Ontario Review Board
Re: Helen Kim
ORB File No: 8242
Hearing held on: Thursday, October 9, 2025
Place of hearing: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Ms. L. Banks Members: Hon. C. Nelson Dr. L.E. Cappe Dr. J.C. Rose Mr. J. Cyr
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Helen Kim Counsel: Ms. M-K. Choi
The Person in charge of Hospital: Representative: Mr. D. Blumenkrans
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. M. Yousef
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated November 6, 2025)
Introduction:
On January 24, 2023, Helen Kim was found not criminally responsible (“NCR”) on charges of criminal harassment x2, prowl by night, failure to comply with probation x3 and failure to comply with release order x5, all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (“Criminal Code”).
Ms. Kim is currently subject to an Ontario Review Board (“the Board”) disposition dated September 20, 2024, which detains her at the Forensic Service of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (“CAMH” and “the Hospital”) with privileges up to and including the ability to live in the community of Southern Ontario in accommodation approved by the person in charge of the Hospital. Her disposition also includes conditions not to communicate or contact a named individual, and not to attend a known place of residence or employment of a named person.
On October 9, 2025, a panel of the Board convened at CAMH to conduct an annual hearing to review Ms. Kim’s existing disposition pursuant to section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. All parties appeared in person. Ms. Kim was represented by her counsel, Ms. Choi.
The issues to be determined by the Board were whether Ms. Kim constitutes a significant threat to the safety of the public as defined in section 672.54 of the Criminal Code and as further expanded upon in the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Winko, 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625. In the event of a positive finding of a significant threat, the secondary issue to be determined is what is the necessary and appropriate disposition, which is also the least onerous and least restrictive, taking into account the factors set out in section 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
Without Prejudice Initial Positions of the Parties
At the outset of the hearing, Mr. Blumenkrans submitted for the Hospital that Ms. Kim continued to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate disposition is a conditional discharge. The Hospital recommended a reporting requirement of not less than once every two weeks. The hospital recommended that the non-attendance and no-contact conditions of her existing disposition remained necessary and appropriate.
Mr. Yousef, counsel for the Attorney General endorsed the Hospital’s position.
Ms. Choi, counsel for Ms. Kim, submitted that the statutory threshold for significant threat is not met and that the Board must order her client be absolutely discharged.
Findings
- For the Reasons that follow, the panel found that Ms. Kim continued to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate disposition is a conditional discharge with the terms and conditions recommended by the hospital.
Index Offences:
- The circumstances of the index offence are extracted from last year’s Reasons for Disposition, as follows:
“July 21, 2021 - Criminal Harassment: The victim, Ms. Kim’s ex-husband Andrew Peredery, had received three voicemail messages at 4:27 a.m., 7:59 a.m., and 9:55 a.m. which were in violation of a no-communication condition of a conditional sentence by which Ms. Kim was bound. A warrant was issued for Ms. Kim’s arrest in relation to the conditional sentence order breaches. Although Ms. Kim had initially agreed to turn herself in with her surety (her father), she did not do so. In the meantime, the victim had received emails and physical letters from Ms. Kim. As a result of Ms. Kim’s unwillingness to turn herself in, and her unrelenting harassment of the victim, a warrant was requested for her arrest for criminal harassment.
October 24, 2021 – Failure to Comply Probation, Failure to Comply Release Order, Prowl at Night: At 8:57 p.m. the victim, Mr. Peredery, contacted police to report that Ms. Kim was on his property in breach of conditions and a restraining order. Officers located Ms. Kim in the shed in the backyard. Ms. Kim was observed to have lost touch with reality, and continually refused to leave the shed and the property. Ms. Kim was removed from the shed by police and was arrested.
November 16, 2021 – Failure to Comply Release Order, Failure to Comply Probation: At 5:33 p.m. the victim, Mr. Peredery, contacted police to report that Ms. Kim was sitting on the porch of his residence in breach of a no-contact order and conditions not to be near him. Police attended at the residence and found Ms. Kim wrapped in a blanket sitting on a bench located on the porch of the victim’s residence. Also on the porch was a suitcase, a black backpack, and a black leather purse, all belonging to Ms. Kim. Ms. Kim was arrested for failure to comply with release orders and probation orders.
November 28, 2021 – Failure to Comply Probation, Failure to Comply Release Order x3, Criminal Harassment: The victim, Mr. Peredery, called police to report that Ms. Kim had contacted him numerous times that day by telephone and had attended at his residence to drop off a package at his doorstep. It was noted that Ms. Kim was subject to a release order requiring her to remain at her residence at all times except for medical emergencies, to not communicate with the victim, and to not attend at the victim’s residence. Ms. Kim was charged with fail to comply with probation order and release order (x3) as well as criminal harassment.”
