Wei Wang (Re), 2025 CanLII 21201

Ontario Review Board

Re: Wei Wang

ORB File No: 4675

Hearing held on: Wednesday, January 29, 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. C. Flanagan Members: Dr. R. Sheppard Dr. M. Kalia Ms. J. Greenwood Mr. J. Cyr

Parties Appearing: Accused: Wei Wang Counsel: Ms. J. Boissonneault Person in charge of hospital: Representative: Dr. J. Pytyck Attorney-General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. N. MacDonald

REASONS FOR DECISION

(Dated March 10, 2025)

Introduction

1On January 11, 2007, Wei Wang was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCR) on a charge of assault causing bodily harm, contrary to the Criminal Code.

2Mr. Wang is currently subject to the terms and conditions of a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (“ORB”) dated May 17, 2024, detaining him at the Forensic Service of the Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences (“Ontario Shores” or “the Hospital”) with certain privileges including to enter the community, within a 150 kilometer radius of Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences, accompanied by staff or a person approved by the person in charge.

3Pursuant to section 672.56(2)(b) of the Criminal Code, the Board was notified by letter dated November 25, 2024, from Ontario Shores regarding Mr. Wang’s restriction of liberty.

4On January 29, 2025, a panel of the Board convened to review Mr. Wang’s restriction of liberty, pursuant to s. 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code. Ms. J. Boissonneault, counsel for Mr. Wang, attended the hearing, as did Mr. Wang.¹ An interpreter provided simultaneous translation in the Mandarin language for Mr. Wang at the hearing.

5A Hospital Report dated March 26, 2024, and a Restriction of Liberty (ROL) Report dated December 2, 2024, were filed as Exhibits 1 and 2, respectively, at the hearing.

6The sole issue to be considered at this hearing is whether the restriction of liberty was necessary and appropriate, and the least onerous and least restrictive intervention in the circumstances, both initially and throughout its duration to the time of the hearing.

7For reasons set out below, this Board concluded that the restriction of Mr. Wang’s liberty was necessary and appropriate, and the least onerous and least restrictive in the circumstances, both initially when imposed and throughout its duration to the hearing date.

Initial Position of the Parties

8At the outset of the hearing, the parties were canvassed as to their initial position.

9Dr. Pytyck, on behalf of the Hospital, submitted that the restriction of liberty imposed on Mr. Wang on November 16, 2024, was necessary and appropriate and remained so at the time of the hearing.

10Ms. MacDonald, on behalf of the Attorney General of Ontario, supported the Hospital’s position.

11Ms. Boissonneault, on behalf of Mr. Wang, conceded there was evidence to support the Hospital’s position that the initial restriction of liberty was necessary and warranted in the circumstances. She submitted, however, that Mr. Wang would now like to move back to the Forensic Transitional Unit (FTU), a general forensic unit in hospital.

Index Offence

12The circumstances of the index offence are extracted from the Hospital Report as follows:

“According to police records, Mr. Wang kicked the victim twice in the back in the kidney area causing the victim severe pain. This attack was quick and without warning. Injuries to the victim included bruising to lower back/kidney area, and blood in urine. The victim was a Registered Nurse at the Scarborough Grace Hospital. Mr. Wang had been arrested under the Mental Health Act and had been held on a Form 3, issued on October 27th, 2006. The accused has a long history of Mental Health issues and (has) been apprehended numerous times under the Mental Health Act. Mr. Wang was released from the hospital into police custody on November 17, 2006. At the time of the Index Offence, Mr. Wang was already the subject of a Probation Order, having been convicted of Assault with a Weapon in July 2006.”

Personal Background/Psychiatric History

13Mr. Wang’s personal background and psychiatric history are comprehensively reviewed in the Hospital Report filed as an exhibit at the hearing. Accordingly, there will be no extensive reference to the details in these Reasons.

14Briefly, Mr. Wang was born in Shanghai, China and immigrated to Canada at the age of 12. His parents reported that their son did not like to follow rules and wanted to be left alone. He left school in grade 9 and has never been employed. Mr. Wang reported he smoked marijuana daily and according to staff at his group home was using significant amounts of cocaine.

15Mr. Wang has criminal convictions consisting of several offences of violence. These include assault (x3) and assault with a weapon (x2). Charges of forcible confinement, robbery, and utter threats have also been withdrawn. On December 11, 2018, while under the jurisdiction of the ORB, Mr. Wang was convicted of assault after he physically attacked a staff member unprovoked.

16Mr. Wang’s mother reported that her son began having symptoms of mental illness at the age of 17. His violent behavior was first noticed after he returned from visiting China in 2002. Between 2003 and 2006, Mr. Wang had multiple admissions to hospital with a history of assaulting staff and co-patients. A PCL-R completed at Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care (Waypoint) placed him in the high range for antisocial traits.

17Prior to the index offence, Mr. Wang was living in his own apartment and was supported by his father who would visit him frequently to provide him with money and food. On November 4, 2006, while in hospital, Mr. Wang committed the index offence of assault bodily harm. On January 11, 2007, the court found him NCR. Notably, throughout his tenure under the jurisdiction of the Review Board, Mr. Wang has exhibited numerous episodes of disruptive, threatening, sexually inappropriate, and assaultive behavior, both at Waypoint and at Ontario Shores.

