Re Babar Raja, 2026 CanLII 36982

Re: Babar Raja

ORB File No: 7689

Hearing held on: February 19, 2026

Place of hearing: St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton, West 5^th^ Campus

Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code

Before:

Alternate Chairperson: Ms. K.A Connidis

Members: Dr. J. Cheston Dr. A. Prakash Mr. D. D’Intino Ms. B. Little

Parties Appearing:

Accused: Babar Raja (Not present) Counsel: Mr. A. Confente

The Person in Charge of Hospital: Counsel: Ms. L. Barney

Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. A. Lepchuk

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated April 22, 2026)

Introduction

1. On January 30, 2020, Mr. Babar Raja was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, on three counts of assault contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (“Criminal Code”).

2. Mr. Raja is currently subject to a Disposition Order dated February 28, 2025, detaining him at the Forensic Psychiatry Program at St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton (SJHH), and providing him with privileges up to and including residing in the catchment area of SJHH in accommodation approved by the Person in Charge.

3. On February 19, 2026, a panel of the Ontario Review Board (ORB) convened in person and a hearing was held at St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton (SJHH). The purpose of the hearing was to determine if Mr. Raja continues to present a significant threat to the safety of the public as defined in the Criminal Code of Canada, and if so, to decide on the necessary and appropriate Disposition.

4. Mr. Raja was not present at the hearing. Dr. Alatishe explained that Mr. Raja finds these hearings very stressful. However, he was able to provide clear instructions to his counsel and instructed Mr. Confente to proceed with the hearing in his absence.

5. For the reasons set out below, the Board unanimously finds that Mr. Raja continues to meet the threshold for significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate Disposition is continuation of the existing Detention Order with no changes to its terms or conditions.

Current Psychiatric Diagnosis:

• Schizoaffective Disorder;

• Cannabis Use Disorder, in sustained remission in a controlled environment;

• Alcohol Use Disorder, in sustained remission in a controlled environment

Index Offences:

6. The facts arising from the index offences were summarized in last year’s ORB Reasons and are reproduced as follows:

“On June 25, 2018, Mr. Raja punched three strangers in the face, unprovoked, while in a convenience store. He was aggressive in manner when the police arrived – he “took an assaultive stance and demanded that he be shot.” He was forcibly arrested."

Without Prejudice Positions of the Parties:

7. At the commencement of the hearing, the parties were canvassed for their initial positions.

8. The Hospital took the position that Mr. Raja continues to meet the threshold for significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate Disposition was a continuation of the existing Detention Order Disposition with no changes to its terms and conditions.

9. Counsel for the Attorney General supported the Hospital’s position.

10. Counsel for the accused agreed and thus a joint submission was presented to the Panel for its consideration.

Evidence at the Hearing:

11. The Board had available to it the evidence and documents forming the Record, the Exhibits, and oral evidence from Dr. Yuri Alatishe, who is Mr. Raja’s attending psychiatrist.

12. Dr. Alatishe testified by way of update to the Hospital Report that Mr. Raja has now received an offer for a bed at Indwell Residence, which will become available as of March 1. Preparations had already been made to have a discharge meeting and to transition Mr. Raja into the community.

13. Dr. Alatishe explained that with respect to the bed offer, Mr. Raja is rather indifferent to it. Dr. Alatishe felt this was actually an improvement in Mr. Raja’s attitude, because in the past he has been reluctant to leave the hospital and struggled with a prior attempted discharge into the community.

14. In response to questions from Mr. Confente, Dr. Alatishe testified that to his knowledge there have been no recent discussions with Mr. Raja’s sister, in respect of her willingness to be considered as an Approved Person.

15. Dr. Alatishe also testified that there have been no improvements in Mr. Raja’s insight into his mental illness. While Mr. Raja has not asked for any changes to his medication and while he takes his medication without issue, he continues to believe that the index offences were caused by withdrawal from medication as opposed to being inadequately medicated. Mr. Raja does acknowledge his diagnosis but lacks the ability to recognize symptoms of his major mental illness.

16. When asked to explain the hospital’s approach to Mr. Raja’s discharge into the community, Dr. Alatishe opined that a more rapid discharge as opposed to a slow and gradual one is being contemplated for Mr. Raja in order to decrease the potential stress he may experience.

17. In response to questions from the Panel, Dr. Alatishe confirmed that Mr. Raja’s mother is aware that he is no longer prohibited from contacting her, that there have been no concerns raised about this and that Mr. Raja’s relationship with his family has been improving throughout the year.

