Re Wu Liu, 2025 CanLII 135629

Re: Wu Liu (a.k.a Liu Wu)

ORB File No: 5260

Hearing held on: Tuesday November 25, 2025

Place of Hearing: Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences

Pursuant to: Section 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code

Before:

Alternate Chairperson: Mr. R. Bigelow

Members: Dr. T. Wilkie Dr. M. Kalia Mr. G. Beasley Ms. B. Little

Parties Appearing:

Accused: Wu Liu Counsel: Mr. C. Hynes

The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. A. Marshall

Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. N. MacDonald

REASONS FOR DECISION

(Dated December 31, 2025)

Introduction

1. On January 15, 2009, Wu Liu was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCR) on charge of attempted murder contrary to the Criminal Code. He is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the Board) dated March 17, 2025 ordering that he be detained within the General Forensic Service at Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences (the Hospital) with privileges up to and including residence in the community in accommodation approved by the person in charge.

2. By letter dated October 27, 2025 the Hospital notified the Board of the restriction of Mr. Liu’s liberty for a period exceeding seven days pursuant to section 672.56(2)(b) of the Criminal Code after to his readmission to Hospital on October 18, 2025.

3. On Tuesday, November 25, 2025, the Board convened a hearing to review the restriction of Mr. Liu’s liberty pursuant to section 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code. The issues to be determined at the hearing were whether both the initial and continuing restriction of Mr. Liu’s liberty was the least onerous and least restrictive option open to the Hospital in all the circumstances taking into account the protection of the public of the public and Mr. Liu’s needs.

4. Mr. Liu was present at the hearing with the assistance of a Mandarin interpreter and was represented by counsel, Mr. Hynes.

Initial Positions of the Parties

5. At the commencement of the hearing the parties were requested to provide their initial without prejudice positions with respect to the issues before the Board. Counsel for the Hospital indicated that it was the position of the Hospital that both the initial and continuing restriction of Mr. Liu’s liberty were necessary and appropriate and the least onerous and least restrictive option open to the Hospital in all the circumstances and that there should be no change to its current disposition.

6. Both Counsel for the Attorney General and Counsel for Mr. Liu supported the Hospital recommendation.

Evidence at the hearing

7. The evidence at the hearing consisted of a Hospital Report, dated February 5, 2025, prepared for his last annual review, a Restriction of Liberty Report dated November 14, 2025, and the oral evidence of Dr. Wang, Mr. Liu’streating psychiatrist.

Findings:

8. For the Reasons that follow, the Board finds that both the initial and continuing restriction of Mr. Liu’s liberty up to the date of the hearing were necessary and appropriate and the least onerous and least restrictive option open to the hospital in all the circumstances and that there should be no change to his current disposition.

Circumstances Surrounding the Restriction of Liberty

9. The Restriction of Liberty Report summarizes the circumstances surrounding Mr. Liu’s re-admission to hospital as follows:

Mr. Liu was re-admitted to hospital on October 18, 2025, due to a significant departure from his baseline mental state, whereupon he became much more irritable, dismissive, and hostile than usual. Upon admission, he was observed to be quite agitated, bizarre, and disorganized, reflecting a clear decompensation in his illness. The etiology of this decompensation was not entirely clear, but in part due to the gradual reduction in the dose of valproic acid over the preceding months. Given the acute change in his presentation, it was the team’s opinion that it was necessary and appropriate to restrict his liberty to manage the risk to the public by providing a higher level of supervision for more in-depth assessment and to provide treatment for stabilization. He has had a slow improvement since his admission, but he has not returned to his baseline state as of the preparation of this report. He had also only just begun utilizing privileges, so additional assessment of his ability to manage this is still required. As such, the ongoing restriction of his liberty remains necessary and appropriate.

Index Offences:

10. The allegations surrounding the index charges as summarized in the last year’s reasons for disposition are as follows:

The accused had rented a room in an apartment building about two weeks before the index offence. When his landlord became concerned about the accused's confused and unresponsive actions while walking around the building, the landlord telephoned the male victim and asked him to check on the accused.

