R. v. Mohan-Varadarajan, 2026 ONSC 4038

CITATION: R. v. Mohan-Varadarajan, 2026 ONSC 4038

COURT FILE NO.: CR-26-10000061-00MO

DATE: 20260710

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

– and –

KRISHNAN MOHAN-VARADARAJAN

V. Gallegos, for the Crown

Mr. Krishnan Mohan-Varadarajan, self-represented

D. Medd, amicus curae

HEARD: 10 July 2026

S.A.Q. AKHTAR J.

Upon an application for the order of certiorari quashing the decision of Justice of the Peace Najib Tahiri made on 7 July 2026.

Factual Background and Overview

1On the 6 July 2026 at approximately 7:40 a.m., a police officer was patrolling in the area of Martin Grove Road and Richgrove Drive. He observed Mr. Mohan-Varadarajan, the respondent yelling at him. The respondent stuck his middle finger at the officer, and then approached him with both fists raised in a clenched position. The officer took the view that the respondent was about to commit an assault and arrested the respondent.

2The respondent was charged with assaulting the officer.

3On 7 July 2026 the respondent appeared, online, before Justice of the Peace Tahiri in the Ontario Court of Justice for a bail hearing. It became apparent the respondent was behaving in a manner that indicated that he was suffering from a mental illness. Duty counsel, who had spoken to the respondent, indicated that it might be better for him to appear in person.

4The respondent was making utterances towards the court indicating that he wanted to go home and that he didn't want to talk to the justice of the peace. The respondent indicated that he was "stressed out for the past lot of weeks because of money". He added, "Money controls the world. Money controls the world, money and clocks but money clocks are respect, admiration".

5After the respondent was brought before the court, he continued to make utterances unrelated to the bail hearing. For example he asked whether the court wanted wood to construct a courthouse. There were clear signs that the respondent needed some type of assistance for his mental health, particularly after he indicated that he wished to end his life.

6Crown counsel indicated that she might have withdrawn the charge but having seen the respondent and his condition in court, had come to the view that this was not appropriate in the circumstances. Crown counsel told the court that she was of the view that the respondent posed a danger to himself and others based on the utterances he had made.

7Notwithstanding these remarks the respondent continued to make comments that can be best described as unintelligible. The Justice of the Peace indicated that the respondent could run a bail hearing and duty counsel indicated that he wanted to do that. The Crown, on the other hand, told the Justice of the Peace that she was raising fitness as an issue and that it was the Crown’s position that the respondent was not fit to conduct a bail hearing. Crown counsel repeated her position that she would not withdraw the charge based on the respondent's behaviour.

8Throughout the proceedings the respondent continued to make comments that suggested he was not able to conduct a bail hearing and needed treatment for his mental condition.

9Finally, duty counsel informed the respondent that he could not run a bail hearing the respondent was not giving him proper instructions. The Justice of the Peace informed the respondent that he was not co-operating and directed that the respondent appear in the courthouse’s specialised mental health court the following day. The court then broke for lunch.

10When court resumed, the Justice of the Peace, without notice to the Crown, recalled the respondent’s matter. When the Crown enquired into why the respondent needed to be recalled, the Justice of the Peace simply replied “You’ll find out, okay, so soon. Let him appear and then we can talk”.

11When the respondent returned to court, the Justice of the Peace proceeded to make a ruling. He described the circumstances of the case and noted no one had been injured and no physical assault had occurred. The Justice of the Peace also indicated that the respondent had no prior criminal record but suffered from significant mental health issues. The Justice of the Peace also referred to the fact that the Crown was initially prepared to withdraw the charge but had changed its position after observing the respondent's disruptive behaviour.

12The Justice of the Peace then added:

In my respectful view, the subsequent conduct should not in the particular circumstances of this accused justify either the continuation of the prosecution or the accused's continued detention. The behaviour relied upon by the Crown appears to be a manifestation of the accused's untreated mental illness, rather than evidence of increased moral blameworthiness or criminality.

The accused has now spent a few days in custody solely because of behaviour that appears to flow from his deteriorating mental state. Continued incarceration is unlikely to address the underlying problem and is, in my view, more likely to aggravate his psychiatric condition. The criminal justice system should not be responding to manifestation of mental illness by prolonging detention where treatment rather than punishment is the proper intervention. Having considered all the circumstances, including the alleged offence, the absence of any physical injury and the accused's lack of any criminal record, the Crown's original assessment that the charge should be withdrawn and the accused's obvious deterioration while in custody, I am satisfied that the interests of justice are best served by staying these proceedings.

