Ontario Review Board
Re: Anil Sharma
ORB File No. 7576
Hearing Date: Thursday, May 7, 2026
Hearing Location: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. G. Beasley
Members: Dr. Y. Alatishe Dr. L. Leong Ms. J. Ferguson Mr. W. Apted
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Anil Sharma Amicus: Mr. D. Garrick
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. G. Meaney, student-at-law
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. M. Feindel
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated June 3, 2026)
Introduction:
Mr. Sharma was found not criminally responsible on July 5, 2019, for the Criminal Code offence of aggravated assault.
He is currently subject to a detention order under a Disposition dated May 27, 2025, with privileges that extend to living in the community in accommodation approved by the person in charge.
A panel of the Ontario Review Board (“the panel”) convened this annual hearing on May 7, 2026, at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (“CAMH”), to review the current Disposition pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada. Mr. Sharma did not attend the hearing.
Mr. Garrick attended the hearing as Amicus Curiae. He informed the panel that Mr. Sharma had not attended his hearings in the past, Mr. Sharma was aware of the proceedings and the Hospital’s recommendations, and was content with the recommendations and that the hearing proceed in his absence. An order was made under s. 672.5(10) of the Criminal Code permitting Mr. Sharma’s absence.
At the commencement of the hearing, the Hospital recommended that there be a continuation of the current Disposition with one change being the removal of the abstinence provision, but with the UDS testing to remain a part of the order. Both Crown Counsel and Mr. Garrick supported the Hospital’s recommendation and therefore a joint submission was made to the Board.
After considering the evidence, the panel concluded that a continuation of the current detention order with the same terms and conditions with the exception of the removal of the abstinence clause was necessary and appropriate and the least onerous and least restrictive order in the circumstances.
Background:
Mr. Sharma is a 66-year-old man who was born in India. In 1977 he and his mother immigrated to Canada to join his brother who had come to Canada earlier. Mr. Sharma’s father remained in India and died in 2018. Mr. Sharma’s mother has since passed away.
Mr. Sharma married a woman in India and they both returned to Canada. At the time of the index offence Mr. Sharma was a taxi driver. He has no prior criminal record and no history of drug abuse. Mr. Sharm had regularly consumed alcohol but discontinued drinking after the index offence.
In 1987 Mr. Sharma began seeing a psychiatrist, Dr. Lalani, who treated him in the community for Schizophrenia and Panic Disorder. At the time of the index offence, Dr. Lalani had prescribed Stelazine to be taken orally, but Mr. Sharma had stopped taking his medication several weeks prior to the index offence.
Mr. Sharma developed a belief that a radio host had a relationship with his wife, and the radio host was turning Sikh taxi drivers against him. This belief began approximately 10 years before the index offence. This delusion caused Mr. Sharma to fear that he would be killed by the radio host and other taxi drivers. This paranoid ideation had become acute at the time of the index offence and resulted in Mr. Sharma driving at the victim.
Mr. Sharma has been residing with his wife, Meena Sharma, and his son, Dave Sharma, since the index offence. He is unemployed and financially supported with ODSP.
Diagnoses:
- Mr. Sharma is diagnosed with:
Schizophrenia;
Panic Disorder;
Rule out Alcohol Use Disorder (in remission).
- Mr. Sharma is also diagnosed with insulin dependent diabetes with neuropathy, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, obesity, and chronic headaches.
Index Offence:
- A synopsis of the facts pertaining to the index offence is taken from last year’s Reasons for Disposition and is as follows:
Mr. Sharma had a history of mental health issues with a diagnosis of schizophrenia and had been receiving care from a psychiatrist Dr. Lalani since 1994. According to Mr. Sharma, he stopped taking his medications six weeks prior to the incident. According to his family, he was paranoid concerning Sikhs, saying that he thought that they were making fun of him and that his wife was “with them.” He would listen to a Sikh radio program and think they were talking about him. While he worked in the taxi industry, he believed the Sikh community conspired with the taxi dispatchers to prevent him from making money and forcing him out of the industry. He also believed that Sikh taxi employees had attempted to poison him at one point. His family members stated that his paranoid delusions had been increasing over the few weeks leading up to the offence.
