Ontario Review Board
Re: Phuoc Vo
ORB File No: 8214
Hearing held on: Wednesday, September 10, 2025
Place of hearing: St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton West 5th Campus, 100 West 5th Street
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. C. MacIntyre, KC
Members: Dr. P. Prendergast Dr. G. Nexhipi Mr. K. McKenna Mr. A. Mete
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Phuoc Vo Counsel: Mr. M. Schloss
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. L. Barney
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. A. Lepchuk
REASONS FOR DECISION
(Dated November 3, 2025)
Introduction
On January 13, 2023, Phuoc Vo was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on charges of second-degree murder (x2), contrary to the Criminal Code. Mr. Vo is currently subject to an Ontario Review Board Disposition of April 4, 2025, which detains him at the Forensic Psychiatry Program of St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton (“St. Joseph's”) with privileges up to and including to enter the community within a 50-kilometer radius of the hospital, indirectly supervised for vocational purposes only, as approved by the treatment team.
On August 15, 2025, the Ontario Review Board received a letter from St. Joseph's Hospital giving notice in accordance with s. 682.56(2) of the Criminal Code that Mr. Vo’s liberties were significantly restricted following an incident when he assaulted a co-patient.
As a result of this notice, the Ontario Review Board convened at St. Joseph's on September 10, 2025, in accordance with 672.81(2) of the Criminal Code, to determine whether the restrictions on Mr. Vo’s liberties were significantly increased.
In addition to a 672.81(2) hearing, the hospital requested an early review of Mr. Vo’s Disposition. This was prompted by the hospital’s then view that consideration should be given to transferring Mr. Vo to the high secure forensic hospital at Waypoint. However, the hospital subsequently advised the Board that it was no longer pursuing this.
At the outset of the hearing, the Board was advised by Mr. Schloss that his client, Mr. Vo, requested that he not be present at the hearing. This was not opposed by counsel for the hospital or the Crown. Mr. Schloss advised that he had instructions from his client to proceed in his absence. Accordingly, an order was made under s. 672.5(10) permitting Mr. Vo to be absent from his hearing.
The parties presented their preliminary positions. All parties agreed that Mr. Vo’s liberties were significantly restricted from the date of his assault on the co-patient on August 7, 2025, until September 10, 2025, and that they were necessary and appropriate. At the conclusion of the evidence, the Board also found that for the period from August 7, 2025, to Sept.10 2025, the restrictions on Mr. Vo’s liberties were necessary and appropriate.
Index Offences
- A Hospital Report of January 31, 2025, was filed as Exhibit 1 to this hearing. It outlines in more detail the circumstances of the index offences. In summary; on April 26, 2025, at a time when the accused was living with his parents in Hamilton, Ontario, he attacked each of them with a knife. They succumbed to their injuries. At the time of the index offence, Mr. Vo was suffering from paranoia and persecutory beliefs including the belief that his parents were in serious danger, and he decided to kill himself and his parents to prevent them all from suffering a violent death. At the same time, he had been diagnosed with alcohol and cannabis use disorders.
Background
The Hospital Report of January 31, 2025, should be referred to for detail regarding Mr. Vo’s personal and psychiatric background.
Mr. Vo has a criminal record of driving over the blood alcohol limit in 2006 and a conditional discharge and probation on a charge of uttering threats in 2020. The Hospital Report refers to other instances when the police were contacted on reports that Mr. Vo was threatening to kill members of his family or exhibiting bizarre behaviour, however these actions did not attract other charges.
Mr. Vo has a long history of cannabis use and alcohol use and these figured prominently in his history of physical and verbal aggression of his family combined with his bad temper.
Mr. Vo’s diagnoses are delusional disorder, and alcohol and cannabis use disorders, both in remission in a controlled environment. Although treated with antipsychotic medications with which he has been compliant, Mr. Vo continues to experience some symptoms of his delusional disorder at a low grade level and suffers from episodes of anxiety.
Although his insight into his illness and the need for medication has improved, he continues to have difficulty rationalizing how he could have murdered his parents.
Mr. Vo’s anger issues are significant. In June of 2023, he was charged with assaulting a co-patient. He was found guilty of this and sentenced with probation. In November of 2023, staff intervention was necessary when an argument between Mr. Vo and a co-patient reached a high level of intensity.
At Mr. Vo’s last annual review on April 4, 2025, the Board observed that Mr. Vo had done well with the privileges and conditions of the hospital, however, he had not yet exercised indirectly supervised passes into the community. Some of this slow progress was due to Mr. Vo’s fear of leaving the hospital, believing there were people in the community who would cause him harm.
Evidence at Hearing
Dr. Nagari testified on behalf of the hospital. He has been Mr. Vo’s most responsible physician since July of 2023. He is also the author of the January 31, 2025, Hospital Report and a more current September 2, 2025, Hospital Report dealing with the recent restriction of liberties. This latter report was filed as Exhibit 2 to this hearing.
The circumstances giving rise to the restriction of liberties are outlined in the September 2, 2025, report as follows:
“The video footage of the incident shows Mr. Vo sitting on the bench outside the unit, and the co-patient emerging from the elevator and heading straight to the same bench and sitting beside him. Mr. Vo appeared to tell the co-patient to move away. A brief verbal exchange followed, during which Mr. Vo struck the co-patient’s thigh, seemingly to get him to move. Mr. Vo then counted down using his fingers before launching a physical assault - throwing multiple punches, dragging the co-patient by the hair away from the bench, and kicking him. After the co-patient fell to the ground, Mr. Vo delivered additional punches and kicked him in the abdomen before returning to the bench. Another co-patient attempted to intervene but was unsuccessful in stopping the attack.
