invega Sustenna, would tell the hospital. The team is already in touch with the nurse who gives Mr. Ramroop his injections at his family doctor’s office. The nurse would inform the hospital immediately if Mr. Ramroop misses an appointment and the team would retrieve Mr. Ramroop. He would then most likely be readmitted.

[41]. In response to questions from Mr. Berhardt, Dr. Chan confirmed that Mr. Ramroop is not currently using substances, including methamphetamine, which is believed to have triggered his psychosis. Dr. Chen believed that Mr. Ramroop might have indulged in cannabis since the index offence in October 2023. He has been told not to use cannabis and will be monitored going forward. As noted in the Hospital Report, Mr. Ramroop has a positive attitude towards authority, including towards Dr. Chen. Dr. Chen agreed with Mr. Bernhardt’s statement that Mr. Ramroop has listened to everything that has been recommended to him. Dr. Chen stated that Mr. Ramroop is “a very pleasant individual.”

[42]. If Mr. Ramroop was on a Conditional Discharge at home, the hospital would rely on his immediate supports, including his mother and family doctor, as well as Dr. Chan, to alert the hospital is he was not taking his medications. Mr. Ramroop has not required hospitalization for more than two years.

[43]. In response to the statement by Mr. Berhardt that for more than two years, Mr. Ramroop has had “three layers” of support, including his mother, family doctor and Dr. Chan, Dr. Chan agreed that Mr. Ramroop did not have those supports prior to October 2023. Over the past ten years, there have been a few incidents (one where he went to a church), after which he had an admission to the general hospital in Belleville. No charges resulted. Dr. Chan did not know if the police were involved.

[44]. Mr. Bernhardt stated that Mr. Ramroop has “fairly good insight” insofar as he understands he has a mental illness and that his antipsychotic medication helps him, has done well over the past more than two years under the Board, and has done everything asked of him (i.e., he takes his medication). Dr. Chan agreed.

[45]. With respect to a Conditional Discharge Disposition, Dr. Chan stated that the team and Mr. Ramroop are still getting to know each other and build therapeutic rapport. The distance that Mr. Ramroop lives from Kingston creates practical problems. There are no community teams close to him. At this time, the team needs to be a somewhat cautious.

[46]. In response to questions from the panel, Dr. Chan stated that Mr. Ramroop is not involved in any community programs, rather, this is something that still needs to be explored near Tweed. He has been living with his mother for ten years and it is a good arrangement. His mother noticed changes in his mental state (for example, he might start to tamper with the wiring in the house), but she did not know what to do. The hospital can support her. Prior to living with his mother, Mr. Ramroop was homeless in Toronto in 2011 and 2015. He ended up in a homeless shelter in the downtown. His family in Scarborough was aware of his situation. Now, his mother can call the hospital if necessary.

[47]. With respect to the distinction between a Conditional Discharge and a Detention Order, and that a Detention Order provides the hospital with the authority to determine an appropriate place of residence, whereas a Conditional Discharge does not. Given Mr. Ramroop’s past vulnerability to homelessness, Dr. Chan agreed that a Detention Order would facilitate stability with respect to Mr. Ramroop’s living arrangements.

[48]. There were no further questions from Ms. Tom or from Mr. Skerkowski.

[49]. In response to a further follow up question from Mr. Bernhardt, Dr. Chen confirmed that he knew of other cases in which a Conditional Discharge allowed the Board to specify the location of the accused’s accommodation in the community.

[50]. No further evidence was presented.

Submissions

[51]. Ms. Tom submitted that there was a joint submission with respect to serious threat to the safety of the public, as shown in the evidence from the Hospital Report and the oral evidence of Dr. Chan. The difference between the parties was on the issue of whether the appropriate Disposition is a Detention Order or a Conditional Discharge. Mr. Ramroop’s bail conditions made in December 2023 were not in dispute. He had done well under those conditions. Once the panel makes a determination, the bail conditions will terminate. The bail conditions were very restrictive, such that under the bail order, Mr. Ramroop needed to be in the company of his surety at all times.

