WARNING
The court hearing this matter directs that the following notice be attached to the file:
A non-publication and non-broadcast order in this proceeding has been issued under subsection 486.4(1) of the Criminal Code. This subsection and subsection 486.6(1) of the Criminal Code, which is concerned with the consequence of failure to comply with an order made under subsection 486.4(1), read as follows:
486.4 Order restricting publication — sexual offences. — (1) Subject to subsection (2), the presiding judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the victim or a witness shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way, in proceedings in respect of
(a) any of the following offences:
(i) an offence under section 151, 152, 153, 153.1, 155, 160, 162, 162.1, 163.1, 170, 171, 171.1, 172, 172.1, 172.2, 173, 213, 271, 272, 273, 279.01, 279.011, 279.02, 279.03, 280, 281, 286.1, 286.2, 286.3, 346 or 347, or
(ii) any offence under this Act, as it read from time to time before the day on which this subparagraph comes into force, if the conduct alleged would be an offence referred to in subparagraph (i) if it occurred on or after that day; or
(b) two or more offences being dealt with in the same proceeding, at least one of which is an offence referred to in paragraph (a).
(2) MANDATORY ORDER ON APPLICATION — In proceedings in respect of the offences referred to in paragraph (1)(a) or (b), the presiding judge or justice shall
(a) at the first reasonable opportunity, inform any witness under the age of eighteen years and the victim of the right to make an application for the order; and
(b) on application made by the victim, the prosecutor or any such witness, make the order.
486.6 OFFENCE — (1) Every person who fails to comply with an order made under subsection 486.4(1), (2) or (3) or 486.5(1) or (2) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
He Tian Wang
Before Justice Andrew F. Falls
Heard on March 9, 2026
Reasons for Judgment released on March 11, 2026
N. Engineer counsel for the Crown
S. Agbakwa counsel for the defendant, He Tian Wang
Restriction on Publication
By court order made under subsection 486.4(1) of the Criminal Code, information that may identify the person described in this judgment as the Complainant may not be published, broadcast, or transmitted in any manner.
Introduction
1He Tian Wang is before the court charged with two offences. It is alleged that on May 5, 2025, Mr. Wang committed a sexual assault on a person unknown to him, named SK. Further, he had a meat cleaver in his possession for a dangerous purpose.
2Prior to the trial commencing, the parties advised that this matter would proceed as a trial. The Crown’s evidence would be presented through agreed statements of fact, video surveillance, and police body-worn camera footage. It was anticipated that the evidence would be entered on consent and without challenge. In essence, this proceeding effectively constituted an uncontested trial. Both parties asserted and reminded me of the importance of ensuring that Mr. Wang’s trial was procedurally and substantively fair.
3Prior to arraignment, I conducted a comprehension inquiry with Mr. Wang to ensure that he understood the nature of the proceedings and the implications of a Not Criminally Responsible by Reason of a Mental Disorder verdict. Although his answers were monosyllabic, I was satisfied that Mr. Wang understood the process he was about to participate in.
4Mr. Wang was arraigned and personally entered a not guilty plea.
5The following evidence was presented on consent:
(a) Agreed Statement of Facts (Exhibit 1).
(b) Videotaped Synopsis of SK entered as agreed statements of fact (Exhibit 2).
(c) Videotape Chronology – a series of still images captured from a doorbell camera. The captions to the images were entered as agreed statements of fact. (Exhibit 3).
(d) Video Surveillance from a doorbell camera (Exhibit 4).
(e) Body-worn camera footage of Mr. Wang’s arrest (Exhibit 5), and
(f) A transcript of the body-worn camera video (Exhibit 5a).
6Keeping the presumption of innocence firmly in mind, and after considering the evidence and listening to counsels’ joint submissions, I was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Wang had committed the actus reus for both offences.
7I rendered an oral decision that Mr. Wang had touched SK's vagina with his hand. Further, as he walked away, he removed a meat cleaver from a shopping bag he was carrying and held it in the air.
8In my view, the evidence established the following findings of fact:
(a) Mr. Wang was walking down the street in a residential neighbourhood in Brampton.
(b) SK was walking in the opposite direction across the street. SK is a stranger to Mr. Wang.
(c) Mr. Wang crossed the street and approached her from behind. SK turned around. Almost immediately, Mr. Wang reached forward and touched the area of SK’s vagina with his right hand. SK attempted to push his hand away. This part of the incident lasted a few seconds.
(d) Mr. Wang turned around and walked away. As he was walking away, he removed a meat cleaver from a green reusable shopping bag. He held the knife in the air above his head with his right hand.
