Re Gagan Duggappa Prasannakumar, 2026 CanLII 39763

Re: Gagan Duggappa Prasannakumar

ORB File No: 8939

Hearing held on: February 20, 2026

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

100 West 5^th Street

Pursuant to: Section 672.47(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: Gagan Duggappa Prasannakumar

Counsel: Mr. P. Boushy

The Person in Charge of Hospital: Counsel: Mr. S. O’Brien

Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. I. Shaikh

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated April 28, 2026)

Introduction

1. On December 12, 2025, Mr. Gagan Duggappa Prasannakumar was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, on one count of criminal harassment contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (“Criminal Code”). The Court declined to make a disposition and referred the matter to the Ontario Review Board for a Disposition Hearing.

2. On February 20, 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. Prasannakumar represents 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.

3. For the reasons set out below, the Board unanimously finds that Mr. Prasannakumar does meet the threshold for significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a Detention Order with privileges up to and including to enter the community of Hamilton, Ontario, accompanied by staff or a person approved by the person in charge.

Current Psychiatric Diagnoses:

• Delusional Disorder;

• Cannabis Use Disorder;

Background Information

4. The following information has been reproduced from the Hospital Report:

• Mr. Prasannakumar first employed by Amazon as a Seller Support Associate from 2020 to 2022. He worked remotely from home in Bangalore, India, and his role involved providing support and assistance to sellers by email or phone.

• After completing his diploma program at Sheridan College in Mississauga, Ontario, Mr. Prasannakumar obtained temporary customer service and sales contract positions at IKEA and Accenture through employment agencies.

• He does not have a current source of income.

• Mr. Prasannakumar has never been married, and he is not known to have any children. While residing in India, he was involved in a relationship for approximately two years with a woman named Harshita. They reportedly amicably ended the relationship as Mr. Prasannakumar desired a deeper emotional connection and they have since remained friends.

• Mr. Prasannakumar denied any known familial psychiatric, substance use, or criminal history.

• Mr. Prasannakumar does not have a criminal record

• Mr. Prasannakumar does not have a documented psychiatric history. An inquiry into any available health records was facilitated, and none could be located prior to his current incarceration. While detained at the Hamilton-Wentworth Detention Centre (HWDC), Mr. Prasannakumar was followed by the jail psychiatrist. As per the HWDC health records, he presented with delusions of religiosity and grandeur, sleep disturbance, and erotomanic fixations, which led to him being prescribed an antipsychotic medication, Risperidone (Risperdal 0.5 mg) after which he reportedly demonstrated some improvements in his symptoms.

• Mr. Prasannakumar stated that he has smoked cigarettes intermittently since pre-university and started consuming cannabis on occasion in college. His cannabis use became regular between 2020 to 2022 wherein he smoked on average two to three joints per day. Mr. Prasannakumar stopped using cannabis completely in 2022 to pass the medical exam for his student visa application. He denied having experienced symptoms of withdrawal. Mr. Prasannakumar resumed smoking cannabis approximately three or four months after arriving to Canada. He reported having gradually increased his cannabis use from one joint per day, to 3.5 grams per week.

• Mr. Prasannakumar stated he has tried psilocybin mushrooms and MDMA (ecstasy) on one occasion.

• There is no reported history of problematic alcohol use.

• Mr. Prasannakumar has never engaged in addictions counselling, detoxification services, or residential treatment for substance abuse problems.

• Mr. Prasannakumar has no known allergies. He has never sustained a head injury or suffered from a seizure. Mr. Prasannakumar does not have a reported significant medical history.

• Mr. Prasannakumar travelled to Canada from India on a student visa in 2023. After completing a one-year diploma program at Sheridan College, he reportedly struggled to find employment in Canada. Mr. Prasannakumar had invested $10,000 into a Guaranteed Investment Certificate (GIC) as required to apply for a Canadian student visa, wherein the amount was disbursed in equally monthly installments over the first year of his student visa. In 2024, the GIC had reportedly run out of funds. With no source of income, his parents sent money to their son as needed, urging him to return to India given his financial circumstances.

• In the months and weeks leading up to the index offence, Mr. Prasannakumar spoke to his parents and sister less frequently by phone, reporting the relationship with his family felt “distorted.” He described his parents as “hostile”, and “speaking cryptically” during their phone calls, and believed that they were being controlled by a “powerful man” and his moguls. Mr. Prasannakumar also advised that he had thought that his parents were foster parents, hiding him from his “real” biological parents.

