By: Mehek Berry

Introduction

​

On October 19, 2007, nineteen-year-old Ashley Smith died by self-strangulation in a segregation cell at the Grand Valley Institution for Women in Ontario, as correctional personnel observed from outside her door. Despite a one-month youth custody sentence, Smith entered the youth justice system at 15 for minor offenses such as hurling crabapples at a postal worker (Bromwich & Kilty, 2017). She spent the last eleven months of her life, transferred 17 times between federal institutions, predominantly confined in administrative segregation despite experiencing significant mental health issues (Cesaroni & Peterson-Badali, 2017). Her death, ruled a homicide by a coroner’s jury, revealed a troubling reality: Canada's correctional facilities have effectively transformed into psychiatric institutes, confining people with mental illness rather than delivering suitable treatment.

​

This transition reflects a significant departure from the initial policy aims. Historically, psychiatric hospitals and asylums were the primary facilities for the treatment of patients suffering from severe mental illnesses. The advent of deinstitutionalization, defined as the process of discharging chronic mental health patients into the community in order for them to receive care from community mental health services, fundamentally changed Canada's mental health landscape (Sealy & Whitehead, 2004). Beginning in the 1960s, it sought to provide more compassionate, community-based treatment for those suffering from mental illnesses while minimizing reliance on institutionalization (Spagnolo, 2014). Over the past four decades, Canada's deinstitutionalization efforts, marked by a significant reduction in psychiatric hospital beds and regional variations in implementation, have led to uneven and incomplete community-based mental health services, failing to fully meet the psychiatric care needs of people outside institutional settings (Sealy & Whitehead, 2004).

​

This unforeseen consequence, also referred to as "transinstitutionalization," signifies the systemic relocation of patients requiring psychiatric inpatient treatment from hospitals to correctional facilities (Lamb & Weinberger, 2005; Primeau et al., 2013). Instead of achieving its humanitarian goals of rehabilitation and integration, deinstitutionalization has created a modern-day institutional warehousing system, wherein some of society's most vulnerable groups receive their mental health services by default in harsh, security-focused correctional settings. This combination of insufficient care, harsh reactions, and systemic disregard highlights how urgently Canada's penitentiary and mental health policies need to be reexamined, creating profound human rights violations, constitutional challenges, and policy dilemmas that require urgent reform.
 

I. Structural Pipeline: From Psychiatric Crisis to Prisons

​​

As the Canadian penal system has evolved into the de facto mental health facility for the most vulnerable members of society, it has resulted in a systemic pipeline that directs people experiencing mental crises into a punitive environment rather than a therapeutic one into a punitive rather than therapeutic environment. This shift replaces mental-health-centered approaches with criminal law frameworks. Despite government pledges for change, a vicious cycle of neglect, indignity, and cruel treatment of persons with mental illness continues (Gostin, 2008). This structural pipeline depicts how people experiencing mental health crises transition from traditional psychiatric facilities to a range of institutional settings, such as prisons and homeless shelters. This is due in part to poor diversionary measures and a lack of community-based mental health services, which increases society's reliance on carceral and institutional procedures to handle psychiatric emergencies (Randall, 2020).

Ashley Smith's case serves as an illustrative example of the systemic consequences of this structural pipeline. With a documented history of mental health issues, Smith’s trajectory began with minor offenses, which escalated to a prolonged incarceration due to inadequate mental health interventions (Bromwich & Kilty, 2017; Cesaroni & Peterson-Badali, 2017). The first observable systemic failure occurred when she was sentenced to one month in custody, rather than being diverted to a youth mental health program (Cesaroni & Peterson-Badali, 2017). Smith’s experiences in correctional facilities revealed how the lack of strong community mental health facilities produces a default route in which criminal law becomes the primary tool for managing psychiatric emergencies, thereby trapping individuals in a punitive cycle that exacerbates their mental health problems (Bromwich & Kilty, 2017). 

​

Such consequences are more than just individual tragedies; they highlight a fundamental disconnect between mental health policy ambitions and legal realities. Despite policy rhetoric regarding community integration, legislative frameworks controlling mental illness are still inadequately connected with larger social and health policies, with public order and risk management often taking precedence over therapeutic intervention (Gostin, 2008). The coroner's inquest investigating Smith's death recommended banning indefinite solitary confinement for mentally ill convicts, recognizing that present correctional techniques can be harsh and degrading (Bromwich & Kilty, 2017). Nevertheless, the ongoing legal blind spot in protecting incarcerated people's psychiatric rights highlights the structural pipeline's persistence. 
 

