Re: Kanwardeep Johar
ORB File No: 8275
Hearing held on: Monday, May 11, 2026
Place of hearing: Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care 401 Sunset Drive, St. Thomas
Pursuant to: Sections 672.81(1) and 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. J. Weinstein Mr. Eric Siebenmorgen (by Zoom) Members: Dr. P.N. Wright Dr. R. Kunjukrishnan Mr. A. Mete
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Kanwardeep Johar Counsel: Mr. W. Glover
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. J. Zamprogna
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. K. Dalrymple
REASONS FOR DECISION AND DISPOSITION
(Dated June 3, 2026)
Introduction:
On April 3, 2023, Mr. Kanwardeep Johar was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, on charges of robbery and using an imitation firearm in the commission of an offence, both contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (“Criminal Code”).
Mr. Johar is subject to the terms of a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the “Board”), dated July 2, 2025, which ordered that he be detained at the Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care, St. Joseph's Health Care London (“Southwest”).
Pursuant to s. 672.56(2) of the Criminal Code, Southwest notified the Board, by letter dated April 2, 2026, that Mr. Johar’s liberty had been restricted:
“On March 26, 2026 a Code Silver (person with weapon) was called in response to a violent incident involving Mr. Johar, which required both the Police and Security assistance to resolve. Due to this incident, Mr. Johar was placed in locked seclusion within the Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care, St. Thomas, where he has remained since that time.”
On May 11, 2026, a panel of the Board convened to hold a hearing to review Mr. Johar's disposition, pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code, and to conduct a Restriction of Liberty Hearing (“ROL”), pursuant to s 672. 81(2.1).
Mr. Johar was represented by his counsel, Mr. Glover, who advised that his client did not wish to attend this hearing and that he had instructions to proceed in his absence. An order was made, pursuant to s. 672.5(10)(a), allowing Mr. Johar to be absent from this hearing. Mr. Johar’s brother attended via videoconference.
A Hospital Report, dated April 24, 2026 (the "Hospital Report"), was entered as Exhibit 1.
By letter dated April 20, 2026, counsel for Mr. Johar submitted a Rule 13 request for Mr. Johar to be transferred to St. Joseph's Healthcare, Hamilton (“St. Joseph’s). No response from St. Joseph's was received, and counsel for Mr. Johar conceded that the Hospital Report was not submitted by him in the time required to allow St. Joseph's to respond.
Since Mr. Johar’s hearing was scheduled for May 11, 2026, it was agreed that his annual review and the ROL hearing would happen concurrently.
For the ROL, the issues at this hearing were:
a) whether the decision made by the person in charge to significantly increase the restriction of liberty on Mr. Johar was warranted and necessary, as well as the least onerous and least restrictive option in the circumstances, at the time of its onset, on March 26, 2026; and
b) whether it continues to be so.
- For the annual review, the issues at this hearing were:
a) whether Mr. Johar continues to pose a significant threat to public safety, as defined in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code; and
b) if so, what is the necessary and appropriate Disposition in the circumstances, bearing in mind the factors enunciated in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
For the reasons set out below and based on the expert evidence and opinions before it, the Board concluded that the initial Restriction of Liberty was warranted, necessary and appropriate, as is the ongoing Restriction of Liberty. The Board found that these restrictions were necessary for public safety, and they represented the least onerous and least restrictive interventions available.
For the reasons set out below and based on the expert evidence and opinions before it, the Board concluded that Mr. Johar continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public. The Board found that the necessary and appropriate Disposition in the circumstances is a continuation of the existing Detention Order.
Position of the Parties
Counsel for the hospital submitted that both the initial, and the ongoing, restrictions of liberty were warranted, necessary and appropriate. Counsel for the Attorney General agreed with the hospital’s submissions.
Counsel for Mr. Johar advised that he could not take a position with respect to either the initial, or the ongoing, restriction of liberty.
Counsel for the hospital and for the Attorney General recommended a continuation of the existing Detention Order.
Counsel for Mr. Johar advised that he would be taking no position with respect to the appropriate and necessary Disposition.
At the conclusion of the hearing, counsel for Mr. Johar advised that he was no longer requesting a transfer to St. Joseph's, because of Mr. Johar’s current situation and the fact that the Rule 13 request was not sent in a timely manner. Should circumstances change, this matter can be raised again, either in an early hearing or at next year’s annual review. Counsel for the hospital and the Attorney General joined counsel for Mr. Johar’s position that it was not appropriate to consider a Rule 13 transfer to St. Joseph's at this time.
