Re Bingzhu Wang, 2025 CanLII 105337

Re: Bingzhu Wang

ORB File No: 7987

Hearing held on: Tuesday, September 2, 2025

Place of hearing: Brockville Mental Health Centre

Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code

Before:

Alternate Chairperson: Mr. P. Capelle

Members: Dr. R. Kunjukrishnan Dr. W. Loza Ms. M. den Haan Ms. R. MacIntyre

Parties Appearing:

Accused: Bingzhu Wang Counsel: Mr. D. Howard

The person in charge of Hospital: Representative: Dr. A. Adiele

Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. C. Breault

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated October 14, 2025)

Introduction:

1. On November 19, 2021, the accused, Mr. Bingzhu Wang, was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on charges of intent to mislead, assault with a weapon, interference with person in lawful use of property, and watching dwelling house or place where person resides or works, all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (the Criminal Code). Mr. Wang is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated October 17th, 2024, which detains him at the Forensic Services of the Brockville Mental Health Centre with privileges up to and including to live in the community in 24/7 supervised accommodation approved by the person in charge.

2. On September 2, 2025, the Ontario Review Board convened a hearing at the Brockville Mental Health Centre, hereinafter referred to as the Hospital, to conduct Mr. Wang’s annual review hearing.

3. Mr. Wang attended the hearing and was represented by counsel, Mr. Daniel Howard.

Without Prejudice Position of the Parties

4. Dr. Adiele advised that the Hospital was recommending a continuation of Mr. Wang’s Detention Disposition, with one change to subparagraph 2(e) to read: “To live in the community in accommodation approved by the person in charge”. Ms. Breault, on behalf of the Attorney-General, indicated that she supported the Hospital recommendation but for the proposed change to subparagraph 2(e). Mr. Howard, counsel for Mr. Wang, advised that his client was seeking an absolute discharge. In the alternative, in the event significant risk to public safety is determined, then Mr. Wang would join with the Hospital’s recommendation.

Index Offences

5. The circumstances giving rise to the charges on the index offences is set out in the report and is summarized as follows:

“On January 3, 2019, at 15:00 Ms. Wei was moving into her new apartment located on 195 Clearview Avenue, apartment number 1417 in the City of Ottawa. She entered the elevator on to the 14th floor and found Mr. Wang standing in the hallway waiting for her. She called Ottawa Police for assistance. They arrived and he was told not to communicate with her by any means. He was formally trespassed at the time and advised to leave the area. At 17:00, he was found outside the victim's residence by the attending officers (criminal harassment by watching and besetting).

On Saturday, January 5, 2019, at 15:25, Mr. Wang called 911 and stated that there was an emergency. He said his wife had been abducted or possibly controlled by criminals and reported her as missing at the time, providing her address of 195 Clearview Avenue, apartment 1417. This initiated police to enter an investigation by reporting the kidnapping, which was found to be false Bingzhu Wang Page 3 ROMHC File: 7987-Feb 14, 2022 (public mischief/false reporting). At 18:00, police attended the victim's place of residence to check on her well-being. Due to numerous calls generated by Mr. Wang and prompting police to attend her residence, he is alleged to have interfered with her lawful enjoyment of her property (mischief).

On Sunday, January 6, 2019, at 16:00, Mr. Wang contacted Ottawa Police claiming that Ms. Wei had been missing since January 3rd. He insisted that officers attend her residence. He stated that she was in danger from two men and that she was under the influence of life-threatening drugs. This initiated police to enter an investigation that was found to be false (public mischief/false reporting).”

Current Diagnoses

6. Schizophrenia

Evidence

7. The Board admitted into evidence the Hospital Report dated August 11th, 2025 ( Exhibit 1). The document provides a great deal of information concerning Mr. Wang’s personal history, mental health history as well as his course in Hospital and in the community both prior to and subsequence to the index offences. As the Hospital Report was made an Exhibit, it is unnecessary to reproduce the information contained therein in these Reasons.

8. Dr. Adiele was the sole witness for the Hospital. He advised that Mr. Wang has been reasonably stable since his arrival at the BMHC on August 22, 2024, although he has experienced some difficulties in completing programming as noted at page 70 of the Hospital Report.

9. Mr. Wang continues to present a significant risk to his ex-wife. He was readmitted to Hospital for having breached conditions of a restraining order and an ORB disposition term that he not contact her. He again breached on May 6th, 2025 when he sent his ex-wife a text wishing her a happy birthday. She complained to the ROMHC which resulted in his readmission to that Hospital and eventual transfer to the BMHC although no criminal charges followed.