The nursing staff approached Mr. Vo after learning of the assault and admitted him to seclusion without any resistance. There was no notable deterioration in Mr. Vo’s mental status, and by all observations his presentation was at baseline at the time of admission to seclusion, except for the arousal resulting from the adrenaline. He stated that he found this co-patient teasing another “very annoying” patient all day. Mr. Vo reported that he had long found the co-patient’s behavior irritating but had not previously intervened. On the day of the incident, he observed the same victimization occurring, which he found intolerable.”
Importantly, Mr. Vo was not exhibiting any psychotic symptoms at this time. Mr. Vo recalled the incident clearly. Dr. Nagari testified that Mr. Vo has explosive anger issues which appear to randomly appear every six to eight months or so. Mr. Vo tells his clinical team about them and has said that most of the time he just walks away from conflict and on this occasion, he acknowledged that he could not control himself and felt guilty about letting down his hospital team.
Considering the violence of the incident, the hospital team did initially consider Mr. Vo’s transfer to Waypoint, however, in the days and weeks following this incident the hospital appreciated that Mr. Vo had no animosity towards the victim, and the victim himself had come to terms with the assault (this patient appears to have been assaulted by other patients).
Another consideration in not recommending a transfer was that Mr. Vo has actually done quite well on this unit. His insight has improved, and his paranoia has diminished. He has worked in the hospital café, and he has been a volunteer at the Good Shepherd.
Immediately following Mr. Vo’s attack, he was placed in seclusion. He acknowledged that he had failed the treatment team by not reaching out for support and that he had the option of walking away from the incident as he says he has done other times in the past.
The period of seclusion was necessary to observe Mr. Vo’s mental status but also to physically separate him from the co-patient who shared the same unit. No charges were brought against Mr. Vo by the co-patient.
On August 15, Mr. Vo was moved from seclusion to his own room. The room remained unlocked but the plan, with his cooperation, was that he remain in the room at all times. He wrote an apologetic letter to his team for his actions.
Until September 2, Mr. Vo remained restricted in his room but was then given access to the courtyard, hallway and television lounge. There were no further issues between Mr. Vo and the victim co-patient during this time
Dr. Nagari advised the Board that on September 9, the day prior to the hearing, Mr. Vo’s full level 4 privileges were restored.
Dr. Nagari testified that Mr. Vo’s difficulties with managing his anger predated his mental illness. He continues to have difficulty with emotional regulation but other than this, there are no other indicators of any personality disorder. This recent assault on the co-patient was considered by the hospital team as an escalation of his anger and assaultive behaviours. Accordingly, the hospital took a cautious approach in monitoring Mr. Vo’s mental status and behaviour before returning him to full use of his privileges.
At the conclusion of the evidence, all parties agreed that by resuming his full privileges on September 9, Mr. Vo was returned to his liberty norm.
Decision
The Board accepts that Mr. Vo’s assault on a co-patient was a violent incident requiring immediate action by the hospital team to isolate him from other possible violence and to separate him from the victim of the offence who is in the same hospital unit and to monitor his mental state.
Dr. Nagari testified that Mr. Vo was placed in a seclusion room for the first three days of his seclusion. Following this, he spent another three days in a locked pod during which the hospital’s seclusion relief program was applied. He was then moved to his own room on August 15, where he was to remain. Access to the unit was allowed on Sept 02 and by September 9, he was reintegrated into his unit with full privileges. Dr. Nagari was questioned why the period of locked seclusion lasted as long as it did. He repeated that the observation during this time was necessary to monitor Mr. Vo’s mental state but also to keep him separated from the victim as they were both on the same unit.
On the evidence presented by the hospital, the Board agrees that the initial period of seclusion to a seclusion room and locked pod from August 7 to August 15, was necessary and appropriate, although based on Dr. Nagari’s evidence there appeared to be nothing observed in Mr. Vo’s mental state for the latter three or four days to keep him so restrained to this degree. The hospital has recorded however, that there was nothing observed in Mr. Vo’s mental state or behaviour prior to the assault to predict his actions. From the outset, he had demonstrated no psychotic symptoms and accepted that he had lost control and was apologetic.
From August 15 until September 2, Mr. Vo was essentially restricted to his own room. This was unlocked and it was with his cooperation that he adhered to this. With the approval of his hospital team on Sept 02, he was given access to the courtyard, the hospital hallway and the television lounge. During this time period until Sept.09, the day before his hearing, he had not been given his full privileges.
Accordingly, the period of restriction of liberty seems to have occurred in three stages: between August 7 to August 15, August 15 to September 2, and from September 2 to September 9 or 10.
The Board is satisfied that the period of August 7 to August 15 when Mr. Vo was secluded in a seclusion room and on a seclusion pod, was a reasonable time period of seclusion soon after the assault to monitor his progress and avoid any concern for a repeat of his behaviour. The gradual restoration of privileges until Sept. 09 was cautionary but considered necessary before the hospital team was confident enough in Mr. Vo’s state to restore his privileges in full.
The parties have jointly acknowledged that the necessary and appropriate period of restriction was from Aug 07 to Sept 10 by which date Mr. Vo’s full privileges were restored. The Board agrees that these limitations on Mr. Vo’s privileges were significant but necessary and appropriate in the circumstances.
DATED this 3rd day of November 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.
Mr. C. MacIntyre, KC Alternate Chairperson
____________________________
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board