Current Psychiatric Diagnoses:
- Schizoaffective Disorder, Bipolar Type
Substance Use Disorder, in remission in a controlled environment
Index Offences:
- The circumstances giving rise to the Index Offences are extracted from last year’s Board Reasons:
“Briefly, on June 15, 2022, Mr. Johar attended a Canada Post branch located within a pharmacy, with the goal of retrieving his mail. When the female employee, who is the victim, asked for identification, Mr. Johar provided her with a “very obviously fake passport” (handwritten with marker on a brown paper). The female victim declined to provide Mr. Johar with his mail, as the “passport” was not an acceptable form of identification. A verbal disagreement ensued, and Mr. Johar produced a revolver style handgun (which was later determined to be an imitation firearm). The female victim called security when she went into the back room to pretend to search for Mr. Johar’s mail. Security attended the pharmacy and was able to subdue Mr. Johar until police arrived and placed him under arrest."
- Mr. Johar’s history and background are outlined in the Hospital Report, and they are accurately summarized in last year’s Reasons:
“Mr. Johar was born in India. He and his family immigrated to Canada when he was six years old. He has a degree in Business from Western University. He reportedly ran his own company for 15 to 20 years, buying and selling domain names. Mr. Johar’s company was successful, but he later gave away most of his wealth. He stated that he did not work much for the five to ten years prior to the index offences. He explained that he mostly supported himself with help from family and friends and occasional odd jobs.
Mr. Johar's substance use history chiefly consists of the use of psychedelics, such as LSD, mushrooms, ayahuasca, and an African root (Iboga). He reported a history of such use dating to his teen years. He reported his frequency of use as "a few times a year". He also stated that he used ecstasy once, smoked cannabis approximately six times in total and had eaten cannabis edibles approximately 12 times. Mr. Johar considered himself to be a social drinker, usually one or two drinks every other week. He said that he had one or two beers about a week prior to the index offences.
On March 30, 2014, Mr. Johar was involved in a serious single vehicle collision after consuming 3.5 grams of psilocybin. He reportedly ran away from responding police and EMS. In the following days, Mr. Johar participated in a mental health consultation at the Brampton Civic Hospital. He denied that his driving was a suicide attempt but reported feeling sad after breaking off his engagement to a woman in India. He tried to selfmedicate with herbs and mushrooms and was reluctant to take medications. He was prescribed an anti-depressant (Cipralex), given a follow up appointment, and referred to a Mood and Anxiety Group.
Mr. Johar’s first involuntary admission was in December 2014. He had been brought to the Brampton Civic Hospital by his parents who expressed concern for his safety, his odd ideas, and his thought disorder. Notably, he had been using alcohol, marijuana, and mushrooms.
Mr. Johar’s second involuntary admission took place from October to December 2020. He was brought to hospital by police following neighbours' complaints to his father that Mr. Johar was "...asking random people in the street to make love to him". He reportedly requested access to lactating females so he could have their breast milk. He was yelling, screaming and chanting. He was reportedly psychotic and difficult to manage in the hospital and escalated to the point that a code white was called. He required both chemical and physical restraint.
During the 2020 hospital admission Mr. Johar was noted to be sexually preoccupied and verbalized sexual thoughts to female staff. He was described as preoccupied with having an intimate relationship. His conversation was disorganized. He was declared incapable of consenting to psychiatric treatment and received injectable antipsychotic medication with the substitute consent of his father. His disorganization and psychotic symptoms resolved with treatment, and he was discharged on an injectable medication.
At a January 21, 2021 follow up appointment, Mr. Johar said that he did not wish to be on a Community Treatment Order, did not wish to take medication, and did not accept his diagnosis.
Mr. Johar’s criminal history is limited. In 2016, he was convicted of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle that resulted in a 30-day conditional sentence and a three-year probation term, and a fine in 2018 for failing to comply with probation.”
Reasons for Restriction of Liberty:
- The Hospital Report sets out the reasons for Mr. Johar’s seclusion on March 26, 2026:
“On March 26, 2026, Mr. Johar was observed to have dressed in an unusual manner, wearing a face cap to the side, a T-shirt with a belt around his waist, and had a pencil tucked into the corner of the belt. He had an inscription written with a pencil on white paper saying, “YOU ARE YOUR OWN DOCTOR.” When asked about the reason for holding a pencil, he informed staff that it was his weapon, and he would use it on anyone, especially the doctor. Staff noted a stockpile of urine, stored in about seven soft drink bottles, with written notes attached with each bottle.