Ms. Kim’s History and Current Circumstances:
The Hospital Report (Exhibit 1) contains considerable information with respect to Ms. Kim’s personal, educational, medical, and psychiatric background and should be referred to for details.
Ms. Kim was 51 years old at the time of the hearing. She was born in South Korea and immigrated to Canada when she was an infant. Ms. Kim completed an honours degree in chemistry and was accepted into medical school in the United States in 2009. Unfortunately, she withdrew from school while completing her pre-medical school requirements. Ms. Kim held consistent employment up until her mental health symptoms interfered with her ability to work.
In 2007, Ms. Kim experienced her first episode of psychotic symptoms following the birth of her first child. At the time, she was concerned that her co-workers had sent agents to kill her while she was on a skiing trip with her husband. Her family took her to the hospital, where she was diagnosed with postpartum depression. Ms. Kim did not want to remain in the hospital and was discharged home.
Following the birth of her second child, Ms. Kim became increasingly suspicious about the food in the family home and her colleagues at work. She also began to question whether her children were in her children. Ms. Kim was treated in the hospital for her psychotic symptoms and is reported to have responded well to the antipsychotic medications.
Unfortunately, Ms. Kim had limited insight into her illness. After hospitalization, she frequently refused treatment, which led to ongoing symptoms that began to interfere with her work and her marriage. Between 2006 and 2012, the police attended the family home approximately 50 times because of Ms. Kim’s various fears.
Pages 6 to 10 of the Hospital Report outline several contacts with psychiatric services between March 2007 and May 2021. During that time, Ms. Kim was placed on a Form 1 under the Mental Health Act approximately six times. In most instances, she did not meet the criteria for ongoing involuntary hospitalization under the Mental Health Act. On several occasions, Ms. Kim refused treatment and refused to stay in the hospital voluntarily. Ms. Kim did not participate in regular outpatient psychiatric services. She only participated in one outpatient appointment in 2018 and was noted to disagree with her diagnosis of psychotic disorder.
In 2011, Ms. Kim began living with her parents. She and her husband separated in 2012, and her husband was awarded full custody of their children in 2013. In 2016, Ms. Kim was declared a “vexatious litigant” by the Family Court. The divorce was finalized in 2017. Ms. Kim’s behaviour continued to escalate over the years, leading her ex-husband to pursue restraining orders, charges, and subsequent Court action.
At the time of the 2021 index offences, Ms. Kim was residing with her parents. Ms. Kim was reported to have been aggressive towards her mother, leading her mother to be fearful. Her mother reportedly chose to live in a separate part of the home.
Ms. Kim’s criminal record includes approximately 11 convictions. Of note, she was convicted of criminal harassment and unlawfully in dwelling house in 2021. She also has nine convictions for failing to comply with recognizances, probation orders and release orders. Page 19 of the Hospital Report also references that Ms. Kim was charged with assault after she punched and pushed her ex-husband during an argument. This charge was later dismissed or dropped.
Course since NCR finding:
Mr. Kim was detained at St. Joseph’s Health Care Hamilton (SJHCH) following her NCR finding in January 2023. She was declared incapable of consenting to treatment for her mental disorder in February 2023. She was described as having no insight into her mental health symptoms. She did not believe her mental state would benefit from mental health treatment. Nonetheless, she stated that she wished to start meditation to prevent future stressors.
Ms. Kim remained at SJHCH until her care was transferred to CAMH in December 2024. Her time at SJHCH was uneventful, with no notable incidents or difficulties adhering to her disposition. She remained medication compliant and demonstrated a high level of participation in recreational programming. She also began attending cognitive behavioural therapy and occupational therapy groups.
By November 2023, Ms. Kim’s mental status had remained stable. Her insight into her diagnosis had improved, and she was not endorsing paranoid thoughts. This positive trajectory continued into the following reporting year.
In December 2023, Ms. Kim began exercising overnight passes to her parents’ home in the Greater Toronto Area. She was discharged to reside with her parents in February 2024. At the time of her September 2024 early review, she was administering her oral medications independently without oversight. She also consistently denied experiencing any symptoms of her illness.
Current Diagnoses:
- Ms. Kim’s current diagnosis is schizophrenia.
Evidence at the hearing:
The evidence of Dr. Valoo
In addition to the Hospital Report, the Board heard oral evidence from Ms. Kim’s attending psychiatrist, Dr. Valoo.
Dr. Valoo stated that Ms. Kim continues to reside with her parents in the family home, which she co-owns and where she was discharged in February 2024. She is engaged in programming and is making efforts to become employed in the community.
At the outset, Dr. Valoo testified that there were no material updates since the Hospital Report was authored. She highlighted that Ms. Kim has had a successful year. Ms. Kim appropriately managed the transition of her care to CAMH. She has been reliable and consistent with her outpatient appointments. She demonstrated strong and independent motivation to seek employment and has engaged in structured programming.