On October 17, 2017, Mr. Sharma left his home in the afternoon by car. As he was driving by Sheridan College, he saw a pedestrian walking northbound on the sidewalk of McLaughlin Road. The pedestrian was the victim, Pushpinder Singh, a 23-year old Sikh man. Mr. Sharma then deliberately drove his car over the curb, mounting the sidewalk, and struck the victim and a concrete light standard. It is estimated the vehicle was travelling 64 km/hr when it left the roadway. The impact sent the victim flying into the air and witnesses described hearing a pop and seeing the victim twisted in the air before hitting the ground. When he landed, he was unconscious but breathing. The force of the impact was so great that it caused him to lose control of his bowels and his pants and shoes had flown off. The victim also had a laceration to his abdomen and several other obvious injuries.
Several witnesses nearby ran over and called 911. They observed Mr. Sharma exiting his car and looking at the victim. He spoke to one of the witnesses, Mr. Bhatti, and told Mr. Bhatti that “he was on the road.” EMS arrived and the victim was transported to Sunnybrook Hospital with serious life-threatening injuries. Mr. Sharma was transported to Brampton Civic Hospital as a precaution and medically cleared. He spoke to the police and provided a history of incidents involving the Sikh community and admitted to intentionally driving at the pedestrian because he believed he was a member of the Sikh community.
Mr. Sharma was arrested for dangerous operation cause bodily harm and taken to 22 Division, where he provided an inculpatory statement. In the statement, he admitted to purposely driving off the roadway to strike the victim because he was wearing a turban and he believed him to be a Sikh.
Sharma spoke of being “so mad at Sikh people.” He saw the victim and deliberately hit him because he was angry at what Sikh people had done to him. For example, he spoke of how Sikhs had tried to poison him and were trying to kill him. He claimed he did not want to kill the victim but did admit to wanting to injure him. He acknowledged it was his fault, but also that he was very angry at Sikhs.
As a result of the incident, the victim suffered numerous injuries, including splenic laceration; left kidney lacerations; multiple fractures (neck, knees, 10th rib); damaged ligaments in both legs; multiple brain lesions consistent with diffuse axonal injury; artery damage; and blood clots. The victim was admitted to hospital on October 17 and discharged to rehabilitation on November 30, 2017. While in hospital, he underwent various tests, examinations, and therapies. He was placed on multiple medications and suffered pneumonia. The long-term consequences of his injuries are unknown.
The evidence at this hearing consisted of the Hospital Report dated April 24, 2026, authored by Dr. Choptiany, and the testimony of Dr. Choptiany, Mr. Sharma’s primary psychiatrist.
The Hospital Report set out the following with respect to the past reporting year:
Centre for Addiction and Mental Health: April 2025 to April 2026
Mr. Sharma continued to reside in the community in a condominium along with his wife and son. There were no incidents of violence, substance or alcohol use, or unauthorized leaves of absence (ULOA). Mr. Sharma did not require hospitalization. He met with his case worker, Ms. Di Bernardo, every two weeks and with his psychiatrist, Dr. Choptiany, monthly virtually or in person. Mr. Sharma spent his days at home due to physical health concerns including difficulties with his vision and pain in his right eye.
Mr. Sharma’s schizophrenia was treated with the long-acting antipsychotic medication haloperidol 150 mg monthly. He continued to have paranoid delusional beliefs regarding the Sikh community but did not act on them. Nor was he preoccupied or fixated on these delusions. He had limited insight into his delusional beliefs and reported that he could not recall details regarding the index offence. He rarely spoke about concerns regarding members of the Sikh community due to his primary concerns pertaining to his physical heath over the past year.
