Re: Gurjas K. Singh
ORB File No: 7999
Hearing held on: Wednesday, February 18, 2026
Place of hearing: Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences
Via Zoom Video Conference
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. J. Weinstein
Members: Dr. K. Hand
Dr. G. Nexhipi
Ms. M. den Haan
Ms. C. Plyley
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Gurjas K. Singh
Counsel: Mr. M. Schloss
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. J. Szabo
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. N.L. MacDonald
REASONS FOR DECISION
(Dated March 9, 2026)
Introduction:
On December 17, 2021, Ms. Gurjas Singh was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, on charges of aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose and attempt to commit murder, all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (“Criminal Code”).
Ms. Singh is currently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (“Board”), dated June 18, 2025, which ordered that she be detained at the General Forensic Service of Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences, Whitby (“Ontario Shores”). This Disposition provides Ms. Singh with various privileges, including to live in the community, in accommodation approved by the person in charge.
Pursuant to s. 672.56(2) of the Criminal Code, Ontario Shores notified the Board, by letter dated January 9, 2026, that Ms. Singh’s liberty had been restricted: on January 2, 2026, Ms. Singh was admitted to Ontario Shores following a positive urine drug screen for amphetamines.
On February 18, 2026, a panel convened a hearing by video conference at Ontario Shores to review the restriction of Ms. Singh’s liberty, pursuant to s. 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code.
Ms. Singh was present at the hearing and was represented by her counsel, Mr. M. Schloss.
A ROL Hospital Report ("ROL Hospital Report"), dated February 4, 2026, was entered as Exhibit 1. A Hospital Report (“Hospital Report”), dated March 24, 2025, was entered as Exhibit 2.
The issues at this hearing were whether the hospital’s decision to increase the restriction of Ms. Singh’s liberty, by readmitting her to hospital on January 2, 2026, was warranted, necessary and appropriate at the time of its onset and whether it continued to be so until February 4, 2026.
For the reasons set out below, the Board finds that the restriction on Ms. Singh’s liberty on January 2, 2026, was significant as well as necessary and appropriate. The initial restriction represented the least onerous and least restrictive measure at the time it was imposed, and it continued to do so until its end, on February 4, 2026.
Position of the Parties
- Counsel for the hospital, the Attorney General and Ms. Singh advised that this was a joint position: all agreed that the initial restriction of liberty was necessary and appropriate; it represented the least onerous and least restrictive measure at the time it was imposed, and it continued to do so until February 4, 2026.
Index Offences:
- The circumstances giving rise to the Index Offences are extracted from the most recent Reasons for Disposition, dated July 14, 2025:
“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."
Reasons for Restriction of Liberty:
- The ROL Report provides the reason for the restriction of liberty:
“Although Ms. Singh had been functioning reasonably well in the community, rather abruptly, her urine tested positive for amphetamines from a sample collected on December 16, 2025. It took some time for the sample to return. In the interim, she provided another sample on December 20, 2025, which was clearly invalid.
Subsequently other history became available to us from another patient of our program that they had been using crystal methamphetamine together despite her denial of use.
Given her positive test for this substance, which was novel to her and is quite potentially psychotogenic, coupled with her denial and provision of an invalid urine sample, she was admitted to hospital for detoxification and risk management.”
Course In Hospital:
- The ROL Report sets out Ms. Singh’s course in hospital. The following extracted paragraphs are relevant to this hearing:
“There was no significant change to her mental state even at the time of her admission. Overall, her mental state showed little change throughout the course of her admission. She was granted liberal access to the nearby community and her urine screens remained negative and her behavior did not change. She remained compliant with treatment. She continued to remain in denial about the use of any illicit substance.
Given that the goal of the detoxification had been achieved and there was no change in her mental state, she was discharged to the community on February 4, 2026, to resume follow-up with the Forensic Outpatient Service and the undersigned.”
Evidence at the Hearing:
- The Board had available to it the evidence and documents forming the Record, the Exhibits, and oral evidence from Dr. Pallandi. Dr. Pallandi is Ms. Singh’s treating psychiatrist and co-authored the Hospital Report. He testified as follows:
a) The only update was that Ms. Singh admitted to using crystal methamphetamine for the first time since he became her treating psychiatrist. This admission was a major breakthrough; in the past, Ms. Singh would always deny using any substances, even when her UDS screens came back positive. He is hopeful that this disclosure represents a turning point in Ms. Singh’s progress in the Forensic Service and that she will continue to be honest about her substance use with him and the treatment team.
b) The team felt that it was necessary to readmit Ms. Singh as she is an infrequent user of crystal methamphetamine the treatment team could not know the potential risk this posed to her and to the safety of the public. It is a very dangerous drug, and it can, on its own, be a serious destabilizer of the user’s mental health.
c) This illicit substance is what is referred to as a “dirty drug,” which means that it can be adulterated with other, unknown substances. The combination could be very dangerous to Ms. Singh’s health, potentially increasing her risk to public safety.
d) Ms. Singh indicated that she used this drug because she was bored over the holidays, and she and another patient decided to share it.
e) The treatment team would like to see Ms. Singh reconnect with a concurrent disorder group, to get the support she needs to control her impulsivity and her use of substances.
f) As set out in the ROL Report, the treatment team did not notice any change in Ms. Singh’s mental state or behaviour. She was compliant with her medication regimen while in hospital.
g) Ms. Singh was given quite liberal privileges immediately upon her readmission into the hospital.
- No other evidence was called.
Analysis and Conclusions:
Pursuant to the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in R v MLC, 2010 ONCA 843, as well as in Regina v Campbell, 2018 ONCA 140, the Board agrees that a restriction of liberty has taken place. The Board found that the initial restriction of liberty, on January 2, 2026, and the ongoing restriction until February 4, 2026, represented the least onerous and least restrictive intervention in the circumstances. They were both necessary for public safety.
Ms. Singh rarely used methamphetamines in the past. This drug is known to be the cause of serious mental instability. The treatment team had to act proactively to make sure that Ms. Singh did not have a severe negative reaction to this substance, both for her own safety as well as that of the public.
Ms. Singh enjoyed liberal privileges while in hospital and was discharged back to the community as soon as it was reasonable.
DATED this 9^th^ day of March 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.
Mr. J. Weinstein
Alternate Chairperson
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board