When the treating psychiatrist entered the unit, Mr. Johar stated, “doctor, you are a rapist.” He subsequently walked to the hallway and stood in a particular posture for about 1hr. and 40 mins. without changing position. He only engaged with hospital management selectively. It was noted that posturing and selective mutism were in keeping with catatonia which was a feature of psychotic illness.
During this period, a code silver was called (person with a weapon, the pencil) and a planned intervention was instituted. Staff engaged with Mr. Johar to make him give up the weapon; however, he stated that “my pencil is the sword of truth. You guys are terrorists; fuck off.” At this point, the police (OPP) were called who responded swiftly. Two OPP officers approached and engaged with Mr. Johar for a while. He eventually pulled out the pencil and brandished it menacingly. In the process, one of the officers had a mild abrasion.
Mr. Johar was eventually put in physical restraints and on a high-risk bed. With the help of the police, he was transferred to the seclusion room. While in seclusion, staff attempted to measure his vital signs as staff considered various causes of the suspected catatonia. However, this was challenging to do so as Mr. Johar attempted to bite staff during the process.
Mr. Johar continued to be an ongoing risk to others and himself. He continued to express ongoing thoughts of harm directed at the psychiatrist, nursing staff, and other allied health staff at the Southwest Centre. He maintained that he would do this in an attempt to protect himself (i.e. self-defense). He had poor insight into his illness as well as why the Code Silver needed to be initiated on March 26, 2026. His mental status continued to deteriorate. He continued to consume his own urine and declined to handover the urinal in the seclusion room to staff claiming that his urine was “pure.” He refused to drink water because he believed it was not pure and contained heavy metals. He refused to consume food solids, but would only suck the juice out of fruit, such as oranges, as he was adamant that he needed to remain on a “liquid diet.”
At the time of this writing, Mr. Johar remained in seclusion and his restriction remains.”
Course Since Last Disposition:
- Mr. Johar’s course since his last Disposition is set out in detail in the Hospital Report. The following extracted paragraphs are relevant to this hearing:
“Mr. Johar remained on the treatment unit, B2, for the entirety of the reporting period under the psychiatric care of Dr. Naghmeh Mokhber.
Mr. Johar’s presentation fluctuated and included paranoid delusions and bizarre behaviour. He engaged in physical violence twice during this reporting period and continued to have paranoid beliefs about possessing a weapon and defending himself.
At the time of this writing, Mr. Johar is in seclusion, details to follow. He most recently, on April 22, 2026, attended a Consent and Capacity Board (CCB) hearing, and is planning to appeal its findings.
Between May 2025 to July 2025, Mr. Johar met several times with psychology services for a personality and cognitive assessment. On August 26, 2025, the psychology assessment report concluded that there was no evidence of a long - standing personality disorder, and that his results were consistent with current psychotic symptoms.
In October 2025, his diagnostic clarity continued, and his diagnosis had been revised from schizophrenia to a personality disorder secondary to head trauma. This adjustment reflected a re-evaluation of his clinical presentation and history.
Mr. Johar expressed a desire to discontinue his medication due to unwanted side effects, specifically restlessness which he found intolerable.
On October 14, 2025, Mr. Johar became capable to make treatment decisions.
The treatment team continued to monitor closely for any emerging psychiatric symptoms given medication discontinuation.
Mr. Johar’s treatment capacity was assessed and on February 19, 2026, he was deemed incapable to consent to treatment of his mental disorder. He filed a form challenging this decision and a CCB hearing was scheduled on April 22, 2026. Mr. Johar was found incapable, however, he is planning to appeal the findings.”
Evidence at the Hearing:
- The Board had available to it the evidence and documents forming the Record, the Exhibits, and oral evidence from Dr. Jack and Hanspal Johar. Dr. Jack testified as follows:
a) He is a Clinical Fellow working under the supervision of Dr. Mokhber.
b) He adopts the contents of the Hospital Report.
c) Mr. Johar’s hospital and ground privileges were restricted on March 26, 2026, when he was placed in seclusion after brandishing a pencil as a weapon, which he referred to as “the sword of truth” and later stated “the pen is mightier than the sword.”
d) Staff attempted to de-escalate the situation for approximately one hour and 40 minutes, but police were ultimately required. When police attempted to retrieve the pencil, Mr. Johar brandished it and caused a mild abrasion to an officer before being placed in seclusion, with assistance from security and the use of chemical restraints.
