The Justice for Soli Act (Stop Criminalizing Mental Health), 2025 requires the Government of Ontario to formally recognize that correctional facilities are not appropriate places for people in mental-health crises and that mental illness should be treated as a healthcare issue rather than a criminal one. The bill is anchored in the coroner’s inquest into the death of Soleiman (Soli) Faqiri and explicitly implements the inquest’s first recommendation as a statement of provincial policy.
On its face the Act is declaratory: it sets a provincial policy position but does not create new procedural duties, funding commitments, or criminal-law changes. That limited form matters because the text can still influence how ministries, correctional services, police, prosecutors and courts interpret existing duties and prioritize diversion, hospital access, and training — even though the statute itself does not mandate specific operational changes.
At a Glance
What It Does
The Act requires the Government of Ontario to recognize two propositions: that correctional facilities are not appropriate environments for people experiencing mental-health crises and that mental illness requires health care and should not be criminalized. It contains a preamble linking the measure to the coroner’s inquest into the death of Soli Faqiri, plus a short title and a commencement-on-Royal-Assent clause.
Who It Affects
Provincial ministries that run corrections and health services, municipal police services and prosecutors who exercise charging and diversion discretion, correctional institutions that house people with mental illness, and advocacy groups and families who press for systemic change.
Why It Matters
Although the Act does not create enforceable rights or allocate funding, it creates a clear provincial policy statement that can steer administrative practice, inform training and diversion policies, and be cited in litigation, inquests, or reviews as evidence of provincial intent and standards.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill consists of a preamble and four short enactments. The preamble explains that the Act implements the first recommendation from the Ontario Chief Coroner’s inquest into the death of Soleiman (Soli) Faqiri, who died while awaiting psychiatric assessment in custody.
Section 1 contains two declaratory clauses: (a) that correctional facilities are not appropriate environments for people in mental-health crises, and (b) that mental illness requires health care and should not be criminalized. Sections 2 and 3 set the commencement (Royal Assent) and the short title.
Because the statute speaks only in terms of recognition, it does not prescribe operational duties — it does not change criminal offences, create statutory diversion pathways, require transfers to hospitals, authorize expenditures, or impose reporting duties on ministries. That means the immediate legal effect is largely expressive: it updates provincial policy language and creates a documented legislative position that other actors can deploy.In practice, the Act can influence behaviour in several channels without itself commanding operational change.
Ministries can cite the Act when drafting policies, correctional administrators can revise intake and health-assessment procedures, police services can revise or justify diversion practices, and prosecutors can exercise discretion consistent with the new provincial posture. Courts, inquests and tribunals may treat the legislative statement as relevant evidence of provincial standards when reviewing administrative decisions or negligence claims, though the Act offers no standalone private right of action.The Act therefore functions primarily as a policy lever: it raises expectations for diversion, hospital access and resources for acute mental-health care within justice settings, but it leaves the how, who pays, and what timelines are required to other instruments — regulations, budgets, intergovernmental arrangements and internal ministry directives.
That gap between declaratory language and operational delivery is the core practical issue for implementers and stakeholders.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Section 1(a) directs the Government of Ontario to recognize that a correctional facility is not an appropriate environment for a person experiencing a mental-health crisis.
Section 1(b) directs the Government of Ontario to recognize that mental illness requires health care and should not be criminalized.
The preamble expressly aligns the Act with the first recommendation from the Ontario Chief Coroner’s inquest into the death of Soleiman (Soli) Faqiri and records that the inquest deemed his death a homicide.
The Act contains no funding provisions, operational mandates, enforcement mechanisms or private causes of action — its obligations are declaratory statements rather than prescriptive duties.
The Act commences on the day it receives Royal Assent and does not amend federal criminal law; any operational change will depend on provincial policy, intergovernmental cooperation and resource allocation.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Links the bill to the Soli Faqiri coroner’s inquest
The preamble recounts facts from the inquest and says the bill implements the inquest’s first recommendation. That linkage matters because preambles can be used by administrators, inquests and courts to interpret the legislature’s intent. Framing the Act as a response to a coroner’s recommendation increases political and moral pressure on ministries to translate the declaration into concrete changes.