10. Responding to questions from Ms. Breault, Dr. Adiele confirmed that his patient’s insight remains problematic in relation to the index offence as manifested by the text he sent to his ex-wife for her birthday.

11. Dr. Adiele opined that the risk his patient poses is limited to his ex-wife. His son is now an adult who has moved to Toronto. Mr. Wang does not have contact information for his son. Concern remains that while in the community Mr. Wang may again be physically violent towards his ex-wife. Further, if given the choice, he would choose not to take psychotropic medications although he has been medication-compliant since his return to Hospital. It is therefore important that Mr. Wang’s community accommodation be distant from his ex-wife’s residence.

12. Ms. Breault noted that Mr. Wang pushes boundaries and previously attended at his ex-wife’s residence. She therefore inquired how Mr. Wang’s community placement can ensure he does not repeat such behaviour unless discharged to a 24-7 supervised residence. In reply, Dr. Adiele stated it is difficult to find 24-7 accommodation, adding that it would be beneficial for his patient to be allowed to reintegrate into the community to determine if that is possible.

13. The BMHC has 24-7 accommodation available on Hospital grounds at the FITT House. However, there is a lengthy wait list for this facility and Mr. Wang is higher functioning than individuals ordinarily placed there. Amending subparagraph 2(e) would provide additional options to transfer him into the community. For example, the Murray Street residence in Brockville would be appropriate and has 8-hour daily supervision.

14. Ms. Breault inquired if Mr. Wang’s family should carry the burden of risk due to the difficulty of identifying community housing for him. Dr. Adiele responded that it would be more difficult for Mr. Wang to return to his ex-wife’s residence were he to be housed in Brockville. Dr. Adiele added, that if Mr. Wang breaches the no-contact prohibition in his disposition it may be necessary, to call an early hearing.

15. Responding to questions from Mr. Howard, Dr. Adiele confirmed that since May 6, 2025, there have been no subsequent efforts by Mr. Wang to contact his ex-wife. He added that after that phone call Mr. Wang’s cell phone privileges were removed, his community access privileges suspended, and he was transferred to another unit. Cell phone usage was reinstated four to six weeks thereafter in conjunction with community access privileges. There have been no subsequent attempts by Mr. Wang to contact his ex-wife.

16. Dr. Adiele advised that Mr. Wang was aware that communication with his ex-wife was contrary to the terms of his Detention Disposition but was unable to provide a definitive response as to why he did so other than wanting to wish her a happy birthday.

17. Mr. Wang continues to express that he does not suffer from a mental disorder. He remains both treatment and financially capable. When questioned by Dr. Adiele if he accepts that he is divorced and no longer in a spousal relationship, Mr. Wang is reported to have responded that he accepts that he needs to stay away from his ex-wife as she is frightened by him. Dr. Adiele nevertheless expressed the view that Mr. Wang would again contact his ex-wife absent a disposition term prohibiting him from doing so. Further, Dr. Adiele opined that Mr. Wang would discontinue his prescribed psychotropic medications absent a disposition term mandating he do so.

18. Dr. Adiele was asked if Mr. Wang would accept to be followed on an outpatient basis if he was to receive an absolute discharge. The Doctor responded that Mr. Wang would do so if this did not interfere with his other activities.

19. Questioned by the panel as to whether Mr. Wang believes that his life with his ex-wife is over, Dr. Adiele responded that that is not the case, given the recent text message. Another panellist noted that last year’s Reasons for Disposition indicate a diagnosis of Delusional Disorder. Dr. Adiele responded that he now believes that his patient’s diagnosis is more akin to Schizophrenia, primarily because of Mr. Wang’s lack of motivation.

20. Reference was made to page 71 of the Hospital Report, which states:

Cultural factors may also contribute to his reluctance to engage in group discussion or challenge authority directly.

and thereby raises the potential benefit of introducing a cultural interpreter to assist Mr. Wang. Dr. Adiele responded that this can be mentioned to Mr. Wang’s social worker as this resource may prove helpful.

21. Mr. Howard advised that Mr. Wang did not intend to give evidence but would answer questions. A panel member asked him if he will ever get back together with his wife to which he responded, “I think so.”

Closing Submissions

22. Dr. Adiele stated that he had nothing to add.

23. Ms. Breault submitted that the Hospital Report speaks to the lack of insight and limited inroads achieved vis-à-vis treatment regarding Mr. Wang. This patient breached the conditions of his disposition, while in Hospital, by texting his ex-wife. He continues to believe that they will get back together.