Mr. Sharma was reluctant to taper his clonazepam. He continued to take 0.5 mg in the morning and 0.25 in the evening. He did not experience any panic attacks over the past year.
Mr. Sharma secured a family doctor, Dr. Shaista Amin, and no longer frequented walk-in doctors. He was treated for type 2 diabetes, peripheral neuropathy, hypertension, dyslipidemia, chronic headaches, and iron deficiency anemia.
In July 2024, Mr. Sharma had bleeding behind the left eye. He started eye injections at the Prism Eye Institute in August 2024. He had cataract eye surgery on the right eye on January 24, 2025, and on the left eye on April 25, 2025. Despite treatment, he continued to have trouble with his vision and pain in his right eye. He continued to attend the Prism Eye Institute for eye injections and laser eye treatments. He underwent a consultation appointment with ophthalmologist Dr. Wong on April 13, 2026. Surgical intervention was recommended and anticipated to be scheduled within a month of his appointment.
Mr. Sharma was referred to an endocrinologist and declined to attend due to his concerns regarding his eye. The treatment team encouraged him to follow up on the recommendations by his family physician. He has since been rereferred for an endocrinological assessment.
Mr. Sharma’s non-psychotropic medications included:
Basaglar Insulin 15ml
Valsartan 80 mg
Tamsulosin CR 0.4 mg
Rosuvastatin 5 mg
Taro-Gliclazide MR 60 mg
Apo-Sitagliptin/Metformin
Amlodipine 5 mg
Jamp-Docusate Sodium Capsules
Jardiance 10 mg
Pregabalin 150 mg
MENTAL STATUS EXAMINATION (APRIL 2026)
Mr. Sharma presented as dressed and groomed appropriately and appeared his stated age. He was seen over video conferencing with Webex. He maintained good eye contact throughout the assessment and did not display any abnormal behaviours. He was cooperative answered questions appropriately. His speech was normal in rate, rhythm, and volume. His mood was stable. His affect was euthymic. His thought process was organized. He did not describe any overt delusional content on assessment and did not appear to be responding to internal stimuli. He denied suicidal or violent ideation. His insight into his index offence and into his mental illness was limited.
Mr. Sharma’s key protective factors include his self-control, motivation for treatment, attitude towards authority, medication effectiveness, living circumstance, professional supports and external control. Possible areas/goals for improvement/treatment targets include coping and leisure activities. His overall level of protection was considered moderately high.
Criminogenic Risk Factors
Major Mental Illness: Mr. Sharma suffers from a primary psychotic disorder that has resulted in paranoia and disorganized behaviour. When untreated and unwell, his risk of violence would be elevated. Mr. Sharma continues to have some paranoid beliefs about the Sikh people, although these are attenuated in intensity, and he is less preoccupied with them. In addition to schizophrenia, Mr. Sharma has cognitive impairment that may be progressive and can further lead to a destabilization of his mental status.
Lack of Insight: Mr. Sharma has limited insight into his mental illness, which increases his risk of non-compliance with treatment. He also has a limited understanding of potential destabilizers, so would have difficulty avoiding such risks without education and support. He remains uncertain about the relationship of his illness with the index offence, indicating some degree of impaired insight into his risk for violence. Nonetheless he has been adherent with his medications.
Past History of Violence: Mr. Sharma’s index offence was violent in nature, resulting in significant injuries to the victim. Fortunately, he has no other known history of violence.
Substance Use: Mr. Sharma has a historic diagnosis of alcohol use disorder. There has been no alcohol or drug use during the past few years.
Lack of Structure and Employment: Mr. Sharma is currently unemployed and has few, if any, structured activities in his life.
Social Isolation: Other than his immediate family, Mr. Sharma has very limited social supports and interactions.