II. Prison Conditions: Crisis of Care

Canadian carceral facilities, which have become the country's de facto major psychiatric institutes, are fundamentally unprepared for this position as their inherent conditions fail to meet accepted therapeutic standards, whilst worsening the mental health issues of those under their care. Across the nation, mental health problems are estimated to be two to three times more common in federal prisons than in the general population, as the proportion of federal offenders with major recognized mental health requirements has more than doubled between 1997 and 2008. When admitted into prisons, 11% of male offenders have a critical mental health diagnosis; however, women are twice as likely to have such diagnoses. Over 30% of federally incarcerated women have had a previous psychiatric hospitalization (Sapers, 2011). Furthermore, mental health disorders are significantly overrepresented among individuals who encounter the criminal justice system. An estimated 38.9% of accused people had a diagnosed mental illness compared to 26.1% of the general population, indicating that vulnerability precedes incarceration and is exacerbated by carceral conditions (Hensel et al., 2020). 

​

This overrepresentation is exacerbated by the intersection of mental illness with other vulnerabilities, including trauma histories, drug use disorders, poverty, and homelessness (World Health Organization [WHO] Europe, 2022). 90% of offenders with a diagnosed mental illness have more than one diagnosis, typically involving drug abuse, requiring treatments that the prison environment cannot provide (Sapers, 2011). According to the WHO Europe (2022), rates of mental illnesses in prisons are two to 16 times higher, and rates of severe depression are two to six times greater than in the general population, with women in prison having double the rates of common mental disorders as those outside.

​

Prison conditions, which are characterized by isolation, congestion, a lack of natural light, and the danger of violence, are incompatible with therapeutic care (Sapers, 2011; WHO Europe, 2022). Suicide is the top cause of unnatural death in Canadian federal prisons, accounting for almost one in every five in-custody fatalities each year and occurring at a sevenfold greater rate than in the general population (OCI, 2014). Between 2011 and 2014, over half of all inmate suicides were reported in segregation cells, highlighting the continued dependence on solitary confinement to handle persons in mental crisis (Sapers, 2014). This is consistent with the WHO Europe’s (2022) findings that suicide is the leading cause of death in correctional facilities across the world, emphasizing the crisis's worldwide scope. 

​

Such practices violate international human rights standards, including the UN Mandela Rules, which prohibit prolonged or indefinite solitary confinement and state that prisoners with mental illnesses should not be isolated (UNODC, 2015). The carceral system receives individuals with high mental health needs and places them in situations that exacerbate their psychiatric suffering and suicide risk. The continuous disparity between legal obligations, such as those under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to provide basic mental health care, and the lived realities in prisons reflects how the incarceration system is underequipped to serve as the principal providers of mental health treatment. This situation depicts a need for structural reforms to lessen dependence on isolation, expand in-prison psychiatric resources, and divert persons from incarceration when feasible.
 

III. Ethical lens: Competency vs. Criminal Responsibility

​​

Canada’s rights-based approach through legal frameworks fails to address the justice system’s lacking capacity to treat mentally ill accused, resulting in continued incarceration under conditions that undermine the very rights those safeguards were meant to protect. The intersection of mental illness and criminal law creates profound ethical concerns, challenging core principles of justice, competency, and moral responsibility, particularly in relation to Canadian criminal law provisions governing an individual’s competency to stand trial and the "not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder" (NCRMD) defense. The NCRMD defence, codified in Section 16 of the Criminal Code (1985), establishes that “no person is criminally responsible” if, at the time of the act, they were “incapable of appreciating the nature” or wrongfulness of their conduct due to a mental disorder. This legislative framework, along with Section 2 of the Criminal Code (1985) that defines mental disorder as “a disease of the mind,” aims to safeguard both individual rights and public safety. However, a key ethical and legal blind spot emerges in the gap between constitutional objectives and the reality of transinstitutionalization. These provisions aim to develop a therapeutic pathway to divert individuals with mental illness from punitive environments to tailored treatment facilities—yet fail to address the systemic underinvestment in psychiatric infrastructure and community support.