(e) Shortly afterwards, members of the Peel Regional Police arrested Mr. Wang. The police located the meat cleaver in a green reusable shopping bag in Mr. Wang’s possession.
(f) The arrest was captured on the body-worn camera video footage.
(g) As he was being arrested and handcuffed, Mr. Wang repeated three times that he was a General Commander-in-Chief of the Canadian military, followed by his name. Mr. Wang stated, “I said I'll marry her. General Commander-in-Chief of Canadian Military. Check my name He Tian Wang. There's no higher authority than me in the Canadian forces. That’s the highest.” As he was being escorted to the police cruiser, Mr. Wang repeated, “General Commander-in-Chief Canadian Military. Highest level. Nobody higher”.
(h) During the provision of rights to counsel, Mr. Wang stated that he would be “released right away for sure.” He stated he touched SK "pretty much outside, for marriage.” Mr. Wang was able to correct the officer about the location of the offence. He stated he had touched SK for marriage. Mr. Wang was able to correctly answer questions about his name, address and telephone number. He advised that he understood his right to a lawyer and that he needed a lawyer. He advised that he lives with a parental guardian.
9Exhibit 5a is a transcript of the body-worn camera footage. Though it is largely accurate, I noted several discrepancies between the body-worn camera video and the transcript. I considered the body-worn camera video as the best evidence of the arrest.
10After my oral decision, the Crown advised that they were bringing an application to have Mr. Wang found not criminally responsible by reason of a mental disorder.
Legal Principles
11Section 16(1) of the Criminal Code allows for a verdict of not criminally responsible for actions taken or omissions made while a person is suffering from a mental disorder that renders him incapable of appreciating the nature or quality of the act or omission or of knowing that it was wrong. Section 16(2) imposes a presumption that an accused does not suffer from a mental disorder until the contrary is proven on a balance of probabilities. Section 16(3) places the burden of proof on the party raising the issue, in this case, the Crown.
12Therefore, by operation of s. 16, an accused person is presumed criminally responsible for his actions unless it is proven on a balance of probabilities that:
(a) At the time of the actus reus, the accused was suffering from a mental disorder; and
(b) The mental disorder either made the accused incapable of appreciating the nature or quality of his act or rendered him incapable of knowing that the act was wrong.
13The Ontario Court of Appeal noted the following in R. v. Dobson, 2018 ONCA 589 at paragraph 24:
24 In my view, Oommen, as interpreted in the judgments of this court, holds that an accused who has the capacity to know that society regards his actions as morally wrong and proceeds to commit those acts cannot be said to lack the capacity to know right from wrong. As a result, he is not NCR, even if he believed that he had no choice but to act, or that his acts were justified. However, an accused who, through the distorted lens of his mental illness, sees his conduct as justified, not only according to his own view, but also according to the norms of society, lacks the capacity to know that his act is wrong. That accused has an NCR defence. Similarly, an accused who, on account of mental disorder, lacks the capacity to assess the wrongness of his conduct against societal norms lacks the capacity to know his act is wrong and is entitled to an NCR defence.
Mr. Wang was suffering from a Mental Illness
14To establish their burden, the Crown called Dr. Mark Pearce to provide evidence and his opinion as an expert in forensic psychiatry, especially with respect to the existence of a disease of the mind. Dr. Pearce has extensive experience in assessments concerning whether a defendant is not criminally responsible. He has conducted one or two assessments a month since 2007.
15Dr. Pearce’s written report was additionally filed.
16I am satisfied that Mr. Wang was suffering from a mental illness leading up to, during and after the incident. I have carefully reviewed and considered Dr. Pearce’s viva voce evidence and the contents of his report. Based upon Dr. Pearce’s opinion, against the facts as elicited and found in this trial, I accept that Mr. Wang was and continues to suffer from a psychotic disorder, most likely treatment-resistant schizophrenia.
17Dr. Pearce testified that Mr. Wang has been challenged with mental illness for years. The onset of his mental illness appears to have commenced around 2017. Mr. Wang has experienced a serious mental illness since that time. His mental health has led to repeated hospital admissions and discharges. There is a long history of non-compliance with medication necessitating a Community Treatment Order in 2021. As noted in the doctor’s report, “When last in the community, Mr. Wang was followed by Dr. E. Miula, with the Mississauga Hospital's assertive community treatment (ACT) team.” Mr. Wang’s father had been appointed as a substitute decision maker.