[52]. Mr. Ramroop’s current living conditions are working. He has done well. The terms of a Conditional Discharge “will serve to loosen the current terms.” He will be able to go out into the community without his mother. He will have more freedoms. To be fair, the hospital is supportive of that arrangement. Given the seriousness of index offence, the hospital is asking for a Detention Order. This is needed to bring Mr. Ramroop back into hospital quickly, for whatever reasons, including subtle changes (which are “early warning signs”) to ensure the ongoing safety of the public. From the hospital’s perspective, that is the least onerous and least restrictive Disposition. A Detention Order will allow Mr. Ramroop to continue to live with his mother, as well as additional liberties, which are warranted, but which need to be on balance with ensuring the safety of the public. From the hospital’s perspective, “it’s early days” of getting to know Mr. Ramroop. The proximity of his residence in Tweed is also part of the context of the hospital’s request. Given the nature of his early warning signs, reliance on the Mental Health Act (“MHA”) would not work as well.

[53]. On behalf of the Crown, Mr. Skerkowski had nothing further to add to the hospital’s submissions.

[54]. Mr. Bernhardt stated that his final submissions flow from the questioning at the hearing. Mr. Ramroop does not have a long criminal record. It ended in 2016. Rather, he has two minor prior offences: a threat and an assault. Granted, the 2023 index offence was more serious. For the past more than two years and without a Detention Order in place, Mr. Ramroop has not fallen away from treatment, has done everything asked of him voluntarily, has been completely compliant and cooperative, has recognized authority, has done things well under the supervision of his family doctor and the Board, and has not needed to come into the hospital. There is no indication on the evidence that he will need to be brought into the hospital in the coming year and, if it was necessary to admit him to the hospital, there is no evidence that he would resist admission. Early warning signs would be seen by the mother and family doctor. Under a Conditional Discharge, the Board could specify Mr. Ramroop’s mother’s home as his residence. A Conditional Discharge would be sufficient to manage Mr. Ramroop with respect to the safety of the public.

Analysis

[55]. The term “significant threat” is defined in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code as “a risk of serious physical or psychological harm to a member of the public … resulting from conduct that is criminal in nature but not necessarily violent.” A significant threat finding must be guided by the principles of law established in Winko v. British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute), 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625, as applied and elaborated in numerous judicial decisions since then. To state this jurisprudence in only a nutshell: A finding of significant threat cannot be speculative. It requires positive findings, supported by the evidence, that the threat that a person would engage in criminal conduct is a “real” threat, and that the harm this conduct would cause would be “serious.” Both findings are required: Neither a miniscule risk of grave harm, nor a high risk of trivial harm, is sufficient to find a real threat of serious harm.

[56]. Apart from the joint submission of the parties on the issue of significant risk, the Board finds that Mr. Ramroop continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. In coming to its determination, the panel considered the totality of the evidence, including that Mr. Ramroop has a chronic schizophrenic illness. His risk is entirely related to his illness and stopping his antipsychotic medication. It has also been linked on several occasions to use of substances. Dr. Chan would be concerned if Mr. Ramroop came off his antipsychotic medication. Mr. Ramroop has a history of going off his medications, relapsing and getting into confrontations, which happened at the time of his prior assaults.

[57]. Dr. Chan’s evidence showed that he and Mr. Ramroop are developing a constructive therapeutic relationship. Nevertheless, the team is still getting to know Mr. Ramroop. He is currently stable on his injectable antipsychotic medication, however, additional treatments, such as involvement in groups, is yet to be explored. Dr. Chan believes that Mr. Ramroop has used cannabis since the index offence and was recently told not to use it, something that the panel found to be an indication that Mr. Ramroop may well benefit from the inclusion of programs in his therapeutic regimen and that his insight into his illness and the effects of substances will continue to develop.