In R. v. Swain (1991), the Supreme Court ruled that the automatic, indefinite imprisonment of NCRMD individuals was unconstitutional under Sections 7 and 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982). This decision affirmed that liberty can only be restricted in adherence to fundamental principles of justice. Winko v. British Columbia (1999) clarified that NCRMD individuals can only be held if they present a "significant threat to the safety of the public," and that judgments must be "the least onerous and least restrictive" possible. While affirming a legal balance between protecting the rights of other citizens and protecting the rights of a mentally ill accused, these cases are disconnected from operational reality as such legislative safeguards presume access to secure mental care institutions. Systemic limitations in forensic psychiatric infrastructure and community resources sometimes lead to extended stays in correctional facilities for individuals requiring specialized mental health treatment, undermining the rehabilitative intentions of relevant legal frameworks (Sealy & Whitehead, 2004). In British Columbia, recent reports show an increase in demand for specialist mental health care within correctional facilities, as well as continuous shortages of community and in-custody psychiatric services. While efforts to increase mental health bed availability and improve integrated care are underway, many people with serious mental illnesses continue to receive insufficient treatment in jail, with extended stays without appropriate diversion to treatment centers or adequate therapeutic intervention (Judd, 2025). Instead of obtaining specialist care, individuals may be subjected to seclusion or other correctional techniques that can worsen their mental health problems. Through increased exposure to conditions meant for punishment rather than rehabilitation, such individuals are faced with predictable consequences: increased exposure to solitary confinement, restricted access to psychiatric care, and deterioration of mental health (Sapers, 2011).

​

In R. v. Demers (2004), the Supreme Court ruled that keeping a chronically unfit accused under an extended criminal process violates Section 7 of the Charter (1982) as it unjustifiably infringes on the person's liberty and security. Despite this verdict, unfit defendants are frequently confined in detention facilities due to a lack of forensic hospital beds and mental assessment delays. The Mental Health Strategy for Corrections in Canada states that correctional facilities must provide timely, appropriate, effective, and person-centered mental health care (Correctional Service Canada [CSC], 2012). Due to capacity limits, many unfit accused individuals remain in non-therapeutic situations, remodeling what should be a rights-based protection into another avenue for transinstitutionalization. The ethical consequence is clear: if adequate resources do not support legislative safeguards, Canada risks perpetuating a system that outwardly supports therapeutic justice while relying on punitive detention of individuals with mental illnesses.

​​

IV. Gap in Treatment

Canada’s rights-based legal framework seeks to protect the mentally ill accused. Yet a lack of psychiatric resources forces correctional institutions to act as de facto treatment centers. The result is a persistent gap between the law’s rehabilitative intent and the reality of custodial management—a system that prioritizes control over recovery. Correctional Service Canada (CSC)(2025) reports that 95.3% of “inmates identified as having a mental health need” got mental health care between 2023 and 2024, up from 85.5% in 2021-2022. While these findings indicate nearly universal availability, the metric used makes no distinction between complete, multidisciplinary treatment and more restricted, medication-only interventions. This parallels the larger treatment gap, as access to care is inconsistent, crisis-driven, and contingent upon institutional capacity rather than therapeutic need (CSC, 2012). This type of crisis-driven, medication-centric care ignores the underlying reasons of psychiatric deterioration and instead responds to symptoms in ways more akin to custodial control than therapeutic rehabilitation.

​

The structural inconsistency in staffing exacerbates this challenge. In 2023-2024, the Care and Custody division employed 7,721 full-time equivalents (FTEs), with the majority being correctional officers, and far fewer specialized psychiatric experts (CSC, 2025). Despite their lack of advanced mental health training, correctional officers frequently serve as the initial responders to psychiatric crises due to this imbalance. Their participation frequently prioritizes security-based measures over evidence-based therapeutic care, such as seclusion, constraint, or transfer to a structured intervention unit. 

​

Inadequate in-prison treatment resources have historically resulted in the use of administrative segregation to handle high-needs individuals, a practice at the core of Reddock v. Canada (2018). This class action lawsuit challenged the legitimacy of long-term administrative segregation in federal prisons, claiming infringement of articles 7, 9, 11(h), and 12 of the Charter (1982). These provisions protect fundamental legal rights, including life, liberty, and security and protection against arbitrary detention. The court acknowledged that extended isolation caused significant psychological injury, particularly for convicts with pre-existing mental problems (Reddock v. Canada, 2018). While administrative segregation was technically discontinued, Structured Intervention Units (SIUs) have largely replaced it, handling mental health crises when treatment beds are unavailable.