• Mr. Prasannakumar’s parents indicated that over this time period, their son was not his usual self as he had been speaking to them rudely and angrily during their conversations and expressed fear for the family’s safety in India. His sister further reported that Mr. Prasannakumar appeared anxious, reporting to his family that he believed he was being followed and his phone was being hacked and monitored, although he was unable to identify who might be behind it.

• In the months leading up to the index offences, Mr. Prasannakumar was staying with his friend, Michael, in his basement apartment. He noted he spent most of his time with Michael smoking cannabis, listening to and producing music, and attending the Vendanta Society of Toronto. Mr. Prasannakumar identified a marked increase in his interest around religion, stating he became “obsessed” with God, researching and learning about the concept of God across various religious traditions. Further, Mr. Prasannakumar reported sporadic eating habits, noting “one meal was enough for two or three days,” as well as elevated energy levels with minimal sleep (two to three hours).

Index Offences:

5. The facts arising from the index offence are excerpted from the Crown Brief Synopsis and are reproduced as follows:

“On March 29th 2025, the victim Jennifer MULLINS called police regarding ongoing Criminal Harassment by her neighbour Gagan DUGGAPPA PRASANNAKUMAR.

Between March 26th 2025 - March 29th 2025, MULLINS reported the same male attending her residence and leaving items on the steps outside her front door. MULLINS does not know the male but stated that he may live next door to her. She is unsure as she has only lived at her residence for two months.

General report (25-574791) authored by PC WALKER on March 26th 2025 stated: Approximately two weeks ago, MULLINS was approached by a male who asked if she could fill his water bottle, which she did. The same male later left a canvas print (8"x1 1"), a bottle of water and a note thanking her on her front step. MULLINS saw the male three times since and confronted him; he admitted to leaving the gifts. MULLINS told the male to stop, but he has continued. Police attended and seized the items that were left at MULLINS front door. MULLINS expressed that she was extremely fearful.

General report (25- 575676) authored by PC MIZENER on March 27th 2025 stated: On March 27th 2025, MULLINS found a plastic bag with a small book, chocolates, and a valentines card with the hand writing "SomeONE Lo-.es you, but you already knew that, "eh" ?" on her porch.

A lighter and a rolled Marihuana joint in an ashtray were also placed with the items. The items were seized by police.

General report (25-577621) authored by PC DUNNE on March 29th 2025 stated: On March 29th 2025 at 4:58 am, police were dispatched to MULLINS' address after she observed the same male on CCTV in her driveway, sweeping just outside the doorway. The male was located and identified by police with an Ontario Identification Card to be Gagan DUGGAPPA PRASANNAKUMAR.

DUGGAPPA PRASANNAKUMAR was cautioned in regards to Criminal Harassment charges.

On March 29th 2025 at 6:40 pm, DUGGAPPA PRASANNAKUMAR returned to MULLINS residence and was captured again on CCTV leav1ng gifts at her side door, despite ha'.1ng been warned by police only hours before. MULLINS was interviewed and police formed reasonable and probable grounds to arrest DUGGAPPA PRASANNAKUMAR for Criminal Harassment. MULLINS turned over to police a white plastic bag containing items that DUGGAPPA PRASANNAKUMAR had left at her residence: a pack of cigarettes, headphones, a blue cloth, a blue glove, an Export A lighter, a cigarette butt and a McDonalds cup. Scenes of Crimes Officer BROOKS processed these items.

At 9:55 pm, police attended 74 West 3rd Street Hamilton and placed Gagan DUGGAPPA PRASANNAKUMAR under arrest for Criminal Harassment. DUGGAPPA PRASANNAKUMAR was subsequently provided his rights to counsel and caution before being transported to Central Custody where he was lodged with bail opposed."

Without Prejudice Positions of the Parties:

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

7. The Hospital took the position that Mr. Prasannakumar meets the threshold for significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate Disposition was a Detention Order Disposition with the following terms and conditions:

a. to attend within or outside of the hospital for necessary medical, dental, legal or compassionate purposes;

b. hospital and grounds privileges, escorted by staff;

c. hospital and grounds privileges, accompanied by staff or a person approved by the person in charge;

d. hospital and grounds privileges, indirectly supervised;

e. to enter the community of Hamilton, Ontario, escorted by staff;

f. to enter the community of Hamilton, Ontario, accompanied by staff or a person approved by the person in charge; AND

g. refrain from having in their possession any firearm, ammunition, or other offensive weapons, or being in the company of any person possessing a firearm other than a peace officer;

h. abstain absolutely from the non-medical use of alcohol or drugs or any other intoxicant;

i. submit samples of his urine and/or breath to the person in charge of St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton, West 5th Campus or his or her designate for the purpose of analyzing whether the accused has ingested alcohol, drugs or any other intoxicant;

j. no contact directly or indirectly with Jennifer Mullens; and

k. stay 25 metres away from 76 West 3rd St., Hamilton, Ontario.