Re-Offence Scenario
The most likely scenario in which Mr. Sharma would re-offend would involve non-adherence with antipsychotic medication, which could result in an increase in the intensity of his psychotic symptoms (specifically paranoia and disorganized thinking and behaviour). This could also be exacerbated by psychosocial stressors and isolation. In a decompensated state, Mr. Sharma would be at increased risk of acting out violently, as a result of his paranoid delusions. He may also turn to alcohol to cope with his psychotic symptoms, which could result in a further disinhibiting effect on his behaviour and increase his risk of acting on any violent thoughts. The most likely victims would be individuals incorporated into his delusional beliefs, who have most recently primarily been members of the Sikh community.
PSYCHIATRIC OPINIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Psycholegal Issues
a. Capacity to Consent for Treatment: Capable
b. Capacity to Manage Financial Affairs: Capable
c. Duty to Inform: None
Diagnoses
Mr. Sharma’s history is consistent with a diagnosis of Schizophrenia. He has a longstanding history of paranoid delusions and auditory hallucinations, dating back 41 years, for which he has been receiving treatment with antipsychotic medication. He has held delusional beliefs about various people in his life, ranging from colleagues to family members, and most recently, to members of the Sikh community. Although there was an attenuation of symptoms with treatment, it is not clear he was in full remission and suffered worsening of his symptoms after a period of non-adherence. He currently continues to experience paranoia.
Mr. Sharma also has a historical diagnosis of Panic Disorder. He described panic attacks as “colour attacks” wherein he has visual illusions of colour. He had one such attack in the past reporting year. The nature of his panic attacks is somewhat atypical and could potentially represent manifestations of his psychotic disorder, but he has nonetheless been diagnosed with panic disorder in the past and this should be further observed moving forward.
Also, Mr. Sharma has a historical rule out diagnosis of Alcohol Use Disorder, which is in sustained remission as he has reported no alcohol use since 2016.
Mr. Sharma has a rule-out diagnosis of Mild Cognitive Impairment. His cognitive difficulties have been demonstrated on psychological testing, although it is unclear to what extent these are part of the negative symptoms of schizophrenia vs an active dementing process.
It is our opinion that Mr. Sharma presents a significant threat to public safety. Based on the clinical risk assessment tools utilized, he likely represents a low to moderate risk for re-offence. Despite the fact that there have not been further incidents of violence in the community since the index offence in 2017, he continues to exhibit symptoms of paranoia, which was the primary driving factor for the commission of the index offence. In general, he has relatively few static risk factors, but his dynamic risk remains elevated, given his ongoing psychosis and limited insight. Although the risk of re-offence may be low to moderate, his re-offence scenario would likely involve significant harm to others, thus posing a significant threat to public safety.
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is our opinion that the necessary and appropriate Disposition remains a Detention Order, with the ability to live in the community. We recommend the removal of the provision requiring Mr. Sharma to abstain from alcohol and other substances, given his abstinence over the past decade. We recommend the inclusion of urine drug screening.
Testimony of Dr. Choptiany:
Dr. Choptiany gave evidence with respect to the past reporting year. Dr. Choptiany testified that Mr. Sharma has been focused on his physical health issues this past reporting year, and, in particular, issues he faces with respect to his eyes and possible surgery. Dr. Choptiany reported that Mr. Sharma has complicated health concerns including metabolic issues and eye issues related to his diabetes, which include vision issues and eye pain. During this past reporting year, he has had multiple consultations from experts with respect to his vision and will need surgery but he is still waiting for a surgical date. These medical concerns affect Mr. Sharma’s functioning and his moods but this has not adversely impacted his psychotic symptoms.
Dr. Choptiany testified that Mr. Sharma still has paranoid beliefs similar to those he had during the index offence.
Dr. Choptiany testified that Mr. Sharma is not going out as much and therefore is not exposed to triggers as often but there is always the possibility that his medical issues could impact his mental stability. Dr. Chan added that Mr. Sharma has fairly significant cognitive deficits which are possibly linked to schizophrenia.
