The Supreme Court of Canada interprets the fitness to stand trial test in R v. Bharwani.

At the core of the common law, rooted in fairness, is the principle that an accused must be "fit" or "competent" to answer charges pursued by the state. Fitness rules vary considerably across jurisdictions but generally share the requirement that the accused be able to actively participate in the conduct of their defense. In the Canadian tradition, the common law on fitness is codified in Section 2 of the Criminal Code. For over 30 years, statutory interpretation of the law has been limited to provincial courts of appeal in Canada. Now, for the first time, the Supreme Court of Canada has rendered an opinion on the fitness test, thus creating new binding case law across the country on the question. Largely endorsing decisions rendered in the Ontario Court of Appeal in Taylor, and then Bharwani, the Supreme Court has endorsed a broadened test and fuller interpretation of the statute, highlighting that defense decisions must be reality-based and communicated intelligibly. Fluctuations in fitness are acknowledged, and while symptoms may be present, they must not be overwhelming in nature. Here, we review the legislative and judicial history leading to the decision in R v. Bharwani before providing a psycholegal analysis of the decision and a review of its implications for forensic mental health professionals. Beyond utility to those practicing in Canada, this historic and landmark ruling is thought to be instructive to those in America and other Commonwealth nations around the world grappling with the nuances of competency capacity thresholds.