Legal Interpretation of the Fitness Test and the Moral Wrongfulness Branch of the NCRMD Test as per the Supreme Court of Canada’s Decision in R v. Bharwani
| Legal Interpretation | Majority (Bharwani 2025) | Minority (Bharwani 2025) |
|---|---|---|
| Fitness to stand trial (competency) | A unanimous majority (9-0) upheld prior appeals court rulings in Bharwani17 and Taylor34 as to the proper interpretation of the fitness test. In general, the decision endorsed a fuller interpretation of the statute and the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision, confirming the importance of “meaningful participation” and the nature of appropriate communication with counsel. In summary:At the time of a decision related to a defense, an accused must not be overwhelmed by mental disordered symptomsAccused must have a reality-based understanding of the nature and object of the proceedings and at the time of a decision related to a defenseAn accused must be able to intelligibly communicate decisions to the court or counselFitness may fluctuate, and nonetheless, the accused can be overall fit (i.e., as per the court, not every fluctuation necessarily demands a new fitness inquiry)There is one fitness test, regardless of whether the accused is self-represented or not | NA |
| NCRMD (insanity) | Declined to offer opinion or obiter dictum | Reinterpreted the moral wrongfulness test by endorsing and elaborating on the standard set in R v. Oommen |