When a violent crime shocks a community, one of the hardest truths for the public to accept is when the person responsible is found not criminally responsible because of a mental disorder. The recent Blair Donnelly case in Vancouver has once again raised tough questions about how Canada’s justice system handles individuals living with severe mental illness — and where the line should be drawn between treatment, rights, and public safety.
In a recent interview on The Jill Bennett Show (730 CKNW), Rob Dhanu KC, former federal Crown prosecutor, criminal defence lawyer, and co-founder of Dhanu Dhaliwal Law Group, broke down what “not criminally responsible” actually means and why the system sometimes fails to prevent repeat violence.
A Case That Shook British Columbia
Blair Donnelly, who fatally stabbed a stranger in Vancouver’s Chinatown in 2023, was found not criminally responsible due to a mental disorder (NCRMD). This same individual had been detained at the BC Forensic Psychiatric Hospital after being found NCRMD for killing his daughter in 2006 — and had reoffended twice since then, including another stabbing while on day pass in 2009.
Understandably, the public reaction was outrage and disbelief. How could someone found NCRMD multiple times still be released into the community?
“We Have to Understand Why These Laws Exist”
Rob Dhanu KC began by reminding listeners that Canada’s NCRMD laws are rooted in a painful historical reality.
“Historically, our treatment of people with mental illness was barbaric. We went from drilling holes in people’s skulls to release ‘evil spirits,’ to lobotomies that continued in Canada into the 1960s and ’70s, to locking people away indefinitely,” he explained. “Mentally ill individuals were treated as if they had no rights—often tortured, maimed, or even killed.”
Modern NCRMD law, he said, exists because of that history — to recognize that a person suffering from a severe mental disorder may not fully understand the nature or wrongness of their actions.
“The system is trying to balance the rights of mentally ill people—given that history—with an inexact science. And sometimes, we get it wrong.”
What Does “Not Criminally Responsible” Mean?
Under Section 16 of the Criminal Code of Canada, a person can be found not criminally responsible if, at the time of the offence, they were suffering from a mental disorder that made them incapable of understanding what they were doing or knowing it was wrong.
When that happens, the accused is neither acquitted nor convicted. Instead, they’re sent to the BC Review Board, which determines whether they should remain detained in hospital, be conditionally released, or be absolutely discharged.
“The Review Board includes legal and medical professionals,” Rob explained. “They can discharge the person completely if there’s no risk to the public, conditionally discharge them under supervision, or detain them in hospital.”
In Donnelly’s case, he was detained after killing his daughter in 2006 — but was later granted day passes and conditional releases, during which more violent incidents occurred.
Where the System Breaks Down
The Donnelly case exposes a flaw at the intersection of law and medicine. The BC Review Board and treating psychiatrists are required by law to release individuals under the least restrictive conditions possible, balancing their rights with public safety. But as Rob pointed out, psychiatry isn’t predictive science.
“A person might appear stable for years, but that doesn’t guarantee they’ll remain stable once released,” Rob said. “Doctors in past reviews concluded he was safe to release under conditions—but clearly, they were wrong.”
Despite repeated violent acts, Donnelly continued to be granted release privileges.
“At this point, we have to accept that regardless of how stable Mr. Donnelly seems during assessment, there’s a significant public safety risk if he’s released. While he still has fundamental freedom rights, there comes a time when public safety has to take priority.”
Should the Law Change?
The Criminal Code requires that Review Boards release individuals under “the least onerous and least restrictive” conditions consistent with public safety. But after multiple violent breaches, Rob says it’s fair to question whether the system needs reform.
“Anytime there’s a system failure, we need to review it from top to bottom,” he said. “That means looking at whether our assessment tools are rigorous enough and whether the law strikes the right balance between public protection and individual rights.”
What Happens Next
Following the most recent NCRMD verdict, Donnelly will again appear before the BC Review Board, which must reassess him at least every 12 months. The Board will determine whether he remains detained, conditionally discharged, or absolutely discharged.
Given his record of repeated violence while on release, Rob said he hopes the Review Board will weigh that history heavily in its next decision.