​

This disparity in treatment has serious legal consequences. Failure to provide proper mental health care in jail, particularly when identified requirements are documented, can result in negligence lawsuits, constitutional challenges under the Charter (1982), and potential culpability for cruel and unusual treatment (s.7). While the CSC (2025) recognizes the risk of being unable to respond to the complex needs of the offender population in its 2023-2024 Departmental Results Report, this admission highlights a critical point. Without increasing therapeutic infrastructure in both correctional institutions and community-based alternatives, 
 

V. Reform: Closing the Blind Spot

​

To address the entrenched role prisons play as de facto psychiatric facilities in Canada, targeted changes must address the legal and structural gaps that allow this configuration to exist. Diversionary changes, such as specialist mental health courts (MHCs), can act as a model to avoid criminal justice engagement in the first place, diverting mentally ill accused from incarceration and toward treatment. These courts, which originated in the United States in the 1990s, provide an alternative docket in which judicial actors work with mental health professionals to develop individualized treatment plans in exchange for reduced legal sanctions (de Boer & Gerrits, 2007; Canada et al., 2020). 

Participants often regard MHCs as providing both legal relief and protection from the punitive aspects of the criminal justice system, as well as enhanced access to services and acknowledgment for treatment adherence (Canada et al., 2020). Expanding MHC availability, lowering rigid eligibility requirements, and implementing equitable protections at the referral and selection stages might dramatically minimize transinstitutionalization. Where diversion fails or is unavailable, legal reform is required to prevent the warehousing of mentally ill people in situations that worsen their disorders. Such reform must create and enforce basic psychiatric treatment standards inside custodial settings. The Corrections and Conditional Release Act (1992) requires the provision of "essential health care," but leaves the concept of sufficiency primarily to the CSC, resulting in a vast diversity in service quality. A federal legislative framework mandating access to multidisciplinary psychiatric teams, trauma-informed care, and therapeutic programming could help ensure that prison treatment complies with international standards, such as the United Nations' Mandela Rules (2015).

Furthermore, international approaches demonstrate that psychiatric care can be integrated into correctional settings without undermining security. The Netherlands' terbeschikkingstelling (TBS) system provides long-term, court-ordered psychiatric treatment for high-risk offenders in specialist forensic institutions, with care ranging from locked wards to community reintegration (van Marle, 2002). Although incomplete, Norway's Halden Prison includes mental health into its operational design, incorporating medical services and creating conditions that alleviate, rather than increase, psychological suffering (Abdel-Salam & Kilmer, 2023). While these systems function in distinct legal settings, their emphasis on treatment as a key component of imprisonment may shape Canadian legislation and correctional policy.

​

Conclusion

The transformation of Canadian prisons into de facto psychiatric institutions is the result of sustained underinvestment in community mental health, fragmented jurisdictional responses, and the lack of enforceable psychiatric care standards within correctional systems, not simply an unintended consequence of deinstitutionalization. Legal frameworks, such as the NCRMD, requirements and competence norms were intended to protect rights and promote treatment over punishment, but their promise is hollow without the required therapeutic infrastructure.

​

Without reform at both the front end, through diversion, and the back end, through in-prison care standards, Canada will continue to operate a split system: one that respects the rights of mentally ill accused on paper, but consistently fails to put those rights into reality. Specialized courts can assist in minimizing unnecessary incarceration, while legislative minimums for mental care in prisons can guarantee that people detained receive treatment in accordance with human rights standards. Together, these approaches solve the legal gap that has permitted jails to revert to mental facilities, a structural failing that deinstitutionalization never intended to create.

​

Moving forward, it is critical to investigate the scalability of diversionary models in rural and Indigenous areas, the long-term effects of integrated correctional-psychiatric programs, and how prejudice influences eligibility for mental health diversion. Equally important is determining how public opinion, stigma, and political agendas impact resource allocation between health and penal budgets.

​

Such approaches need more than simply incremental legislative changes; they necessitate coordinated federal-provincial action, ongoing financing, and the political resolve to address mental illness as a public health issue rather than a criminal justice problem.
 

​

​

References

​

1. Abdel-Salam, S., & Kilmer, A. (2023). ‘A prison is a prison’: Perspectives from incarcerated men on the therapeutic and punitive aspects of halden prison in Norway. British Journal of Criminology, 63(4), 929–947. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azac0542

2. Bromwich, R., & Kilty, J. M. (2017). Introduction: Law, vulnerability, and segregation: What have we learned from Ashley Smith’s carceral death? Canadian Journal of Law and Society, 32(2), 157–164. https://doi.org/10.1017/cls.2017.10

3. Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11.

