A Surrey man charged with manslaughter and 14 other charges related to a traffic crash in Newton on March 22, 2017 has lost his application to quash a 2025 assessment order from the British Columbia Review Board requiring him to submit to a 60-day in-custody assessment at the Forensic Psychiatric Hospital.
Iqbal Singh Sidhu, 69, was charged with impaired driving causing death, criminal negligence causing death, operating a vehicle with over 80 mgs of alcohol causing death, three counts of impaired driving causing bodily injury, three counts of operation of a vehicle with over 80 mgs of alcohol causing bodily harm, three counts of criminal negligence causing bodily injury and two counts of failure to stop at the scene of an accident.
The crash, at 72nd Avenue and 152nd Street, killed a 62-year-old woman from Port Coquitlam. Her name has not been released.
In 2022 the Crown and defence jointly submitted Sidhu was not fit to stand trial because he was not able to communicate with his lawyer on account of dementia. A judge deferred the disposition to the Review Board and released Sidhu on an undertaking with conditions.
Justice Jennifer Duncan, in B.C. Supreme Court in Vancouver, noted in her June 10 reasons for judgment that throughout the review board proceedings Sidhu has lived “a fairly cloistered life with his family.
“Indeed, he spends a lot of time at home, with little outside stimulation, and speaks only Punjabi, although he knows a few words and phrases in Hindi. He is in his seventies and has several health conditions. He has seen psychiatrists in the community, but they are clinical rather than forensic. Additionally, his son is a psychiatric nurse who works in the federal corrections system,” Duncan noted.
The Review Board on June 21, 2022, made order to have Sidhu’s mental condition and risk level assessed, requiring him to report to the Surrey Regional Clinic. A month later the board concluded he was unfit to stand trial and ordered his discharge on conditions under s. 672.54(b) of the Code. Roughly a year later, the board issued an assessment order requiring an out-of-custody assessment and conducted another hearing on Nov. 24, 2023, again finding him unfit to stand trial and ordering that he be discharged subject to conditions.
During that hearing, Sidhu’s lawyer asked the board to find him permanently unfit to stand trial and return him to the provincial court for consideration of a stay of proceedings, Duncan noted. The panel, however, that the evidence presented supporting Sidhu’s dementia and memory problems “is complex and nuanced” and concluded further inquiry is required.
“The panel concluded that a cautious approach is required prior to sending a matter back to court where there is conflicting evidence and where there have been concerns about malingering,” Duncan noted. “The index offences were extremely serious and, in addition to significant property damage to vehicles, one person died, and another suffered permanent injuries resulting from the accused’s actions.”
The Review Board on Jan. 18, 2024 ordered an independent psychiatric assessment by a forensic psychiatrist who specializes in geriatric psychiatry and dementia, to assess if Sidhu “is fit to stand trial and whether he is permanently unfit to stand trial, together with a comprehensive assessment of his risk to the public.”
The specialist concluded many issues couldn’t be resolved on an outpatient basis and that it is necessary Sidhu be admitted to the Forensic Psychiatric Hospital for a comprehensive assessment.
The Review Board held three days of hearings on whether an in-custody assessment was necessary. “On the first day, counsel for the petitioner withdrew his request that the Review Board find him permanently unfit and make a recommendation to have the matter returned to court,” Duncan noted.
The board on Oct. 23, 2025 ordered a 60-day in-custody assessment to assess if Sidhu is fit or unfit to stand trial, can be brought into fitness to stand trial with treatment and/or education, if he has engaged in malingering – intentionally fabricating or exaggerating his symptoms – and whether he is permanently unfit.
Sidhu’s lawyer argued the Review Board was biased against his client and improperly ordered an in-custody assessment to test its theory Sidhu was malingering.
“Allegations of bias are easy to make and difficult to prove,” Duncan noted. “There is nothing in the record adduced to support an allegation that the Review Board was biased against the petitioner.”
The judge said she is satisfied the Review Board “was jurisdictionally entitled to make the order under the Inquiries Act” and dismissed Sidhu’s application to see it quashed.