The courtroom falls silent as the verdict is read: “Not criminally responsible.” These three words reflect one of the most nuanced and often misunderstood aspects of Canada’s justice system—a determination that the accused committed the act but, due to mental disorder, cannot be held criminally accountable. Recent high-profile cases have thrust this complex legal standard back into the national spotlight, raising questions about the intersection of mental health and criminal justice.
The legal principle of criminal non-responsibility has deep roots in Canadian jurisprudence, dating back to the landmark Supreme Court decision in R. v. Swain. The principle recognizes that criminal liability requires not just the commission of an act, but also the mental capacity to understand its wrongfulness or nature. When severe mental disorders intervene, the traditional concepts of guilt and punishment must yield to rehabilitation and treatment.
Vincent Li, who legally changed his name to Will Baker after treatment, represents one of the most discussed cases in recent memory. In 2008, Baker killed and dismembered Tim McLean on a Greyhound bus in Manitoba. The court found him not criminally responsible due to schizophrenia that left him under the delusion that God had ordered him to commit the act. After years of treatment, Baker received an absolute discharge in 2017, a decision that sparked intense public debate about the balance between public safety and individual rights.
“The NCR determination isn’t about denying that something terrible happened,” explains Dr. Alexander Robertson, forensic psychiatrist at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health. “It’s recognizing that the person’s mental state at the time prevented them from making a rational choice or understanding their actions were wrong.”
Similarly, Matthew de Grood fatally stabbed five people at a Calgary house party in 2014 while experiencing a psychotic episode. Diagnosed with schizophrenia, de Grood believed the apocalypse was imminent and that his victims were possessed. Despite the horrific nature of his actions, the court determined he could not appreciate the moral wrongfulness of his conduct at the time of the killings.
The process for those found not criminally responsible differs markedly from the traditional penal system. Rather than serving a predetermined sentence, individuals are placed under the authority of provincial review boards that conduct annual assessments. These boards can order continued detention in a psychiatric facility, conditional discharge with community supervision, or eventually, an absolute discharge when the person no longer poses a significant risk to public safety.
“It’s actually a more rigorous system than traditional incarceration in many ways,” notes criminal defense attorney Jasmine Williams. “There’s no automatic release date. Each case receives individual assessment based on the person’s progress and risk level.”
Statistics from the Mental Health Commission of Canada indicate that recidivism rates for those released after an NCR finding are significantly lower than for those released from prison—approximately 10% compared to nearly 40% for the general prison population within two years of release.
Critics, however, argue that the system sometimes prioritizes the rights of the accused over victims’ families. Following the Christopher Husbands case—where the man responsible for the 2012 Toronto Eaton Centre shooting received an NCR verdict at his second trial—public calls for reform intensified. Husbands had claimed post-traumatic stress disorder significantly impaired his ability to make rational choices during the incident.
“The system isn’t perfect,” acknowledges Dr. Robertson. “But we must remember it serves dual purposes: protecting society while also ensuring that people with serious mental illnesses receive appropriate treatment rather than punishment that can’t address the underlying cause.”
Recent legislative changes have attempted to address public concerns. The Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act of 2014 created a “high-risk” designation for certain NCR accused, allowing longer periods between review board hearings and placing additional restrictions on discharge conditions.
The Canadian justice system continues to grapple with these difficult cases that exist at the intersection of law, psychiatry, and public safety. As our understanding of mental health evolves, so too must our approach to criminal responsibility. What remains constant is the need to balance community protection with compassionate treatment of those
