Ontario Court of Justice

Date: December 18, 2024 Court File No.: Central East – Newmarket-23-91104974

Between:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

— AND —

LI KAI LI

Before: Justice A. A. Ghosh

Heard on: December 11, 2024

Reasons for Judgment Released on: December 18, 2024

Counsel: M. Tewfik, counsel for the Crown T. Paas, counsel for the defendant

Ghosh J.:

Overview

[1] Mr. Li was arraigned on charges of “Attempted Murder” (x2) and Assault before me. During an apparent mental health episode, he variously beat and stabbed at his mother and sisters with a kitchen knife in their family home, almost killing two of them. The defence admitted that the acts supporting each offence were committed by the defendant.

[2] Upon application, a forensic psychiatric assessment was completed to determine whether the defendant was not criminally responsible (NCR) for the offence, by virtue of mental disorder. The defence strategically and reasonably declined to make any submissions. These are my reasons declaring Mr. Li not criminally responsible of these offences.

Summary of the Admitted Acts

[3] The stabbing occurred inside the “Li” family home in Markham. Mr. Li lived there with his mother and two adult sisters. He failed to complete high school and had been unemployed for years. Mr. Li apparently suffered from undiagnosed mental health issues, and he regularly smoked cannabis. The women in the home paid the bills and supported Mr. Li.

[4] On June 10, 2023, the sisters agreed to go to different rooms in the home to logon and play videogames together. Cindy Li heard their mother screaming for help, and she went to the main floor to investigate.

[5] Cindy observed their mother laid out on the ground in a pool of her own blood. Mr. Li was standing over her and striking her. Cindy observed a wooden stick with a metal piece on the end laying across their mother. She yelled at Mr. Li for him to stop hitting their mother. He stopped.

[6] Mr. Li stated that their mother had a “chip implanted in her brain” and was “not well” as a result. Alissa Li then entered the room. Both women told Mr. Li that he was the one who was unwell, enraging Mr. Li.

[7] He took on a fighting stance, and then struck Cindy in the face 3-5 times, causing bruising around her eye and a small cut. Alissa tried to physically intervene, and Mr. Li began to strike her too. Their mother yelled at the women to call the police.

[8] Mr. Li left for the kitchen, and returned holding two large kitchen knives. He began swinging them at Alissa, causing her to fall back onto the ground. He then began to “hack” her on top of her head. She held her hands over her head protectively.

[9] Cindy ran out of the house with their mother’s cell phone. She called the police. Police attended and arrested Mr. Li at gunpoint. Both the mother and Alissa suffered permanent loss of mobility and functionality in their hands due to the nerve damage caused by the attack. Alissa has a large scar on her face. Cindy did not suffer any lasting injuries.

[10] In acknowledging the facts, counsel submitted that Mr. Li did not have any memory of the key events, but accepted that he committed the acts alleged.

The s.16 Defence of “Not Criminally Responsible” (NCR) by Mental Disorder

[11] The s.16 “Defence of mental disorder” directs that “No person is criminally responsible for an act… or an omission made while suffering from a mental disorder that rendered the person incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of the act or omission or of knowing that it was wrong.”

[12] The word “wrong” in the s.16 context means knowing the criminal act was both legally and morally wrong. “An NCR determination depends on whether an accused person was, at the time of the offence, capable of rationally evaluating their conduct.” (R. v. Oommen, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 507, para. 21; R. v. Chaulk, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1303, paras. 97-101). The burden of proof rests with the party raising the NCR issue. The standard of proof is met on a balance of probabilities. (Criminal Code, section 16(2) and (3)).

[13] The “inquiry focuses not on general capacity to know right from wrong, but rather on the ability to know that a particular act was wrong in the circumstances. The accused must possess the intellectual ability to know right from wrong in an abstract sense. But he or she must also possess the ability to apply that knowledge in a rational way to the alleged criminal act.” (R. v. Oommen, para. 21; R. v. Bharwani, 2023 ONCA 203, paras. 230-33; R. v. Worrie, 2022 ONCA 471).

Evidence of Forensic Psychiatrist – Dr. Misha Hartfeil

[14] Dr. Hartfeil testified as the assessing forensic psychiatrist employed by Ontario Shores, Centre for Mental Health Sciences. Her evidence was cogent and was not contested in any way. Only clarification was sought of her sound diagnosis and conclusion.

[15] She ultimately opined that Mr. Li was suffering at the time of the offences from a major mental disorder, namely schizophrenia, exacerbated by cannabis use. On the balance, and from a clinical perspective, she concluded that this disorder deprived him from having criminal responsibility for the offences he has committed. On account of his disorder, he did not appreciate that his actions were morally or legally wrong.

[16] Dr. Hartfeil acknowledged evidentiary barriers and limitations to her assessment. These included “Mr. Li’s unwillingness to discuss the alleged offences, the absence of any prior mental health assessments or admissions, and the inability to interview anyone who knows Mr. Li well for collateral information.”

[17] Those limitations acknowledged, the expert considered the sound lay observations of close family members that Mr. Li “was experiencing delusions, paranoia, and bizarre beliefs about the COVID-19 pandemic. His apparent delusions were punctuated by his reported comment that their mother had a “chip implanted in her brain”. This information supported that Mr. Li was experiencing “active psychotic symptoms prior to and at the time of the alleged offences.” The described symptoms were consistent of a diagnosis of schizophrenia.

[18] Mr. Li also likely met the criteria for cannabis use disorder, and proximate cannabis use may have been a contributing factor in the index offences. To exclude cannabis use as a determining factor in his conduct at the time of the incident, Dr. Hartfeil focused on his often “bizarre” presentation during clinical evaluations of him during both “fitness” and “NCR” assessments that followed his arrest and detention.

[19] During these evaluations, Mr. Li was observed talking or laughing to himself at times. This supported Dr. Hartfeil’s finding that he was likely responding to internal stimuli, consistent with delusions or auditory hallucinations associated with a schizophrenia diagnosis. Mr. Li denied any psychotic symptoms, and attributed his strange conduct to “boredom”. He justified his violent behaviour during the index offence as “self-defence” without elaboration.

[20] Dr. Hartfeil found his invocation of self-defence as consistent with a belief that his mother and sisters posed some threat to him. There is no evidence or objective support that any of the women posed any threat to him. Mr. Li displayed paranoia that his mother had a “chip implanted in her brain” and that she was not well. The most the sisters may have done to provoke him is a responsive suggestion that he was the one who was unwell. There was no evidence supporting that any of the women said nor did anything to trigger Mr. Li’s disproportionate and violent rage.

[21] Mr. Li during the evaluation raised that he acted in “self-defence”, despite all the evidence to the contrary from the victimized women in the home. He could not or would not elaborate, supporting that he could not understand that his actions were clearly legally and morally wrong. Dr. Hartfeil determined that he was unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of his actions as a result of these active psychotic symptoms.

Conclusion

[22] I find Mr. Li beat, stabbed, and hacked his family members as alleged. I accept the expert’s findings on the balance that he was suffering from active symptoms of schizophrenia at the time of this conduct, and as a result he was unable to appreciate that his actions were both morally and legally wrong.

[23] Mr. Li was not criminally responsible for these offences. As submitted, I decline to make a disposition and defer his initial disposition to the Ontario Review Board (ORB). I find he must stay in custody during that determination process.

[24] My thanks to counsel.

Released: December 18, 2024 Signed: Justice A. A. Ghosh