4. Canada, K. E., Trawver, K. R., & Barrenger, S. (2020). Deciding to participate in mental health court: Exploring participant perspectives. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 72, Article 101628. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2020.101628

5. Cesaroni, C., & Peterson-Badali, M. (2017). Ashley Smith and incarcerated young women: Marginalized at any age. Canadian Journal of Law and Society, 32(2), 249–267. https://doi.org/10.1017/cls.2017.11

6. Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46. https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/

7. Corrections and Conditional Release Act, S.C. 1992, c. 20. https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-44.6/

8. Correctional Service Canada. (2012). Mental health strategy for corrections in Canada: A federal-provincial-territorial partnership. Government of Canada. https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/csc-scc/migration/002/006/092/MH-strategy-eng.pdf

9. Correctional Service Canada. (2025). 2023 to 2024 Departmental Results Report. Government of Canada. https://www.canada.ca/en/correctional-service/corporate/transparency/reporting/departmental-results-reports/2023-2024.html

10. de Boer, J., & Gerrits, J. (2007). Learning from Holland: the TBS system. Psychiatry (Abingdon, England), 6(11), 459–461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mppsy.2007.08.008

11. Gostin, L. O. (2008). ‘Old’ and ‘new’ institutions for persons with mental illness: Treatment, punishment or preventive confinement? Public Health (London), 122(9), 906–913. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2007.11.003

12. Hensel, J. M., Casiano, H., Chartier, M. J., Ekuma, O., MacWilliam, L., Mota, N., McDougall, C., & Bolton, J. M. (2020). Prevalence of mental disorders among all justice-involved: A population-level study in Canada. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 68, Article 101523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2019.101523

13. Judd, A. (2025, June 20). B.C. desperately needs a 2nd forensic psychiatric hospital, report finds. Global News. https://globalnews.ca/news/11252215/bc-2nd-forensic-psychiatric-hospital/

14. Lamb, H. R., & Weinberger, L. E. (2005). The shift of psychiatric inpatient care from hospitals to jails and prisons. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 33(4), 529–534.

15. Office of the Correctional Investigator. (n.d.). Backgrounder: Three-year review of federal inmate suicides (2011-2014). https://oci-bec.gc.ca/en/content/backgrounder-three-year-review-federal-inmate-suicides-2011-2014

16. Primeau, A., Bower, T. G., Harrison, M. A., & XuXu. (2013). Deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill: Evidence for transinstitutionalization from psychiatric hospitals to penal institutions. Comprehensive Psychology, 2(1), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.2466/16.02.13.CP.2.2

17. R. v. Demers, [2004] 2 S.C.R. 489. https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/2160/index.do

18. R. v. Swain, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 933. https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/753/index.do

19. Randall, R. (2020). Social class, disability and the lessons of psychiatric deinstitutionalisation for prison abolition: An interview with sociologist Neil Gong. International Journal of Narrative Therapy and Community Work, 4, 50–56.

20. Reddock v. Canada (Attorney General), 2018 ONSC 3914. 

21. Sapers, H. (2011, March 18). Mental health and corrections. Office of the Correctional Investigator. https://oci-bec.gc.ca/en/content/mental-health-and-corrections

22. Sealy, P. A. (2012). The impact of the process of deinstitutionalization of mental health services in Canada: An increase in accessing of health professionals for mental health concerns. Social Work in Public Health, 27(3), 229–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/19371911003748786

23. Sealy, P., & Whitehead, P. C. (2004). Forty years of deinstitutionalization of psychiatric services in Canada: An empirical assessment. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 49(4), 249–257. https://doi.org/10.1177/070674370404900405

24. Spagnolo, J. (2014). Improving first-line mental health services in Canada: Addressing two challenges caused by the deinstitutionalization movement. Healthcare Quarterly (Toronto, Ont.), 17(4), 41–45. https://doi.org/10.12927/hcq.2015.24116

25. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. (2015). The United Nations standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules). https://www.unodc.org/documents/justice-and-prison-reform/Nelson_Mandela_Rules-E-ebook.pdf

26. van Marle, H. J. C. (2002). The Dutch Entrustment Act (TBS): Its principles and innovations. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 1(1), 83–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/14999013.2002.10471163

27. WHO Europe. (2022, May 9). Factsheet - Prison health: Mental health disorders. https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/librariesprovider2/euro-health-topics/health-determinants/prison-health-mental-health-eng.pdf?sfvrsn=7dc3fc1_2&download=true

28. Winko v. British Columbia, [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625. https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1711/index.do