[58]. Having found that Mr. Ramroop continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public, the panel determined that the appropriate Disposition is a Detention Order, which in all of the circumstances is also the least onerous and least restrictive approach. A Conditional Discharge would not adequately address the safety of the public.

[59]. In making its finding, the panel considered the Court of Appeal for Ontario’s decision in Ramos (Re), 2025 ONCA 820 (“Ramos”) which is a seminal case. In ordering a new hearing, the Court in Ramos reaffirmed several key principles governing the Board’s treatment of evidence and its inquisitorial responsibilities. Ramos also reiterated that, when the accused’s timely return to hospital is a live issue in determining whether to order a Conditional Discharge or a Detention Order, the Board must consider whether the Criminal Code’s enforcement provisions in sections 672.91 to 672.93 would adequately address public safety concerns in the event of a breach of a Conditional Discharge.

[60]. In Ramos, the Court allowed the appeal in part after it concluded the Board failed to properly consider whether section 672.93(2) of the Criminal Code, which permits a justice to order that an accused who breaches a term of a Conditional Discharge be detained in hospital, together with a “Young” clause, would sufficiently address the Board’s concerns about the accused’s admission to hospital if their risk to public safety increased while in the community.

[61]. In Young (Re), 2011 ONCA 432, at paragraph 8, the Court noted that the accused’s Conditional Discharge contained the following conditions (i.e., a “Young” clause) regarding admission to hospital:

“…upon notice by the person in charge of the hospital, will immediately submit to attendance and for readmission to hospital” and “upon the request of the hospital, attend for psychiatric assessment, and upon notice of the person in charge, attend for admission to the hospital.”

At paragraph 26, the Court said:

“Re-confinement of persons who are subject to a detention order is significantly more expeditious than re-confinement of persons at large on a conditional discharge. Re-confinement of persons under detention orders is also available as a preventative measure, whereas re-confinement of those under a conditional discharge will usually be available only after a breach of the conditions of that order.”

[62]. Given all of the circumstances, the panel was not at all confident that the provisions of a Conditional Discharge Disposition would be sufficient to manage Mr. Ramroop’s risk to public safety, or that admission under Ontario’s MHA would occur in a way that would effectively address Mr. Ramroop’s decompensation already underway. Initial subtle signs of decompensation, familiar to his mother and family doctor, would not be sufficient to detain Mr. Ramroop for treatment under the MHA. At the hearing, Mr. Bernhardt did not propose the inclusion of a Young clause, which would signify Mr. Ramroop’s consent to attend at the hospital, if required to do so.

[63]. As Ms. Tom noted in her final submissions, the conditions of Mr. Ramroop’s bail order will fall away once the Board issues its Disposition Order. As Mr. Bernhardt noted, and consistent with Dr. Chan’s evidence, Mr. Ramroop has done quite well under those conditions. The terms of the Detention Order allow new freedoms to Mr. Ramroop (e.g., he will be able to leave home unaccompanied by his mother). As the treatment team gets to know Mr. Ramroop better and gets him involved in additional therapeutic activities, such as groups, and as Mr. Ramroop is able to demonstrate continued success with greater freedoms in place, as well as evolving insight, a Conditional Discharge will continue to be a future option. In the meantime, the Detention Order Disposition as ordered is the least onerous and least restrictive option.

Conclusion

[64]. Having considered the four factors at s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code, namely the protection of the public which is the paramount consideration, the mental condition of the accused, his reintegration into society and his other needs, the panel came to the unanimous conclusion that Mr. Ramroop meets the threshold for significant threat and that the necessary and appropriate Disposition in the circumstances is a Detention Order, as set out in the Board’s formal order.

[65]. The panel wishes Mr. Ramroop well for the year ahead.

DATED this 12th day of February 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.

Ms. K. Weisbaum Legal Member

__________________

Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board