CCPR/C/113/D/2091/2011 5.7 The author submits that the State party failed to discharge its obligation under article 6 of the Covenant. Only three months of medication were organized, with no arrangements as to how or where he would obtain further medication for his schizophrenia and his diabetes. Also, a stay in a shelter was organized for 30 days, after which the author would have nowhere to go but onto the streets. The author stresses the link between homelessness and the right to life. Given his extreme vulnerability and the paramount importance of the right to life, the efforts of Canada were not robust enough to protect his rights under article 6. 5.8 The author started residing in a community group home in April 2012, thanks to financial assistance provided by his family in Canada. However, because the group home was closing down, he was asked to leave and has been homeless since then. He lived in a park described as an “open dump”, sleeping “in the bushes, between the piles of dirt and the tree”.18 He was assessed by Dr. Wendel Abel in April 2012, who reported that the author “was unkempt and dressed in dirty clothes; he was unshaven and it was obvious that he had not bathed in days”. 5.9 With respect to articles 17 and 23, the author stresses that he came to Canada as a young man. For 31 years, he relied upon the support provided by his mother and sisters, and later, his niece. He has never married and has no relationship with the child or children he fathered. Because of his mental illness, his reliance on family members is higher than it might be for other men of his age. The State party’s contention that the author did not have a relationship with his family is false. After coming to Canada, he lived with his mother in Brampton. His sisters and niece lived downstairs, in the same building. He continued to live with or near his mother and sisters until he was arrested and later institutionalized in relation to charges brought against him in the 1980s. While it may be true that the author lost regular contact with the rest of his family through certain phases of his illness, in 2009 his family members became closer to him. His niece became his litigation guardian. Her commitment to him is clear from the fact that, while he was detained, she spoke regularly on the phone with him and visited him. Since becoming fully aware of her uncle’s circumstances, she has been a tremendous source of support for him. 5.10 The author has three relatives in Jamaica: two half-brothers who are unrelated to one another, and a half-sister. He had no relationship with them during the 31 years he resided in Canada. These relatives are unwilling or unable to care for and support him. The author’s half-sister, B., cared for him briefly but was not committed to his care. His half-brother, S., is unable to care for the author as he is himself extremely poor and suffers from a disability. His other half-brother, T., sexually assaulted him. 5.11 Relying on the Committee’s jurisprudence,19 the author expresses the opinion that the definition of family should be broad enough to support the conclusion that the author’s siblings and niece in Canada, with whom he has had close and supportive family ties for 31 years, should be considered family for the purposes of articles 17 and 23. 5.12 The author submits that his deportation to Jamaica was disproportionate to the State party’s goal of preventing the commission of criminal offences in Canada. While the offences committed were not minor, they are surrounded by extenuating circumstances which minimize the significance of his convictions and weigh against the interest of Canada in removal. The interplay between his mental illness and criminality is crucial, and was 18 19 10 Affidavit of Virginia Wilson. See Dauphin v. Canada and Warsame v. Canada (see para. 3.10 above).