Case in Brief

A Case in Brief is a short summary of a written decision of the Court, drafted in plain language. These summaries are prepared by staff of the Supreme Court of Canada. They do not form part of the Court’s reasons for judgment and are not for use in legal proceedings.

R. v. Bharwani

Case summary

The Supreme Court of Canada has dismissed an appeal brought by a man convicted of murder who argued he was unfit to stand trial and wanted to introduce new evidence on appeal.

This appeal concerns whether an accused person with a history of serious mental illness was unfit to stand trial, and whether he could introduce new psychiatric evidence on appeal. As defined in section 2 of the Criminal Code, “unfit to stand trial” means that the accused is unable, on account of mental disorder, to conduct a defence or instruct counsel to do so.

Mr. Bharwani, who has a long history of mental health challenges, was charged with killing his roommate. During the pre-trial proceedings, several concerns were raised regarding his fitness to stand trial. A jury ultimately found him fit to do so.

At trial, Mr. Bharwani raised a defence of not criminally responsible on account of a mental disorder. The defence called two psychiatrists to testify as experts. They diagnosed the accused as having symptoms of schizophrenia and psychosis at the time of the offence, which prevented him from understanding the moral wrongfulness of his actions. The Crown also called a psychiatrist, who diagnosed the accused with schizophrenia but concluded he was capable of appreciating the nature and quality of his actions. A jury convicted him of first-degree murder.

Mr. Bharwani appealed his conviction and brought a motion before the Court of Appeal to introduce new evidence from two additional psychiatrists. The Court of Appeal dismissed both the motion and the appeal. He then appealed to the Supreme Court and brought a further motion to introduce new evidence.

The Supreme Court has dismissed the motion and the appeal.

Deference should be shown to the judge’s decision that the accused was fit to stand trial, and the new psychiatric evidence would not have changed the outcome of the trial.

Writing for a majority of the Court, Justice O’Bonsawin indicated that an accused is fit to stand trial when they are able to make and communicate decisions that are based in reality in the conduct of their defence or when instructing counsel to do so. This necessitates an understanding of the nature or object and potential consequences of the proceedings that is grounded in reality, as well as an ability to understand and select between available options and their consequences when making decisions. It is not required that an accused be able to make decisions in their best interests, but they cannot be overwhelmed by delusions, hallucinations, or other symptoms of their mental disorder when making and communicating those decisions. In this case, deference should be shown to the trial judge’s determination that although the accused’s mental disorder prevented him from making decisions in his own best interests, there were no reasonable grounds to believe that he did not understand the reality of his trial.

As to the new evidence the accused wanted to introduce before the Court of Appeal, it could not reasonably be expected to have affected the outcome of the trial and the court made no error that would warrant intervention. Likewise, the new evidence the accused wanted to introduce before the Supreme Court could not reasonably have affected the result of the trial and therefore should not be admitted.