“When someone’s pattern is this consistent, we may need to err on the side of continued hospitalization rather than conditional release.”
Balancing Compassion and Safety
The Donnelly case is a painful reminder that even well-intentioned laws can fail when the realities of mental illness collide with the need to protect the public. The law must ensure fairness for the mentally ill — but never at the expense of community safety.
As Rob Dhanu KC emphasized, Canada must continue evolving its approach: “We have to understand why these laws exist, but we also have to recognize when the system is no longer protecting the people it was meant to serve.”
About Dhanu Dhaliwal Law Group
Dhanu Dhaliwal Law Group is a leading law firm serving clients across British Columbia in criminal defence, family law, immigration law and more. Co-founded by Rob Dhanu KC and Uphar Dhaliwal, the firm’s legal team combines courtroom experience with compassion, helping clients navigate some of the most difficult moments of their lives.
For legal support or to schedule a consultation, contact Dhanu Dhaliwal Law Group at 604-746-3330 or visit DDLaw.ca.
FAQs
1. What does “not criminally responsible due to a mental disorder” mean in Canada?
It means the accused was suffering from a mental disorder that made them incapable of understanding the nature or wrongness of their actions at the time of the offence.
2. Does an NCRMD verdict mean the person goes free?
No. An NCRMD verdict results in the individual being detained under the supervision of a provincial review board, not a traditional prison sentence.
3. How often are NCRMD cases reviewed?
In British Columbia, the BC Review Board must reassess each NCRMD case at least once every 12 months to determine if the person remains a risk to public safety.
4. Can someone found NCRMD ever be released?
Yes, but only if the Review Board determines that the person no longer poses a significant threat to public safety.
5. Who decides whether someone is NCRMD?
The decision is made by a judge after hearing psychiatric evidence presented by both the defence and the Crown.
Jill Bennett Show (730 CKNW) – Interview with Rob Dhanu KC
Topic: The Blair Donnelly Case and Canada’s Not Criminally Responsible (NCRMD) Laws
Air Date: Monday, August 13, 2025
JILL BENNETT:
Thanks for being with us on this Monday afternoon. This was a very high-profile case—one that raised a lot of questions about being found not criminally responsible.
We’re talking about the case of Blair Donnelly, the man behind a 2023 stabbing in Vancouver’s Chinatown. The case ended last week with a verdict of not criminally responsible due to a mental disorder.
The Supreme Court ruled that Donnelly, who has a long history of serious mental illness and delusions, was incapable of understanding that his actions were wrong. He was on unescorted leave from the BC Forensic Psychiatric Hospital at the time of the incident—the same hospital where he was detained after being found not criminally responsible for killing his daughter in 2006.
This case has sparked outrage and renewed questions about how Canada’s NCRMD laws work. Joining me now is Rob Dhanu KC, a former federal Crown prosecutor, criminal defence lawyer, and co-founder of Dhanu Dhaliwal Law Group.
Thanks for coming back on the show, Rob.
ROB DHANU:
Good to be here, Jill.
JILL BENNETT:
Let’s start with the basics. What exactly does not criminally responsible due to a mental disorder mean under Canadian law?
ROB DHANU:
Before we get into the definition and mechanics, it’s important to understand why we have these laws and how they evolved.
Historically, our treatment of people with mental illness was barbaric—we went from drilling holes in people’s skulls to release “evil spirits,” to lobotomies that continued in Canada into the 1960s and ’70s, to locking people away indefinitely. Mentally ill individuals were treated as if they had no rights—often tortured, maimed, or even killed.
Modern NCRMD law developed as a recognition of those injustices. But there’s a conflict: psychiatry and psychology are not exact sciences. If you break a bone, every doctor agrees on the diagnosis. But when it comes to mental illness, experts often disagree.
We’ve come a long way in understanding mental health, but we’re still using treatments like electroshock therapy for depression—something we’ll probably look back on as barbaric one day.
So in cases like Donnelly’s, the system is trying to balance the rights of mentally ill people—given that history—with an inexact science. And sometimes, we get it wrong.