To her credit, Ms. Kim has reflected on the feedback from Dr. Valoo and her former treating psychiatrist. She decided to transition to an injectable antipsychotic medication. Dr. Valoo noted that this transition was a major success, highlighting that the injection is a significant protective factor against the re-emergence of psychotic symptoms and, as well, it allows the treatment team to ensure that Ms. Kim remains medication compliant.
Regarding significant risk, Dr. Valoo testified that Ms. Kim has a lengthy psychiatric history, dating back to 2007. She was not connected to consistent psychiatric services until her NCR finding. Although Ms. Kim has been very successful since coming under the ORB in 2023, this must be understood against a backdrop of approximately 16 years of no psychiatric treatment. Dr. Valoo highlighted that Ms. Kim’s success to date has been achieved in the context of a detention order disposition that essentially mandates engagement with psychiatric services in hospital. It was the doctor’s opinion that Ms. Kim continued to represent a significant risk to the safety of the public, given this history and historical risk factors.
Dr. Valoo drew the Board’s attention to the re-offence scenario on page 40 of the Hospital Report, which states:
If Ms. Kim were to reoffend, this would likely occur in the context of a re-emergence of psychotic symptoms, possibly in response to psychosocial stress. This would subsequently impair her insight into the need for psychiatric follow-up and antipsychotic medications to maintain psychiatric stability, as was the case for several years prior to the index offences. This may eventually result in her missing an antipsychotic injection, and/or refusing to accept further injections (she is capable regarding antipsychotic treatment), and becoming unmedicated. While untreated, Ms. Kim would likely experience increasing paranoid delusional beliefs, resulting in threatening and/or violent behaviour towards individuals in her immediate vicinity, including family members. This may impede her ability to remain at her home with her parents, thereby increasing her psychosocial instability with a possible return to transient living, and ultimately causing more stress and further psychotic deterioration.
Dr. Valoo noted that, under a conditional discharge, Ms. Kim would still need to meet with the treatment team, which would enable them to monitor her mental state and her engagement in programming. In the Hospital’s view, a decrease in reporting frequency to not less than every two weeks is appropriate. Dr. Valoo was also of the opinion that the Mental Health Act would be sufficient to manage Ms. Kim’s risk at this point.
A transition to a conditional discharge also allows the treatment team to assess how Ms. Kim would do with less oversight. If there are any changes in her mental status, the team would adjust their level of involvement as needed. The doctor noted that a primary goal will be to connect Ms. Kim with civil mental health services. If things go well, they will work towards transferring her psychiatric care to the civil system prior to the grant of an Absolute Discharge.
Dr. Valoo confirmed that there are no civil mental health supports for Ms. Kim that are currently in place. She noted that it is difficult to predict how long the transfer of her care would take as each civil service has its own referral process and timeline. In the doctor’s opinion, it could range from a few weeks to a few months.
In response to questions, Dr. Valoo stated the following:
i Ms. Kim’s insight into her diagnosis and symptoms has improved; however, robust insight has not been achieved. The doctor’s view was that Ms. Kim’s insight would continue to improve with ongoing involvement with the forensic team and that this could be achieved under a conditional discharge. Dr. Valoo did not see any added clinical benefit to continuing the current detention order. The doctor also testified that Ms. Kim’s insight could become compromised if she were to experience an exacerbation in her psychotic symptoms or were she to become exposed to heightened stressors.
ii Ms. Kim’s history of violence includes an episode of violence in 2012 (pushing her husband), the index offence of criminal harassment, and aggressive behaviour towards her mother. She noted that the team at SJHCH documented Ms. Kim’s aggression towards her mother, and the doctor has no more information, beyond what is indicated in the Hospital Report.
iii At the time of the hearing, Ms. Kim was assessed as capable of consenting to psychiatric treatment, and she had an understanding that her medication is necessary to attenuate the symptoms of her mental illness.
iv The improvements in Ms. Kim’s relationship with her parents are a direct result of Ms. Kim’s engagement in psychiatric care, which is facilitated by her ORB disposition.
v There is a well-established historical pattern of over a decade of Ms. Kim refusing treatment when recommended by mental health professionals. When untreated, she expressed extremely underdeveloped insight into her mental health diagnosis and need for treatment.
- In response to questions posed by a panel member, the doctor advised that Ms. Kim has abided by the no-contact order in her ORB disposition. As well, she has maintained contact with her two children several times monthly. Ms. Kim’s father arranges all visits with her children.
The evidence of Ms. Kim
Ms. Kim testified that she does not view herself as a significant threat to the safety of the public. She clarified that since January 2023, she has been willing to take medications, following her NCR finding. Since that time, she has learned that she can make changes in her life and views herself as being in recovery.
