ÎÚÑ»´«Ã½

Bharwani was 18 in early 2013 when he moved into a basement apartment in ÎÚÑ»´«Ã½ with other tenants, including a 23-year-old student.

Just days later, he attacked the student, striking her with a fireplace poker and then strangling her to death.

Shortly after, Bharwani was diagnosed with schizophrenia.

During pretrial proceedings, Bharwani chose to represent himself, prompting the court to appoint a lawyer known as an amicus curiae to assist in the case.

Bharwani was ultimately found fit to stand trial.

At trial, he raised a defence of not criminally responsible on account of a mental disorder. A jury convicted him of first-degree murder.

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed Bharwani’s motion to introduce fresh evidence and his appeal of the conviction, finding he had been fit to stand trial.

At the Supreme Court, Bharwani argued the Court of Appeal erred in not admitting the fresh evidence and asked that additional evidence concerning the reliability of a psychiatrist be allowed.

Bharwani asked the top court to allow his appeal, toss out his conviction and either substitute a verdict of not criminally responsible or order a new trial.

Writing for a majority of the Supreme Court, Justice Michelle O’Bonsawin noted an accused person has a right to control their own defence, be present at their trial and fully answer for themselves.

“However, when a person with a mental disorder faces prosecution, their condition may impair their ability to exercise fundamental rights that ensure a fair trial,” she wrote.

The presumption an accused person is fit to face justice can be refuted if the individual meets the Criminal Code definition of “unfit to stand trial.”

Bharwani’s appeal provided the Supreme Court with its first opportunity to interpret the definition since its enactment in 1991.

A majority of the court said an accused is fit to stand trial when they are able to make and communicate reality-based decisions in the conduct of their defence, or instruct counsel to do so.

The majority said this includes choices relating to the exercise of their right to full answer and defence — such as decisions about pleas, the mode of trial, selection of counsel, whether to testify, whether to call or cross-examine witnesses and closing submissions.

“This necessitates a reality-based understanding of the nature or object and possible consequences of the proceedings, as well as an ability to understand the available options and their consequences, and to select between those options when making decisions,” O’Bonsawin wrote.

“The accused is not required to make decisions in their best interests, but cannot be overwhelmed by delusions, hallucinations, or other symptoms of their mental disorder when making and communicating these decisions.”

While Bharwani occasionally showed signs of delusional behaviour at trial, he was always brought “back on track” by the trial judge and amicus, O’Bonsawin added.

“His delusions therefore did not prevent him from conducting his defence as he wished, at a reality-based level of competence,” she wrote.

A majority of the court also said the Ontario Court of Appeal did not err in refusing to admit the new evidence and dismissed Bharwani’s motion to introduce evidence about the psychiatrist’s reliability.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 25, 2025.