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

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

Evidence at the Hearing:

10. The Board had available to it the evidence and documents forming the Record, the Exhibits, and oral evidence from Dr. Jonathan Duboff, who is Mr. Prasannakumar’s attending psychiatrist.

11. Dr. Duboff testified that Mr. Prasannakumar has generally had an easy admission to the Hospital and that there have been very few concerns from staff regarding his behaviour or management.

12. Dr. Duboff explained that when Mr. Prasannakumar was first admitted to the Hospital, he was untreated and was presenting with a number of symptoms including delusional beliefs, both persecutory and grandiose. Mr. Prasannakumar was initially quite reclusive, but as the admission progressed his psychotic symptoms began to lessen. He did not require any periods of seclusion or restraints and did not exhibit any aggression toward staff or patients.

13. Mr. Prasannakumar was found to be “cheeking” his medication for a few weeks and thus was non-compliant with his prescribed antipsychotic medication. He later outright stated that he would not take any medication and so he is currently untreated.

14. Dr. Duboff testified that the nature of the significant threat to the safety of the public posed by Mr. Prasannakumar is one of psychological harm. The index offence was one of criminal harassment and resulted in serious psychological harm to the victim, and while Mr. Prasannakumar currently has no fixation on that specific victim, given that he is currently untreated, in the opinion of Dr. Duboff the probability that Mr. Prasannakumar’s psychotic symptoms would reemerge toward this victim or another is unclear.

15. In response to questions about the Hospital’s approach to treating Mr. Prasannakumar, Dr. Duboff replied that psychoeducation has been the main avenue of treatment. He explained that the Hospital has been speaking to Mr. Prasannakumar’s family members to educate them about his diagnosis and his treatment and there has been much encouragement for him to take his prescribed medication, but he remains reluctant. Mr. Prasannakumar remains treatment capable and is able to explain his disorder but unfortunately does not accept that his symptoms or the index offence could happen again, absent proper treatment.

16. As a result of this situation, Dr. Duboff felt that the team and Mr. Prasannakumar were “stuck” in respect of his psychotropic treatments, and the plan for the upcoming year is to continue with psychoeducation and in trying to develop the therapeutic relationship between Mr. Prasannakumar and the treatment team in the hope that progress would be made with regard to the patient’s reluctance to take medication.

17. Dr. Duboff further explained that it will also be important going forward to address Mr. Prasannakumar’s other risk factors, such as substance abuse, and to try to identify things to motivate the patient and keep him engaged, with an example being some vocational training.

18. When asked to explain the Hospital’s recommended privileges for Mr. Prasannakumar, Dr. Duboff explained that the team was not supportive of indirect passes to the community or community living at this juncture because Mr. Prasannakumar has few community supports, and the few people he does know in Canada were using cannabis with him and thus such persons would not be a good influence on Mr. Prasannakumar’s recovery.

19. Moreover, Dr. Duboff explained that the location of the index offence is quite near to the Hospital and therefore the treatment team needs to see how Mr. Prasannakumar’s risk level progresses over time before allowing him indirect passes into the community.

20. In response to questions from Counsel for the Attorney General, Dr. Duboff confirmed that Mr. Prasannakumar remains a moderate-high risk of reoffending by way of stalking or criminally harassing behaviour, but that he reports being less and less fixated about the victim of the index offence. However, according to Dr. Duboff it remains the opinion of the treatment team that without the structure and oversight of the forensic mental health system the risk of reoffending in a manner similar to the index offence remains high.

21. In response to questions from Mr. Boushy, Dr. Duboff explained that the team is monitoring Mr. Prasannakumar for any evidence of ongoing delusional preoccupation. For a brief period of time, Mr. Prasannakumar had begun to wear religious clothing and talked frequently about his faith, and different deities, and the team wanted to ensure that Mr. Prasannakumar’s beliefs did not become or originate from delusion.

22. In response to questions from the Panel, Dr. Duboff confirmed that he believed Mr. Prasannakumar would benefit from psychiatric treatment and that Mr. Prasannakumar’s refusal to take prescribed medications stems from his belief that he doesn’t need them and will not become unwell again. Dr. Duboff noted that historically, when prescribed psychotropic medications, Mr. Prasannakumar had stopped them suddenly because of perceived side effects.