Regarding concerns about future non-compliance, Ms. Kim stated that she has made a conscious decision to address her psychiatric illness and take medications. She does not think this will change. She voiced that schizophrenia is a lifelong illness and that she will require medications for the rest of her life.
In response to a question, Ms. Kim stated that she has discussed her long-acting antipsychotic injection with her family doctor. Her family physician is willing to facilitate a referral to a psychiatrist once she is absolutely discharged from the forensic system.
No further evidence was called.
Final Submissions of the Parties
At the conclusion of the evidence, the Hospital maintained its initial position. In submissions, Mr. Blumenkrans highlighted that a gradual transition to a civil mental health team under a conditional discharge disposition is necessary and appropriate at this juncture to protect the safety of the public as well as to support Ms. Kim’s community reintegration. Ms. Kim’s ability to maintain her psychiatric stability needs to be demonstrated prior to the grant of an Absolute Discharge.
Mr. Yousef, on behalf of the Attorney General, no longer supported the Hospital's position. He asked the Board to consider continuing Ms. Kim’s current detention order, with no changes to the terms and conditions.
Ms. Choi submitted that the evidence established that Ms. Kim no longer meets the statutory threshold of posing a significant threat to the safety of the public and, as such, Ms. Kim is entitled to an absolute discharge.
Analysis and Conclusions:
Ongoing significant risk to the safety of the public cannot be speculative. It must entail a real risk of serious physical or psychological harm arising from conduct that is both serious and criminal in nature. In determining whether Ms. Kim continues to pose a significant threat to public safety, the Board has carefully analyzed the evidence in relation to s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code of Canada and as further defined in the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Winko, 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625.
Based on the evidence, the Board unanimously finds that the test for significant threat has been met. The Board relies on the expert opinion of Dr. Valoo and the Hospital Report in arriving at its conclusion.
Ms. Kim lives with schizophrenia, the symptoms of which are currently well managed by her antipsychotic medication regimen. The index offences took place in the context of active symptoms of psychosis, in the absence of consistent psychiatric follow-up and pharmacological intervention.
We accept that, absent an ORB disposition, Ms. Kim would likely become non-compliant with medication, which would lead to decompensation and a re-emergence of behaviours like those seen at the time of the index offence. Ms. Kim’s history of violence includes physical aggression, as well as unwanted communication and contact with the index offence victim. We noted that this unwanted communication spanned several years, leading the victim to apply for restraining orders. Prior convictions for breaches of probation and the index offences demonstrate that Ms. Kim’s behaviour persisted despite criminal justice intervention. The Board considered all these behaviours when formulating our decision. We have no difficulty concluding that these behaviours are criminal in nature, beyond the trivial and annoying, and would be likely to cause physical or psychological harm to a victim (R. v. Ferguson, 2010 ONCA 810).
We accept Dr. Valoo’s evidence of the need to transfer oversight of Ms. Kim’s psychiatric care to a civil team while she continues to have the ongoing oversight of her forensic team and her ORB disposition. In the Board’s view, Ms. Kim’s plan to follow up with her family physician for a referral to a psychiatrist is insufficient to mitigate the risk she currently poses to the safety of the public. Her well-established and long history of non-compliance with treatment recommendations and medications outlines the need for a gradual and structured approach to her recovery journey. We also note that past attempts by Ms. Kim’s family members to secure care were unsuccessful, given Ms. Kim’s lack of insight and repeated refusal of care. Further, on many occasions in the past, she failed to meet the criteria under the Mental Health Act, and she left the hospital against medical advice and discontinued treatment. Consistent psychiatric treatment was not possible until Ms. Kim became subject to an ORB disposition.
Flowing from the Board’s finding that Ms. Kim continues to pose a significant threat to public safety, it must shape a disposition for the year ahead. It’s paramount consideration in doing so must be the safety of the public, while also considering Ms. Kim’s needs pursuant to s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code of Canada. The necessary and appropriate disposition for Ms. Kim provides her as much freedom as possible without subjecting the community to a real risk of dangerous behaviour.
In the Board’s view, a continuation of the current detention order is not supported by the evidence and is not in line with Ms. Kim’s liberty interests.
The expert evidence before us indicates that Ms. Kim’s risk to the safety of the public can be managed under a conditional discharge. Ms. Kim participates in her care, attends her appointments, and has a good working relationship with her treatment team. Her transition to living in the community has gone well, with no incidents of concern and no hospital readmissions. Dr. Valoo’s expert testimony also outlines that the Mental Health Act is sufficient to return Ms. Kim to the hospital, if needed.
Accordingly, considering public safety, which is paramount, as well as Ms. Kim’s mental health, her reintegration into the community, and her other needs, we agree that a conditional discharge, is the necessary and appropriate disposition for the coming year, and so order.
DATED this 6th day of November, 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
J. C. Rose, Ph.D., C.Psych.
Psychologist Member
__________________
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board