Dr. Choptiany testified that further decline in Mr. Sharma’s functioning is a possibility given his cognitive difficulties, which are secondary to schizophrenia or a dementing process but that it is hard to say which. Dr. Choptiany reported that while there is no obvious progression of such decline, Mr. Sharma obtained a fairly low score when tested with respect to the risk to re-offend, as set out on page 22 of the Hospital Report and which was confirmed objectively. However, Mr. Sharma has difficulty remembering things. Previously, Mr. Sharma had some sense of the index offence but this reporting year he couldn’t recall it and that represents a progression with respect to his cognitive ability. However, Dr. Choptiany was uncertain as to how much Mr. Sharma’s medical issues affect his cognitive ability. Dr. Choptiany testified that Mr. Sharma still experiences paranoia about the Sikh community.
Dr. Choptiany gave evidence that Mr. Sharma’s insight into his mental illness has remained static and that while he knows he is diagnosed with schizophrenia and has been told that his symptoms are paranoia and that he takes medication for it, his understanding is that he is taking medication because of panic attacks. He also endorses that he is being targeted by individuals he is trying to avoid.
Dr. Choptiany testified that support from his wife is limited and although he is living in the same house with her and their son, the three of them live very separate lives in that house. However, his wife does have a sense of how Mr. Sharma is doing and Dr. Choptiany testified that he believes that she would call Mr. Sharma’s caseworker, who is his primary support, if the need arose.
Dr. Choptiany gave evidence that the recommendation of the treatment team is a continuation of the current detention order, which they believe to be necessary as Mr. Sharma continues to meet the threshold of significant threat as a result of his major mental illness and the associated symptoms, along with the very serious nature of the index offence. In addition, Dr. Choptiany testified that Mr. Sharma has a history of medication non-compliance or partial compliance and gave an example of a period when Mr. Sharma switched impulsively to oral medication from injectable. Dr. Choptiany added that Mr. Sharma is now back on injectable medication and that because he is capable with respect to treatment, he can make such decisions to change his medications.
Dr. Choptiany continued that while we haven’t seen aggression or violence since Mr. Sharma has been under the auspices of the Board, there are dynamic issues that could pose a risk to the public and his cognitive issues make navigating his problems more difficult.
Dr. Choptiany testified that, in the event that Mr. Sharma needed to be re-hospitalized, a detention order would be necessary. As set out on page 13 of the Hospital Report, Dr. Choptiany testified that he tried to change Mr. Sharma’s medications and Mr. Sharma experienced very severe side effects and the trial was unsuccessful. It was a very adverse trial of that medication and his experience was not positive and Mr. Sharma wanted to leave hospital said he would be reluctant to re-admit himself on a voluntary basis. Dr. Choptiany opined that a detention order is the least restrictive order in the circumstances and it allows Mr. Sharma to remain in the community, be supported by his case worker, and if any changes occur, Dr. Choptiany would not have to rely on the Mental Health Act. Dr. Choptiany opined that Mr. Sharma would not meet Box A criteria or Box B criteria (as he is capable), and therefore the MHA would be insufficient, and, in addition, it would be difficult to maintain Mr. Sharma on a Form 3.
With respect to why the hospital was recommending the removal of the abstinence clause despite the fact that Mr. Sharma has been diagnosed with alcohol use disorder, Dr. Choptiany testified that Mr. Sharma has not used substances for some time and the hospital would retain the right to do urine drug screens. Dr. Choptiany confirmed that he had no concerns about removing this condition.
In response to a question, Dr. Choptiany confirmed that if Mr. Sharma does not take his medications for even a few days, he experiences symptoms of his mental illness.
In response to a question as to whether his medication for diabetes impacts his mental health treatment, Dr. Choptiany opined that it did not, but that if the diabetes was to worsen with metabolic complications, it could impact Mr. Sharma’s mental health.
In response to a question, Dr. Choptiany testified that it is anticipated that Mr. Sharma will live indefinitely with his wife and son.