e) At the time of this incident, Mr. Johar had been nonadherent with all his medications for approximately six months. During this period of non-adherence, Mr. Johar demonstrated a progressive decompensation of his mental state, with symptoms very similar to those presented prior to the Index Offences, including acting on delusions, holding rigid beliefs against authority figures, and perceiving the need to use a weapon.
f) Although Mr. Johar’s treatment capacity appeal has been withdrawn, he has not received any treatment because his brother, his Substitute Decision Maker (“SDM”), has not consented.
g) Mr. Johar cannot be safely released from seclusion until he begins treatment with medication, shows improvement in his mental state, and demonstrates a reduction in his psychotic symptoms.
h) Mr. Johar continues to make statements about harming others, including comments about locating his doctor’s address, similar to threats made at his previous Board hearing.
i) Mr. Johar’s ongoing restriction is necessary and appropriate given his current risk profile.
j) Mr. Johar’s diagnosis has now been clarified as schizoaffective disorder.
k) Mr. Johar has no insight into his illness or symptoms.
l) Mr. Johar’s physical health is also deteriorating. He refuses vital sign checks, has tachycardia, suspected hypokalemia, and continues to produce dark, concentrated urine, raising concerns about dehydration and medical compromise. Amidst all these health concerns, he insists on consuming his own urine.
m) The HCR-20 risk formulation is unchanged from last year, and Mr. Johar has no insight into his Index Offences or his violence potential.
n) The re-offence scenario set out in the Hospital Report is still true today: if Mr. Johar were outside of the forensic system, he would discontinue medication, rapidly decompensate, act on delusions involving authority figures and may feel the need to carry a weapon, exposing the public to psychological, sexual and physical harm.
o) The Mental Health Act would not be sufficient to protect the safety to the public, so a Detention Disposition is necessary.
- In response to questions from counsel for the Attorney General, Dr. Jack testified:
a) Mr. Johar continues to present as a significant and active risk for violence, and the current restrictions, including seclusion, remain necessary to protect staff and the public.
b) Mr. Johar’s ongoing threats and expressed intent to use violence demonstrate a real and credible danger.
c) Mr. Johar believes he is entitled to carry a weapon, specifically a kirpan, which he views as a spiritual symbol. In the absence of a kirpan, Mr. Johar would use an object he believes represents it.
d) Mr. Johar’s weapon-related behaviour is not situational, but rooted in fixed psychotic beliefs, thus increasing the risk of the re-occurrence of violence.
e) Mr. Johar maintains a strong desire for personal freedoms, including the right to use force or violence to defend his views, and he does not recognize that others have similar rights to personal boundaries or safety. This lack of understanding of reciprocal rights contributes to his risk profile and supports the need for the continued restriction.
f) Mr. Johar continues to express intent to cause harm. These threats are consistent with his delusional beliefs and past behaviour, and they have not diminished during seclusion.
- In response to questions from counsel for Mr. Johar, Dr. Jack testified:
a) Seclusion is not inherently distressful to Mr. Johar, as Mr. Johar often remains secluded because he feels threatened by staff and he believes he would need to confront people if he were to come out of seclusion.
b) The treatment team has repeatedly attempted to allow Mr. Johar out of seclusion, but he has declined these opportunities, stating that he feels unsafe. Mr. Johar believes the treatment team will harm him.
c) Although prolonged seclusion can negatively affect mental health, in this case it remains the safest option, given the ongoing risk Mr. Johar poses and his refusal of treatment.
d) Mr. Johar has been on a spiritual quest in recent years, attempting to understand “the underlying nature of the universe” through self-directed experimentation, including food restriction, use of substances and behaviours such as drinking his own urine. He insists on pursuing this experimentation without medical assistance.
e) Mr. Johar has previously described himself as a freeman, as set out in last year’s Reasons for Disposition.
f) It is unknown if Mr. Johar’s beliefs are religiously based, but they appear to be part of his broader pattern of unpredictable and idiosyncratic behaviour.
g) Mr. Johar’s progress out of seclusion would be faster if his SDM were willing to consent to treatment. His cooperation would significantly assist in initiating long-acting injectable medication.
