Care, Not Jail, for Mental Health Crises

Summary#

Bill 42, the Justice for Soli Act (Stop Criminalizing Mental Health), 2025, would create a new Ontario law; it does not amend another Act. It would require the Government of Ontario to recognize that correctional facilities are not appropriate places for people experiencing mental health crises and that mental illness requires health care and should not be criminalized. Its stated goal is to reflect the first recommendation of the inquest into Soleiman Faqiri’s death.

  • The duty is on the Government of Ontario to recognize those two points.
  • The bill does not create a treatment program, require a person’s release or transfer, or set rules for how correctional facilities must respond.
  • The Act would start on Royal Assent.

What it means for you#

  • People experiencing a mental health crisis in a correctional facility: The bill would not itself change whether someone is detained, how they are assessed, or what care they receive.
  • Government of Ontario: It would have a legal duty to recognize the statements in the Act, but the bill does not specify steps the government must take to put that recognition into practice.
  • Correctional facilities and health-care providers: The bill does not give them new duties or powers.

Money#

No cost information is in the available material.

  • The bill does not specify spending, staffing, savings, or a funding source.

What is unclear#

  • The bill does not define “mental health crisis” or say how the government’s duty to “recognize” the statements would be applied.
  • It does not set out a process, timeline, reporting requirement, or oversight for putting the statements into practice.
  • It does not explain whether or how the Act would affect existing correctional or health-care practices.

Case for#

  • The bill appears intended to address the risk of treating a mental health crisis mainly as a correctional matter rather than a health-care need.
  • The preamble connects the bill to the inquest into Mr. Faqiri’s death and its first recommendation.
  • A possible argument for the bill is that a clear statement in law could guide government decisions, even though the bill does not require specific operational changes.

Case against#

  • The bill creates no specific care, assessment, transfer, or release requirement. Its practical effect may therefore be limited.
  • It does not explain how to measure whether the government has met its duty to recognize the statements.
  • It is unclear whether the Act would change how people in crisis are treated in correctional facilities or how it would interact with existing practices.