Understanding how mental illness intersects with the criminal justice system is vital—for both accused persons and the public. A recent Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) decision has clarified when a person is considered fit to stand trial and how mental disorders affect criminal responsibility.
At IQBAL LAW, we recognize how complex and emotionally charged these cases can be. Here’s what you need to know if mental health is a central issue in your or a loved one’s criminal case.
The Case: Schizophrenia, Self-Representation, and a Murder Charge
The case involved an accused charged with first-degree murder after killing his roommate. Throughout pre-trial proceedings, his mental health fluctuated. Diagnosed with schizophrenia and psychosis, the accused dismissed his lawyer and chose to represent himself. The court appointed an amicus curiae (independent advisor) to assist.
Despite psychiatric concerns, the jury found him fit to stand trial. At trial, he raised a Not Criminally Responsible due to Mental Disorder (NCRMD) defence.
Three psychiatrists testified:
- Two defence experts concluded he was unable to understand the moral wrongfulness of his actions.
- The Crown’s expert agreed he had schizophrenia but argued he still knew what he was doing—and that it was morally wrong.
The jury sided with the Crown’s expert, and the accused was convicted of first-degree murder.
Key Legal Issues Explained
1. What Does It Mean to Be “Fit to Stand Trial” in Canada?
Under section 2 of the Criminal Code, a person is unfit to stand trial if a mental disorder renders them unable to conduct a defence or instruct counsel.
The SCC clarified that fitness doesn’t require good judgment or even acting in your own best interests. It requires three things:
- A reality-based understanding of the trial and its consequences
- The ability to understand legal options and make choices
- The ability to communicate with the court or counsel
In this case, although the accused had delusional episodes, he demonstrated awareness of the trial, used legal tools (like peremptory challenges), and made submissions showing an understanding of disclosure and legal strategy. That was enough for fitness.
2. What Is the NCRMD Defence?
The NCR defence means the accused should not be held criminally responsible because they were suffering from a mental disorder that made them incapable of understanding the nature or moral wrongfulness of their actions.
This defence is not about denying the act—it’s about the accused’s mental state at the time of the offence.
In this case, two psychiatrists supported NCRMD. The third (for the Crown) disagreed. Despite questions raised post-trial about the Crown expert’s report-writing practices in other cases, the SCC found that this “fresh evidence” wouldn’t have changed the outcome.
Why This Decision Matters
This case confirms that mental illness does not automatically make someone unfit to stand trial, nor does it automatically result in an NCR verdict.
Fitness is about basic comprehension and communication, not about making smart decisions or avoiding self-harm in court. People with serious mental illness may still be fit to stand trial, even if they choose to represent themselves or make poor tactical choices.
On the other hand, the NCR defence remains a high bar. The burden is on the accused to show that their disorder truly impaired their moral reasoning at the time of the act.
Implications for Defence Lawyers and Accused Persons
This SCC decision reinforces several key principles:
- Trial judges must carefully balance medical evidence and courtroom conduct in determining fitness.
- Self-represented accused with mental illness still have the right to make decisions—even unwise ones—so long as they understand reality.
- The NCR defence must be supported by strong expert evidence, not just a diagnosis.
- Allegations about expert reliability (e.g., flawed report-writing) must meet a high threshold to overturn a conviction on appeal.
Conclusion: Protecting Rights While Ensuring Fair Trials
The justice system must strike a delicate balance: ensuring fair trials, protecting the rights of the mentally ill, and maintaining public confidence. This SCC case reaffirms the importance of a fact-specific, functional test for fitness and a rigorous standard for NCR findings.
If you or a family member is facing criminal charges and mental health is a concern, don’t navigate this alone. These cases require experienced legal representation and a deep understanding of both psychiatric evidence and Charter rights.
📞 Contact IQBAL LAW for a confidential consultation. We’re here to protect your rights—and help you build a defence that considers the full picture.
DISCLAIMER:
The information provided in this blog is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is established through this writing. You should consult with a qualified attorney for advice tailored to your specific situation. The lawyer and their firm disclaim any liability arising from reliance on this blog or any other content on this website.