- In response to questions from the panel, Dr. Jack testified:
a) The hospital is actively considering steps to replace the current SDM if he continues to withhold consent for treatment. If consent is not provided, the hospital will begin the legal process to have him removed and ideally replaced with the Public Guardian and Trustee.
b) Since Mr. Johar entered seclusion, no further hands-on interventions have been required, but only because staff maintain distance and engage him only through the seclusion door.
c) The treatment team has arranged for a physician from another unit to attempt weekly assessments, because of his refusal to engage with the current treatment team.
d) Although Mr. Johar has not displayed overt physical aggression since the initial incident, he continues to express intent to use violence. He has expressed his wish not to attend this current hearing, saying that he has “something within” him that “desires to fight” and that he cannot guarantee he will not fight if brought out of seclusion.
e) The early working diagnosis of personality change due to head trauma has been ruled out. A neurological assessment was unremarkable.
f) Mr. Johar’s spiritual beliefs have reached delusional proportions, including beliefs about weapons, sunlight and purity rituals. While some beliefs may be culturally or spiritually grounded, his adherence to them is psychotic in nature.
g) The SDM’s refusal to consent to treatment with antipsychotics is partly based on his desire to preserve his relationship with his brother.
h) Mr. Johar has access to television, radio sets and reading materials.
- Mr. Hanspal Johar, the brother of and Substitute Decision Maker for Mr. Kanwardeep Johar, testified as follows:
a) He was present at the hearing and heard all the evidence presented.
b) He acknowledged that his brother has been in seclusion for several weeks and that he has been largely avoiding food, relying instead on drinking his own urine, although he accepted some food a few days prior.
c) He understands the hospital’s concerns about his brother’s physical health and the potential risk to his life.
d) He is Mr. Kanwardeep Johar’s SDM, and he is prepared to assist and to make decisions in his brother’s best interest.
e) He is not opposed to treatment or medication in principle, and he acknowledges that harming or threatening others is not appropriate behaviour.
f) A part of his hesitation in agreeing to his brother’s treatment with antipsychotic medication relates to his desire to preserve their relationship. He has concerns that his brother feels everyone in that institution is out to get him, and he wanted to give him a grace period to regain stability without medication.
g) He is not rigidly opposed to treatment and is open to changing his mind.
h) He is a yoga teacher, but not in the sense that the Western hemisphere understands a yoga teacher. He spoke about the intersection of spirituality and mental health.
i) Some of his brother’s beliefs, including the practise of sun gazing, have spiritual or cultural roots, and he has concerns that the psychiatric system is deeply ignorant of such traditions.
j) He is not rejecting treatment but wants to balance medical and spiritual considerations.
k) When asked how much time he would need to make a treatment decision, he stated that he could not give a firm timeline but felt pressured by the treating psychiatrist. He wanted additional time to speak with his brother, and to ensure that his brother felt supported and loved.
l) His goal is not to obstruct treatment but to ensure that decisions respect both his brother’s dignity and the spiritual context in which some of these behaviours arise.
- No other evidence was called.
Analysis and Conclusions:
Having heard and considered the entirety of the evidence, as well as submissions from the parties, the Board finds that Mr. Johar poses a significant threat to the safety of the public.
In Winko, the Supreme Court outlined that, in coming to the conclusion on the issue of significant risk, a Review Board should closely examine a range of evidence, including: the circumstances of the original offence; the past and expected course of the accused’s treatment; the present state of the NCR accused’s medical condition; the NCR accused’s own plans for the future; the support existing for the NCR accused in the community; and most importantly, the recommendations provided by experts who examined the NCR accused. In coming to our conclusion in this matter, the Board relies on the uncontroverted expert evidence of Dr. Jack, in addition to the documentary evidence before us.
Mr. Johar’s risk for future violence, as assessed using the HCR-20V3 tool, is influenced by several historical, clinical, and risk management factors.
a) Mr. Johar meets criteria for significant threat. He has a persistent major mental illness, recent and repeated violence, weapons preoccupation, poor insight, treatment refusal and rapid, severe decompensation when unsupervised or when not taking his medications. These factors are active, interacting and escalating, creating a substantial likelihood of physical or psychological harm if not under a Detention Order.
b) Mr. Johar has the following clear static risk factors, which elevate risk on their own: major mental disorder with repeated psychotic relapses; past violence, including weapons use and sexual aggression even when well; non-adherence with treatment across settings; and an attitude of condoning violence.
c) Mr. Johar’s clinical risk factors show active, untreated psychosis, violent ideation and behavioural instability, which directly lead to violent risk, as set out in the HCR-20V3.
d) Mr. Johar continues to suffer from active psychosis with persecutory and grandiose delusions. He continues to direct threats and violent ideation towards staff.
e) Mr. Johar has profound impaired insight and judgment.