18Having considered the trial evidence, Mr. Wang's delusions at the time of the offending conduct seem clear, obvious and honestly held. They included the belief that he was the highest-ranking member in the Canadian Military, and he touched SK for marriage. Quoting from Dr. Pearce’s report, Mr. Wang self-reported that he "had this experience, telling me that someone was going to rape your girl. So, I brought this knife with me ... It was ridiculous stuff. I don't even want to mention it, it is so ridiculous. I was hearing it and seeing it in my eyes, too. Hearing the voices. Some of the stuff, at the beginning, leads to later stuff. Where I practiced my religion in the wrong way. I wanted to learn the real, original Islam. Any special moves, or special maneuvers. Like spiritual healing." He further self-reported, “I thought someone was going to harm someone I loved. A girl I saw on the street. A random girl." He "just got this message, a random one. It is crazy, all these things that happen. I am going to avoid it, not pay attention to it in the future. And take some medication."
19Dr. Pearce asked Mr. Wang specifically about touching SK. He reported that he saw her across the street and received a spiritual message to touch her. After touching SK, he left because the message was telling him to go after “the other one.” In his words, “I don't know who. Maybe like four people in Toronto. Brampton”.
20I have considered the definition for schizophrenia, a major mental illness involving symptoms of psychosis, which definition includes the presence of delusions, hallucinations, and grossly disorganized thought and behavior. I am satisfied on a balance of probabilities that at the time that he committed the actus reus of the offences, Mr. Wang was suffering from a mental disorder within the meaning of ss. 2 and 16(1) of the Criminal Code.
Mr. Wang was Incapable of Knowing His Actions Were Wrong
21Turning my attention now to whether Mr. Wang was capable of knowing his actions were wrong, I accept Dr. Pearce’s opinion that he was incapable of turning his mind to how others would view the legal and/or moral wrongfulness of his behaviour. I have reached this conclusion based on the trial evidence and the evidence presented during the Crown’s application.
22As noted by Dr. Pearce in his report:
Mr. Wang was clearly unwell in the days and weeks leading up to the alleged offences; he had been discharged about two weeks prior from OS, on medication that was not particularly effective for him. Even when well-medicated, this gentleman's illness is treatment-resistant and he has repeatedly struggled to remain in the community, given his symptom burden. Quite clearly, his outpatient treatment team recognized that he had relapsed and even made attempts to re-hospitalize him an hour or two before the alleged offences, by procuring a Form 1. Following his arrest, he was re-admitted to hospital for several weeks and even at that point, symptoms of his mental illness remained.
Overall and at the material time, Mr. Wang was suffering from symptoms of schizophrenia, a condition that, to my understanding, falls within the legal definition of a disease of the mind. There is little evidence of a rational motive and his behaviour was odd. Taking into account all the information available to me (including his post-offence behaviour) and while he was seemingly able to appreciate the nature and quality of his actions, in my psychiatric opinion he could not turn his mind to how others would view the legal and/or moral wrongfulness of his behaviour, given his severe symptom burden. He was very psychotic and as a result, was deprived of the capacity for rational perception and hence couldn't exercise rational choice about whether to commit the offences in question or not. Overall, he is, in my opinion and on balance, not criminally responsible for the alleged offences.
23Based on the trial evidence and Dr. Pearce’s opinion, I am satisfied on a balance of probabilities that Mr. Wang was incapable of knowing that the acts he engaged in were morally wrong as measured against societal standards and that he was incapable of making choices in accordance with societal compliant standards. Quite simply, he was incapable of making a rational choice.
24Noting a few examples, Mr. Wang believed he had received a spiritual message to touch SK. He received a message that he had to carry the meat cleaver. He received a message to go after other people. He believed he was the General Commander-in-Chief of the Canadian Military.
25I will briefly note that I considered whether Mr. Wang’s delusions were the product of deception or, as medically noted, malingering. I am satisfied based on Dr. Pearce’s evidence that this was not the case. Mr. Wang has, unfortunately, been challenged with the effects of a mental illness for approximately nine years. The body-worn camera video footage is a clear example of his thought distortions shortly after the incident. His self-report to Dr. Pearce, characterizing the messages as spiritual, lends further support for this conclusion.
Conclusion
26Bearing in mind the positions of counsel, the evidence led during this phase of the proceedings, the evidence led at trial, and the findings of fact previously made, on a balance of probabilities, I find Mr. Wang not criminally responsible on both counts. A verdict of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder is entered on each count.
27Counsel have asked me not to hold a disposition hearing pursuant to s. 672.45(1) of the Criminal Code. I agree that the appropriate course would be to refer the matter to the Ontario Review Board for disposition. Pursuant to s. 672.45(1.1) of the Code, the matter shall be sent to the Review Board with a copy of the Information, the entire trial transcript, all reproducible exhibits, a copy of the reasons for judgment, these reasons and any other materials the Crown or defence deem appropriate.
Released: March 11, 2026
Signed: Justice Andrew F. Falls