24. Mr. Howard submitted that his client’s position is that he does not suffer from a mental illness and does not constitute a significant risk to public safety. In the event an absolute discharge cannot be granted, he would agree to modify subparagraph 2(e) as proposed by the Hospital. Mr. Howard further submitted that it is clear from the occupational assessment that Mr. Wang can attend to tasks of daily living. He did so at the Marionville residence absent any indicia that in August of 2024 he would attend at his ex-wife’s home. According to Mr. Howard, Mr. Wang’s risk can be mitigated by placing him in the community of Brockville which is further away from his ex-wife’s Ottawa home. Mr. Howard added that 24-7 supervised accommodation is not required to manage his client in the Brockville catchment area.

Analysis and Decision

(a) Significant Threat

25. Ongoing significant threat to the safety of the public cannot be speculative. It must entail a real risk of serious physical or psychological harm arising from a criminal offence.

26. In determining whether Mr. Wang represents a significant threat to the safety of the public the Board has carefully analyzed the evidence as it relates to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Winko, 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625.

27. At page 75 of the Hospital Report Mr. Wang’s Overall Risk Level is categorized as “MODERATE TO HIGH”. On page 76 under the heading of Risk Scenarios: the following factors are set out:

• Highest Risk: if given increased freedoms or absolute discharge without adequate safeguard
• Primary victims: Ex-wife and son remain at highest risk
• Risk behaviours: Stalking, harassment, potential physical violence if confronted or frustrated

28. The above noted factors indicate that both Mr. Wang’s ex-wife and son are at highest risk. Dr. Adiele’s testimony downplayed the risk to Mr. Wang’s son as he has moved away from Ottawa and Mr. Wang does not have his contact particulars. However, Dr. Adiele was adamant that Mr. Wang still presents a significant risk vis-à-vis his ex-wife. This ongoing risk is exemplified in that Mr. Wang breached both his restraining order and ORB disposition by contacted her in August 2024 which precipitating his readmission to Hospital. This unwanted contact re-occurred in May 2025 after which his ex-wife complained to the ROMHC again resulting in his re-admission to that Hospital and subsequent transfer to the BMHC. Mr. Wang is unable to accept that his relationship with his ex-wife is at an end. He testified that he still hopes to rekindle their relationship thereby demonstrating that the risk to her safety is unabated.

29. Given the particulars referenced in the two preceding paragraphs this panel unanimously finds that Mr. Wang continues to represent a significant risk.

(b) Disposition

30. Flowing from the Board’s finding that Mr. Wang continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public it must shape a Disposition for the year ahead. Its paramount consideration in doing so must be the safety of the public while also considering Mr. Wang’s needs pursuant to s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code. The necessary and appropriate Disposition for Mr. Wang provides him as much freedom as possible without subjecting the community to a real risk of dangerous behaviour.

31. The rationale supporting why Mr. Wang continues to represent a significant threat to public safety informs as to why it remains essential for the Hospital to approve Mr. Wang’s’ housing as well as ensuring his expeditious return to Hospital for stabilization and treatment. These safeguards can only be guaranteed pursuant to the terms and conditions of a Detention Disposition. The panel is unable to accept Dr. Adiele’s recommendation, supported by Mr. Howard that this patient’s disposition be amended to increase the latitude of community housing options from:

• 24/7 supervised accommodation, approved by the person in charge to
• accommodation approved by the person in charge.

32. The insufficiency of housing options in and around Brockville in no way renders it necessary or appropriate to loosen the degree of oversight that Mr. Wang requires to manage his risk. The panel was not swayed by Dr. Adiele’s contention that it would be more challenging for Mr. Wang to return to his ex-wife’s home from Brockville, which is approximately 114 km from Ottawa, than from his previous community residence in Marionville, approximately 51 kilometres from Ottawa. From Brockville, there are readily available public and private options able to transport Mr. Wang to Ottawa, within 1.5 hours. For example, there is frequent train service between the two communities.

33. To facilitate Mr. Wang’s community reintegration and rehabilitation, it may be advisable to consider transferring his care to a forensic Hospital situated a greater distance from Ottawa.

Conclusion

34. Therefore, the Board unanimously determines that the necessary and appropriate Disposition required to manage the threat Mr. Wang poses to the safety of the public while still meeting his needs, remains a Detention Disposition on the same terms and conditions.

35. In making this Disposition, the Board carefully considered the positions and submissions of the parties and the evidence of Dr. Adiele and is satisfied that this determination is both necessary and appropriate. The Board reviewed the provisions of s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code and carefully considered the need to protect the public from dangerous persons, Mr. Wang’s mental condition, his reintegration into society and other needs.

DATED this 14th day of October, 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.

Mr. P. Capelle Alternate Chairperson

Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board