- In particular, the Board relies on the following extracted paragraphs from the Hospital Report:
“Re-Offence Scenario
Absent forensic supervision, Mr. Johar would return to living in the community without engaging in psychiatric outpatient care. He would not take his medication as he has done historically, and during this reporting period, due to his lack of insight into his mental illness and treatment and his enjoyment of being in a state of mania. His delusions of reference would intensify; he would resume his experience of receiving commands from the universe and would follow them, as he has historically. He would engage in an unstructured lifestyle and may engage in substance use, both of which would further worsen his mental state. In response to his psychotic experiences, he would act out in a manner that would cause physical, sexual, and/or psychological harm to members of the public, as he has in the past and recently. Further, any engagement with authorities would lead to both psychological and physical harm as he would perceive them as a threat, as exemplified historically and during this reporting period.
Overall Clinical Assessment of Risk
It is the opinion of the treatment team that Mr. Johar continues to pose a risk of serious physical or psychological harm to members of the public. The following evidence supports this opinion:
Mr. Johar’s presentation remain complicated and further diagnostic clarify was required this reporting period. His presentation fluctuated and he presents with paranoid, grandiose, and bizarre delusions. He fails to appreciate the impact on his functioning and his risk for violence and its effect on others. This reporting period he used violence, once with a peer due to comments being made about his mother, and the other lead to a code silver and law enforcement intervention. He continues to hold paranoid beliefs about possessing a weapon and defending himself;
Mr. Johar has a history of noncompliance with psychiatric medication in the community and was not taking medication at the time of the index offence. Historically, he declined a Community Treatment Order. He believes medication is poisonous and does not believe that he needs treatment of any kind. He discontinued his medication in October 2025. He was found incapable to consent to treatment and is appealing this finding;
Mr. Johar has poor insight into his mental illness, need for treatment, and risk for violence; and
Mr. Johar does not have community mental health supports.
An alternate disposition would not be appropriate. Mr. Johar is at high risk to reoffend and has demonstrated violence this reporting period. He requires close supervision and monitoring. Further, the hospital needs to be in a position to approve Mr. Johar’s housing in the community to ensure the necessary monitoring, support, and supervision. The team is also of the opinion that it is necessary to have the ability to quickly return him to the hospital should he show warning signs of decompensation by exercising the warrant of committal. The provisions of the Mental Health Act would not be sufficient to mitigate the risk to public safety.”
In light of the Board's finding of significant threat, it is charged with shaping a Disposition for the coming year. Any Disposition other than a Detention Order would not be appropriate, as Mr. Johar is a high risk to re-offend and has demonstrated violence during this reporting period as well as during the previous reporting period. He requires close supervision and monitoring. The hospital needs to be able to approve his housing in the community, to ensure he receives the necessary monitoring, support and supervision. As set out in the Hospital Report, the treatment team also believes it needs the ability to quickly return him to hospital by exercising the Warrant of Committal, should he show warning signs of decompensation. The provisions of the Mental Health Act would not be sufficient to mitigate the risk to public safety.
The Board agrees that a Restriction of Liberty has taken place, pursuant to the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in R vs MLC (2010 ONCA 843), as well as in Regina vs Campbell (2018 ONCA 140). The Board has also concluded, based on the evidence before us, that the hospital’s decision to significantly restrict Mr. Johar’s liberty, by transferring him to seclusion on March 26, 2026, and his ongoing restriction, were warranted and necessary.
The restriction of Mr. Johar’s liberty was necessary because, at the time it was imposed, he was actively decompensating, expressing violent intent, possessing a weapon, and demonstrating psychotic symptoms, all of which created an imminent risk of serious harm. The hospital had no lesser measures available that could have safely managed the risk.
On March 26, 2026, Mr. Johar armed himself with a pencil, which he explicitly described as a weapon. A code silver was called, and he brandished the weapon at the police.
The ongoing restriction of liberty is also necessary and appropriate, as Mr. Johar has a profound lack of insight and is continuing to refuse treatment. He is denying that he has a mental illness, refusing medication and rejecting all safety planning. In fact, Mr. Johar stated that he did not feel it was safe for him to come out of seclusion, as it would be necessary for him to fight with, and harm, others.
As set out in the Hospital Report, there is no effective, safe strategy available to avoid the ongoing use of seclusion until such time as Mr. Johar is optimally treated.
In consideration of all the evidence, submissions of the parties and criteria set forth in s. 672.54, the paramount consideration being the safety of the public, in addition to the mental condition of Mr. Johar, his reintegration into society and his other needs, the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a continuation of the existing Detention Order.
DATED this 3rd day of June 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.
Mr. J. Weinstein Alternate Chairperson Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board