When the victim attended the accused's apartment (on May 21, 2008) a scuffle ensued and in the course of this the accused stabbed the victim three times. The victim, bleeding badly, managed to make his way to the main floor where he called for help. He was then transported to Sunnybrook where he received emergency medical treatment.

The police were called and arrived at the accused's apartment. The accused was found sitting in a bed holding a large knife, possibly a machete, and flipping through magazines. They also noticed a sleeve of material with about eight knives in this sleeve lying at the accused’s feet. He was unresponsive to their demands. Officers then entered the apartment to physically apprehend the accused. The accused walked toward the officers holding something in his hands and had the rolled-up sleeve of knives under his arm. He continued to ignore the demands of the police officer and he was then disabled by taser and taken into custody.

Background Information Regarding the Accused:

11. As of the date of the hearing Mr. Liu was 46 years of age and was born and raised in China where he achieved junior high the equivalent of Canadian grade 9. His parents and a younger brother and sister remain in China. He has no family in Canada.

12. Mr. Liu left China when he was 18 years of age and entered the United States illegally where he remained and worked for a number of years. He entered Canada in January 2008 after being ordered deported from the United States. The circumstances surrounding his entry to Canada are unclear as he has provided contradictory information about how he entered the country.

13. The index offence occurred approximately six months after his arrival in Canada.

Substance Use History

14. Mr. Liu has no history of problematical use of alcohol and no history of consumption of other intoxicating substances.

Legal History:

15. Mr. Liu has no prior criminal record.

Psychiatric History

16. Mr. Liu had no involvement with mental health professionals prior to the Index Offences however he has stated that:

He began to sense the presence of ghosts several weeks before the alleged offence. He indicated that he believed somebody, or something was following him around. He indicated that these experiences were hard for him to describe but did cause him considerable distress and fear. He believed that these ghosts or spirits were affecting his thinking. He admitted to having nightmares about ghosts. He also endorsed the sense that others or perhaps these ghosts could put thoughts in his head. At some point, he believed that he had some form of special powers and that he could see things that others could not.

Current Diagnosis

17. Mr. Liu’ current diagnosis is Schizophrenia, Paranoid Type.

Evidence of Dr. Wang

18. Dr. Wang indicated that he had been Mr. Liu’s attending physician for several years and was involved in his readmission to hospital. By way of update to the ROL Report he advised that Mr. Liu was much better, particularly over the last few weeks, was currently almost at his base line and the team have begun discharge planning. Mr. Liu currently was receiving indirectly supervised passes into the community without incident and the treatment team anticipated his discharge back to his residence the week after the hearing.

19. Dr. Wang advised that the reason for the readmission was a significant change in Mr. Liu’s mental state displaying irritability, uncooperativeness and refusal to meet with the treatment team. Since his readmission and an increase in his medication, his mental state had improved substantially.

Analysis and Conclusion:

20. The Board finds that the joint submission with respect to the appropriateness of both the initial and continuing restriction of Mr. Liu’s liberty is well supported by the evidence. At the time of his readmission to hospital Mr. Liu’s mental state had changed significantly displaying irritability, uncooperativeness and a refusal to meet with the treatment team, possibly connected to a change in medication, resulting in an increase in his risk. His index offence was extremely violent resulting in life threatening injuries to the victim. The Board accepts the evidence of Dr. Wang that since Mr. Liu’s readmission and adjustments have been made to his medication regime, Mr. Liu had almost returned to his baseline and the team planned on his discharge back into the community the week subsequent to the hearing. In all the circumstances, the restriction of Mr. Liu’s liberties was necessary to both manage his risk and meet his needs.

DATED this 31^st^ day of December 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.

Robert Bigelow

Alternate Chairperson

Office of the Registrar

Ontario Review Board