23. Dr. Duboff further testified that Mr. Prasannakumar is a national of India, in Canada on a soon-to-be expired student VISA, and that Mr. Prasannakumar is unsure if he wishes to remain in Canada or return to India. Mr. Prasannakumar’s parents want their son to return to India as soon as possible, but Dr. Duboff does not see the patient’s return as practically feasible right now, even if the Disposition allowed it, because of Mr. Prasannakumar’s current treatment trajectory and because of doubts that he would ever return to Canada.

24. When asked to articulate the connection between Mr. Prasannakumar’s cannabis use and his Delusional Disorder, Dr. Duboff explained that when Mr. Prasannakumar was taken into custody in relation to the index offence, even without psychotropic medications his delusional and persecutory beliefs resolved. Therefore, Dr. Duboff was of the opinion that the consumption of cannabis exacerbated Mr. Prasannakumar’s psychosis, particularly the delusions of persecution.

25. Dr. Duboff confirmed that Mr. Prasannakumar has on occasion expressed a desire to return to India and has received legal advice from an immigration practitioner. When asked whether it would be consistent with public safety concerns to allow Mr. Prasannakumar to repatriate to India, Dr. Duboff said he would have to think about that, but did express a concern that Mr. Prasannakumar would present a significant risk to the safety of the public, especially while untreated, which would include passengers on a hypothetical flight that would return him to India.

26. Dr. Duboff responded positively to the suggestion of the Legal Member that it would be beneficial for the Board to have updated information about Mr. Prasannakumar’s legal status in Canada and his wishes for the next annual hearing. The concern is that without lawful status in Canada, Mr. Prasannakumar could end up in a legal limbo whereby he is unable to access healthcare or legal employment which could then negatively impact his recovery.

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

Analysis and Conclusions

28. Having heard and considered the entirety of the evidence as well as the submissions from the parties, the Board finds that Mr. Prasannakumar does meet the threshold for significant threat to the safety of the public and finds that a Detention Order Disposition with the jointly recommended terms and conditions is the least onerous and least restrictive, Disposition that is necessary and appropriate in the circumstances.

29. 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 those of the present case, the ratio decidendi is relevant to all cases that the Board hears.

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

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

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

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

34. 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;

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

36. 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.

37. 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.

38. In determining whether Mr. Prasannakumar 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. By definition, the term “safety of the public” has been held to include psychological harm.

39. Mr. Prasannakumar suffers from a Delusional Disorder which is currently not being treated because he remains treatment capable and has declined to accept psychotropic medication. This has left the treatment team with few options to address Mr. Prasannakumar’s mental illness.

40. When he was previously unwell, Mr. Prasannakumar was beset with paranoid, persecutory and erotomaniac delusions which directly led to the commission of the index offence and caused psychological harm to the victim of that offence. His consumption of cannabis was also a factor in the intensity of these symptoms.

41. Mr. Prasannakumar’s insight remains underdeveloped, and he continues to believe that the index offence would not happen again, even without treatment.

42. In the hospital setting, Mr. Prasannakumar had initially been medication nonadherent – in the context of “cheeking” his prescribed medication – but is now completely opposed to taking any psychotropic medication and therefore is currently untreated.

43. Under the auspices of the ORB and with significant structure and support, Mr. Prasannakumar has been assessed as posing a medium to high risk of reoffending by way of stalking or criminally harassing behaviour. Without those restraints and supports, his risk to the public would undoubtedly be higher.

44. It is still early in his illness course and the trajectory of Mr. Prasannakumar’s illness, particularly in the absence of antipsychotic treatment, remains to be seen.

45. Regarding substance use, while Mr. Prasannakumar has recently been abstinent from cannabis, this has been imposed upon him as a consequence of his remanded status with no unaccompanied privileges. He has fluctuated in his commitment to continued abstinence and Mr. Prasannakumar has not yet been challenged to maintain abstinence in an environment where cannabis is more readily available. Thus far, his sole support in the community and in-person visitor has been a friend with whom he previously used substances.

46. As outlined in the psychological assessment, “Should he reoffend, the probability of Mr. Prassanakumar’s actions resulting in serious physical harm is low and the probability of serious psychological harm is high. Although the current victim would be the most likely victim in the case of an imminent reoffence, his preoccupation may well shift to another target.”

47. In consideration of all the evidence, the submissions of the parties, the wishes of Mr. Prasannakumar 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. Prasannakumar, his reintegration into society and his other needs, the Panel finds that a Detention Order Disposition with the outlined terms and conditions is the necessary and appropriate Disposition.

DATED this 28th 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