Recognition that correctional facilities are not suitable for mental-health crises
This clause records a provincial view that prisons and jails are inappropriate settings for acute mental-health needs. Legally it is a declaratory provision: it does not create a statutory duty to move people out of custody, but it can be cited to justify policy shifts (for example, screening, expedited transfer to hospitals, or creation of alternatives to custody) and to support administrative decisions prioritizing healthcare responses over custodial responses.
Recognition that mental illness requires healthcare and should not be criminalized
This clause asserts that mental illness is a healthcare matter, not a criminal-justice matter. While it cannot change the Criminal Code (a federal statute), it can shape provincial prosecutorial guidelines, corrections intake procedures, and mental-health diversion programs. Practically, it provides a legislative basis for ministries and municipal actors to revise charging and custody practices toward diversion and treatment.
Commencement on Royal Assent
The Act comes into force immediately on receiving Royal Assent. That timing makes the declaration operative as a statement of provincial policy from day one, which means administrative actors can point to it in policy documents or operational memos without waiting for secondary instruments or regulations.
Short title
Gives the Act the short title 'Justice for Soli Act (Stop Criminalizing Mental Health), 2025.' The title signals purpose and political framing, which matters for advocacy, public communications and intergovernmental discussions about implementing the inquest’s broader recommendations.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on this topic across all five countries.
Explore this topic in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- People with acute mental illness — the statute reframes provincial policy toward diversion and healthcare, which advocacy groups can leverage to press for alternatives to custody and faster access to psychiatric assessment.
- Families and advocates of individuals detained in custody — the Act strengthens a moral and legal argument for transfers to hospital care and for reforms to how detention authorities treat mental-health crises.
- Coroner’s offices and inquest processes — the Act enshrines a coroner recommendation in statute, increasing uptake of coroner findings and the weight of inquest recommendations in policy-making.
- Mental-health service providers and community organizations — the declaration can be used to secure commitments from governments and partners for community-based crisis services and to justify priority funding requests.
Who Bears the Cost
- Ministry of the Solicitor General and provincial correctional services — they will face pressure to revise intake, training and transfer protocols without the Act providing earmarked funding.
- Municipal police services — expected to expand diversion and crisis response responsibilities, potentially requiring new training, staff and partnerships with health services.
- Provincial treasury and health ministries — if policy follows the declaration, the province will confront budgetary demands to create or scale hospital access, beds, crisis teams and community supports.
- Prosecutors and courts — will need to adapt charging and case-management practices to align with the new policy posture, possibly increasing pre-trial diversion and demand for specialized court resources.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between a necessary moral and policy statement — that mental illness should be treated as health care, not crime — and the statute’s lack of operational instruments to make that statement real: provinces can declare the principle but cannot unilaterally rewrite federal criminal law or produce the healthcare capacity that makes diversion feasible without additional funding and cross-jurisdictional arrangements.
The Act is primarily symbolic and declaratory. That choice resolves political questions about principle but leaves open the hard technical and fiscal questions of implementation.
Because the bill contains no appropriation or regulatory framework, provinces must still decide whether to invest in diversion teams, psychiatric beds, mobile crisis units or modified correctional protocols. The gap between declaration and delivery risks creating legal and political friction: families and advocates may reasonably expect immediate change while ministries contend with resource and capacity constraints.
There is also a jurisdictional and legal complexity. Criminal law (including offences and many aspects of detention) is federal, while provinces administer corrections and deliver health services.
The Act cannot alter federal criminal offences or change federal charging rules, so its practical effect depends on cooperation among municipal police, provincial correctional authorities, health-care providers and federal prosecutors when applicable. Finally, because the Act does not create a private right of action or explicit duties, its main legal significance will be as interpretive evidence in administrative law, inquests, negligence suits or Charter litigation — contexts where courts and tribunals weigh legislative intent and standards of care, rather than as a standalone enforcement tool.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.