JILL BENNETT:
That makes sense. One of the quotes from the judge in this case said, “The court doesn’t convict people for being sick.” But people are still wondering how someone who was already found NCRMD for a previous killing could end up in this position again.
Can you explain how NCRMD actually works in law?
ROB DHANU:
Sure. Under the Criminal Code of Canada, to be found not criminally responsible due to a mental disorder, the defence must prove that at the time of the offence, the person either couldn’t understand what they were doing, or couldn’t tell right from wrong.
When someone is found NCRMD, they aren’t acquitted or convicted. Instead, there’s a third option—they’re sent to the BC Review Board, which oversees their detention and treatment.
The Review Board includes both legal and medical professionals. They can:
-
Discharge the person completely (if there’s no risk to the public),
-
Conditionally discharge them (release under strict conditions and supervision), or
-
Detain them in hospital.
In Donnelly’s case, he was detained after killing his daughter in 2006.
JILL BENNETT:
So where did things break down? This was the third time he’d been found NCRMD, and he was still out on unescorted leave when the Chinatown attack happened.
ROB DHANU:
Yes, and that’s where the system’s conflict becomes clear.
Mr. Donnelly was found NCRMD in 2008 and detained. In 2009, while on day pass, he stabbed a friend. In 2017, he was again found NCRMD for attacking another psychiatric patient. Then in 2023, the Chinatown stabbing occurred.
So what’s happening is this: the Review Board—and the hospital under its authority—are trying to balance his rights as a citizen with public safety.
Even Mr. Donnelly has fundamental rights to liberty and freedom. He can be released if doctors believe it’s safe. The problem is that mental health assessments aren’t predictive. A person might appear stable for years, but that doesn’t guarantee they’ll remain stable once released.
Doctors in past reviews concluded he was safe to release under conditions—but clearly, they were wrong.
JILL BENNETT:
So is this an issue with how the Review Board evaluates evidence? Should that process change?
ROB DHANU:
Possibly. But we also have to recognize the limitations of medical science. Doctors can only assess based on the evidence at the time.
Still, given Mr. Donnelly’s history—three violent incidents following release—it’s reasonable to question whether public safety should take precedence. When someone’s pattern is this consistent, we may need to err on the side of continued hospitalization rather than conditional release.
JILL BENNETT:
Do the doctors consider that history, or do they focus only on how the person presents at the time of assessment?
ROB DHANU:
They do consider both. They look at treatment progress, history of violence, and other risk factors. But as we’ve seen here, even with those considerations, the predictions don’t always hold true.
At this point, I think we need to accept that regardless of how stable Mr. Donnelly seems during assessment, there’s a significant public safety risk if he’s released.
And while he still has fundamental freedom rights, there comes a time when public safety has to take priority.
JILL BENNETT:
So what happens now? Does the Review Board reassess his case again?
ROB DHANU:
Yes. After an NCRMD verdict, the individual goes back before the BC Review Board—typically every 12 months. They decide whether to detain, conditionally discharge, or absolutely discharge him.
Given Mr. Donnelly’s repeated violent incidents, I would hope the Review Board weighs that history heavily moving forward.
JILL BENNETT:
We sometimes see police issue public warnings when a high-risk offender is released—usually in sex offence cases. Could they do that here?
ROB DHANU:
Yes, that’s at the discretion of police. They can issue a public safety warning if they believe someone poses a risk, even outside of sexual offences. They have to balance public safety with individual privacy rights.
It’s not common, but it’s possible.
JILL BENNETT:
Do you think the system needs reform, or is this just an extraordinary case?
ROB DHANU:
Anytime there’s a system failure, we need to review it from top to bottom—especially when public safety is compromised.
The law requires the Review Board to release someone under the least onerous, least restrictive conditions, but when you have repeated breaches like this, it’s time to ask whether our analytical tools and assessment processes are strong enough.
JILL BENNETT:
We’ll leave it there for today. Rob, thank you for joining us.
ROB DHANU:
My pleasure.
End of Interview
Originally aired on 730 CKNW – The Jill Bennett Show.
Guest: Rob Dhanu KC, Former Federal Crown Prosecutor and Co-Founder, Dhanu Dhaliwal Law Group.