In response to a question, Dr. Choptiany testified that Mr. Sharma does not have access to a car, does not drive, is prohibited from driving, and is having difficulty with his vision. Dr. Choptiany added that, apart from his delusions about Sikhs, Mr. Sharma suffers no other delusions.
In response to a question pointing out that on page 38 of the Hospital Report it indicates that Mr. Sharma’s wife would be unlikely to report any changes in Mr. Sharma’s mental status to the hospital, Dr. Choptiany testified that although he and his wife and son live very separate lives in the same house, he does think that Mr. Sharma’s wife would call the hospital if anything was wrong as she does have some awareness of Mr. Sharma’s circumstances. However, Dr. Sharma added, in his opinion, Mr. Sharma’s wife should not be relied on solely.
In response to a question pointing out that Mr. Sharma is in his mid to late sixties and asking if it is foreseeable that he ever advance beyond a detention order, Dr. Choptiany testified that Mr. Sharma has little support except the treatment team, has made impulsive changes to his medications in the past, has the potential to decompensate quickly, and has no concerns about his detention order, which has been working for him. However, Dr. Choptiany added, if his medical issues were resolved and stable, it’s possible that Mr. Sharma could move beyond a detention order toward a conditional discharge.
In response to a question about the level of care Mr. Sharma may need in the future, Dr. Choptiany testified that his needs could increase over time.
In response to a question, Dr. Choptiany testified that he had no concerns about removing the abstinence clause or the weapons clause. Dr. Choptiany gave evidence that Mr. Sharma’s insight is limited and static, that he doesn’t have an understanding of how psychosis drives his symptoms, has limited support in the community, has significant health conditions and there is still some uncertainty as to how they may impact his mental state, and he has cognitive deficits which add to the problem.
Final Submissions:
- At the conclusion of the evidence, the hospital submitted that the least onerous and least restrictive disposition was a continuation of the current detention order with the removal of the abstinence clause and the weapons clause. Counsel for the Crown supported the hospital’s submission but supported an amendment to, and not the removal of, the weapons restriction so that the reference to firearms and ammunition would be left out but the restriction would still prohibit “offensive weapons.” Mr. Garrick agreed with the position taken by the Crown.
Analysis and Conclusion:
The panel agrees with the joint submission that Mr. Sharma remains a significant threat to the safety of the public, and that a continuation of the current Disposition is necessary and appropriate with two changes to the terms and conditions, being the removal of the abstinence clause and the amendment of the weapons prohibition to remove reference to firearms and ammunition and instead prohibit all “offensive weapons”.
The Board has come to this conclusion based on the evidence presented, bearing in mind that Mr. Sharma is diagnosed with a major mental disorder, and continues to experience paranoia and delusional beliefs, particularly towards the Sikh community. It was these symptoms of his illness which resulted in the very violent and near fatal index offence.
The evidence indicates that Mr. Sharma, in addition to the schizophrenia, has significant cognitive deficits and, over the course of the reporting year, has experienced serious health issues, most significantly, serious vision issues, which have become his focus, rather than his mental stability.
Mr. Sharma continues to have limited, static insight into his mental illness, and although he resides in the same house as his wife and son, lives fairly independently of them and receives almost all of his support from the treatment team. The evidence was clear that, as he is capable, he can make treatment decisions and has, in the past, made impulsive decisions which negatively affected his mental health. His cognitive deficits make psycho-education difficult and complicate his effective treatment. A deterioration of his mental status would undoubtedly result in a worsening of his symptoms and increase the risk to public safety.
For these reasons, the Board was of the unanimous view that the least onerous, least restrictive, most appropriate disposition is a continuation of the current detention order with two amendments, being the removal of the abstinence clause and a revision of the weapons prohibition to delete reference to firearms and ammunition and replace it with reference to all offensive weapons
In coming to this conclusion, the panel has applied the principles provided in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
DATED this 3rd day of June, 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Ms. J. Ferguson
Legal Member
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board