18. When asked to explain why Mr. Raja poses a significant risk to the safety of the public and what his most likely reoffence scenario would be, Dr. Alatishe explained that, when unwell, Mr. Raja has been prone to violence against both his family members and the general public. Furthermore, he has a history of substance abuse and medication non-compliance, which are not concerns under the highly structured environment of the hospital, but would be a reason for caution when Mr. Raja makes the transition to community living.

19. The most likely reoffence scenario according to Dr. Alatishe is one where, in a less structured environment, Mr. Raja becomes overwhelmed with stress and then returns to substance use, which in turn triggers rapid mental status decompensation and eventually a return to physical violence.

20. Dr. Alatishe was of the view that a Conditional Discharge was not appropriate at this point in time because he was of the view that the provisions of the Mental Health Act would be insufficient to quickly return Mr. Raja to hospital, but primarily the concern of the treatment team is that they need the ability to approve appropriate accommodations for Mr. Raja which they cannot do on a Conditional Discharge.

21. At the conclusion of the evidence, all parties maintained their joint recommendation.

Analysis and Conclusions

22. Having heard and considered the entirety of the evidence as well as the submissions from the parties, the Board finds that Mr. Raja continues to meet the threshold for significant threat to the safety of the public and finds that a continuation of the existing Detention Order Disposition with no changes to its terms and conditions is the least onerous and least restrictive, necessary and appropriate Disposition in the circumstances.

23. The Panel has come to this decision after a careful review of the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in Ramos (Re), 2025 ONCA 820. While the facts in Ramos differ significantly from that of the present case, the ratio decidendi is relevant to all cases that the Board hears.

24. In summary, the case of Ramos requires the Board to:

25. Remain attentive to constitutional protections and avoid the influence of stereotypes or prejudice;

26. Give thoughtful weight to the reasonable wishes and preferences of NCR individuals, while still prioritizing community safety;

27. Undertake a careful, individualized assessment that avoids assuming permanent or inherent dangerousness and instead evaluates the person’s present clinical and social circumstances;

28. Keep the legal thresholds distinct from hospital preferences or institutional rule compliance, recognizing that clinical convenience cannot substitute for the legal test and conducting a holistic assessment which acknowledges strengths and improvements;

29. Exercise its own independent judgment when reviewing professional opinions; and

30. Approach hearsay evidence with care, ensuring that any reliance on such information is fair, balanced, and consistent with the Board’s dual role of protecting both individual rights and public safety.

31. A significant threat to the safety of the public cannot be speculative. It must entail a real risk of serious physical or psychological harm arising from conduct that is both serious and criminal in nature.

32. In determining whether Mr. Raja represents a significant threat to the safety of the public, the Board has carefully analyzed the evidence as it relates to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Winko, 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625 and the definition of the term in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code.

33. Mr. Raja suffers from a psychotic disorder which is well treated by his current medication regimen and the structure and supports of the forensic mental health system. He does, however, still experience some residual symptoms in the form of overvalued ideas and delusional thinking.

34. When unwell, Mr. Raja has suffered from paranoia and delusions which led to violence against family members and the general public, which includes the index offences. In the past, upon discontinuing his antipsychotic medication he became “obsessed” with smoking and then began consuming cannabis. At the initial onset of his illness, he experienced severe obsessive-compulsive behaviours.

35. In the hospital setting, Mr. Raja engages in selective programming, engaging in those that align with his interests and declining others. He prefers to be in the vicinity of others without directly interacting with them. He has not reached his privilege ceiling. He continues to demonstrate limited insight into his mental disorder, its symptoms and the importance of medication adherence.

36. Under the auspices of the ORB and with significant structure and support, Mr. Raja has been assessed as posing a low risk of reoffending. Without those restraints and supports, his risk to the public would be higher.

37. Mr. Raja has had yet another good year in the hospital. He has been medication compliant and has not exhibited any verbally or physically aggressive behaviours or other management concerns. He has been visiting his family regularly without any reported concerns and when he has elected to use his privileges, he has done so without issue.

38. As a result of his mental status stability and his collaboration with the treatment team, Mr. Raja is now in a position to be discharged from hospital and into a community-based supportive housing placement. The Panel wishes him well in the coming reporting year.

39. In consideration of all the evidence, the submissions of the parties, the wishes of Mr. Raja and the criteria set forth in s. 672.54, the paramount consideration being the safety of the public, in addition to the mental condition of Mr. Raja, his reintegration into society and his other needs, the Panel finds that a continuation of the existing Detention Order Disposition with no changes to its terms and conditions is the necessary and appropriate Disposition.

DATED this 22^nd^ day of April 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.

Mr. D. D’Intino

Legal Member

___________________________

Office of the Registrar

Ontario Review Board