To continue the prosecution in these circumstances would serve little, if any, public interest and would risk using the criminal process to manage what is fundamentally a medical issue. The accused's present condition raises a reasonable ground to believe that he is suffering from a mental disorder requiring psychiatric assessment. His conduct before the Court and while in custody satisfies me that the statutory threshold for an examination under the Mental Health Act has been met.

13The Justice of the Peace ruled that the charge should be stayed. When asked by the Crown what section of the Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46, they were using to stay the charge, the Justice of the Peace replied:

I am staying the process and there is a section that you can find I have authority to stay judicially a matter. I don't know the exact and, as a matter of fact, on a lot of things I do probably by heart. I don't know the section, but I am satisfied that I am on a very solid ground staying the matter. If I don't, if I don't, you have recourse by appealing my order seeking a review.

14The Crown has done just that. This matter appears before me on an expedited schedule based on the respondent’s transportation to a hospital where he could be released at any point without any conditions.

15The Crown argues that the Justice of the Peace had no jurisdiction to stay the charge and, further, committed a breach of natural justice by failing to provide to the Crown an opportunity to make submissions on the issue.

16I agree with the Crown.

17It is somewhat mystifying that the Justice of the Peace would exercise one of the most draconian remedies in the criminal justice system and not know or be able to cite the authority that provided him the means to do so.

18The closest analogy would be s. 672.851(4) of the Criminal Code which states:

(4) A court may, of its own motion, conduct an inquiry to determine whether a stay of proceedings should be ordered if the court is of the opinion, on the basis of any relevant information, that

(a) the accused remains unfit to stand trial and is not likely to ever become fit to stand trial; and

(b) the accused does not pose a significant threat to the safety of the public.

19However, this section does not confer the power on the Justice of the Peace. The Criminal Code defines “court of criminal jurisdiction” as:

(a) a court of general or quarter sessions of the peace, when presided over by a superior court judge

(a.1) in the Province of Quebec, the Court of Quebec, the municipal court of Montreal and the municipal court of Quebec

(b) a provincial court judge or judge acting under Part XIX, and

(c) in the Province of Ontario, the Ontario Court of Justice;

20Section 35 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C. 43, does not include Justices of the Peace in the composition of the Ontario Court of Justice:

35 The Ontario Court of Justice shall consist of

(a) the Chief Justice of the Ontario Court of Justice appointed under subsection 42 (3), who shall be president of the Ontario Court of Justice;

(a.1) the Associate Chief Justice and the Associate Chief Justice-Co-ordinator of Justices of the Peace of the Ontario Court of Justice appointed under subsections 42 (4) and (5);

(b) a regional senior judge of the Ontario Court of Justice appointed under subsection 42 (6) for each region;

(b.1) the Senior Advisory Family Judge of the Ontario Court of Justice appointed under subsection 42 (6.2);

(c) such provincial judges as are appointed under subsection 42 (1); and

(d) such provincial judges as were assigned to the Provincial Court (Criminal Division) or the Provincial Court (Family Division) on the 31st day of December, 1989.

21As well, the s. 672.851(4) of the Criminal Code operates when an accused “remains unfit to stand trial” which requires a finding of unfitness to be made by a trial judge – something that the Justice of the Peace cannot do.

22The respondent appeared in front of the Justice of the Peace for one purpose: to decide whether or not he should be granted bail pursuant to s. 515(10) of the Criminal Code. That was the jurisdiction under which the Justice of the Peace operated.

23The manner in which the Justice of the Peace conducted this matter is also very troubling.

24It is unclear why the Justice of the Peace asked for the matter to be returned to court when the respondent had already been remanded to the Mental Health Court the following day. It is equally unclear why, when the Crown sought clarification, the Justice of the Peace ignored the Crown and proceeded to rule on the stay without hearing any further submissions.

25I also agree with the Crown that the Justice of the Peace also committed a breach of natural justice by making the ruling staying the charge without seeking submissions from the Crown.

26The Justice of the Peace had no power to stay the proceedings.

27It is inexplicable that the Justice of the Peace, charged solely with the responsibility of determining whether the respondent should be released by weighing the conditions for release against the risk to public safety, would disregard all of the legal procedures under which they were bound and simply operate on a whim which suited them. This type of conduct does nothing to promote confidence in the justice system and should not be repeated.

28For these reasons the Crown's application is granted. The stay of proceedings is set aside and the charges are reinstated. The matter must return to the Ontario Court of Justice so that the respondent can proceed with his bail hearing when he is fit to do so. That hearing must be in front of a different judicial officer to avoid any appearance of an apprehension of bias.

S.A.Q. Akhtar J.

Released: 10 July 2026

CITATION: R. v. Mohan-Varadarajan, 2026 ONSC 4038