Current Diagnosis

18Mr. Wang’s current diagnoses are Schizophrenia and Cannabis Use Disorder.

Evidence at the Hearing

19The Hospital’s evidence was presented through the oral testimony of Dr. J. Pytyck to supplement the ROL Report, filed as Exhibit 2 at the hearing.

20Mr. Wang was transferred to the Forensic Transitional Unit (FTU), a General Forensic Unit, on July 25, 2024, pursuant to his most recent ORB Disposition which was issued on May 17, 2024.

21On October 25, 2024, Mr. Wang eloped from hospital while out on indirectly supervised hospital grounds privileges. He was located at Scarborough General Hospital seeking admission. Prior to going to this hospital, he had gone to his previous community residence where he attempted to gain entry, but left after finding it locked. Mr. Wang was returned to Ontario Shores and his privileges were suspended for 7 days to allow for closer observation and assessment of his mental state and risk of further elopement.

22Over the next few weeks, despite adjustments to his antipsychotic medication, Mr. Wang remained distressed and agitated beyond his usual baseline. He continued to express dissatisfaction with being at the facility and frequently left voicemails for his psychiatrist requesting various changes to his prn medications. He has been persistent in his desire to be transferred to another hospital closer to Scarborough to be nearer to his previous residence.

23Dr. Pytyck adopted and relied on the events of the restriction of liberty on November 16, 2024, as detailed in the ROL Report filed as Exhibit Two at the hearing. As stated on page 1 of the ROL Report:

“On November 15, 2024, Mr. Wang abruptly lunged at his female nurse during the evening shift and pushed his way into the nursing station in pursuit of her. Another male patient intervened to protect the nurse and Mr. Wang backed away. Later, when Mr. Wang was being secluded, he was offered a prn medication by a male nurse and punched the nurse in the face. Mr. Wang was transferred to a Secure Unit the following day to maintain the physical and psychological safety of staff on the FTU.”

24Dr. Pytyck advised that since Mr. Wang’s restriction of liberty, he was involved in another incident. On January 20, 2025, Mr. Wang assaulted a recreational therapist as she was walking into the nursing station. The doctor advised that this assault seemed to be triggered by Mr. Wang not being at his baseline and told he could not go out on hospital grounds. Dr. Pytyck advised that there did not appear to be any psychotic motivation for the assault. When asked about the assault, Mr. Wang initially denied it and then said he only touched the staff. At one point, Mr. Wang claimed the recreational therapist had punched him, which was contradicted by a witness to the incident.

25Dr. Pytyck has recommended that Mr. Wang remain in the secure forensic service due to his ongoing unpredictable and assaultive behavior. His mental status remains variable, necessitating continued observation and assessment within a secure environment. During this period, appropriate adjustments to his treatment plan will be implemented. This approach aims to gain a better understanding of the underlying causes of his assaultive behavior and to manage the associated risks to the public and staff more effectively. Dr. Pytyck emphasized that Mr. Wang should not be transferred back to a general forensic unit until there are no further incidents of aggression.

26The doctor noted that Mr. Wang adhered to his medication regimen, and his urine drug tests were negative. Although Dr. Pytyck is not his current psychiatrist, she expressed concerns about Mr. Wang's ongoing residual psychotic symptoms. Dr. Pytyck was asked about changes to Mr. Wang’s treatment plan. She advised that Mr. Wang’s previously developed behavioural therapy plan was reimplemented, and his suspended privileges reintroduced in a gradual manner.

27Dr. Pytyck confirmed concerns about Mr. Wang’s cognitive functioning and noted a requested assessment has not been completed due to limited psychology staff. She agreed it would aid in Mr. Wang’s treatment plan and Developmental Services of Ontario (DSO) eligibility. When asked about counseling in the Mandarin language, the doctor stated that this may have been a resource issue, but that Mr. Wang may also have declined such service.

28No further evidence was presented at the hearing.

Final Submissions of the Parties

29Dr. Pytyck, representing the Hospital, maintained that due to the severity of the behavior in question, there was sufficient evidence to justify the initial restriction on November 16, 2024. Further, his ongoing assaultive behavior indicates he should remain in a secure forensic unit for observation and assessment, as his risk cannot be adequately managed on a general forensic unit at this time.

30Ms. MacDonald, on behalf of the Attorney General of Ontario, adopted the hospital’s submissions.

31Ms. Boissonneault, on behalf of Mr. Wang, submitted that Mr. Wang would like the Board to know that he would like to move back to a general forensic unit as soon as possible. She submitted that the hospital is working hard in adapting his treatment needs and assessing him but there appears to be a missing piece as it relates to his cognitive functioning. She submitted that this issue was identified some time ago, that Mr. Wang had been referred for such an assessment, and that Dr. Pytyck has confirmed that such an assessment was necessary and would assist with a treatment plan and DSO resources. In this regard, Ms. Boissonneault was hopeful that the hospital would soon follow up with such an assessment.

Conclusion and Disposition

32Pursuant to the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Regina v. M.L.C. (2010) ONCA 843, the Board must consider not only the reason for the restriction and the initial decision to impose a restriction, but also the ongoing circumstances of the person for the period that the restriction remains in place including up to the time of review. The initial restriction of liberty and ongoing restriction of liberty must be the least onerous and least restrictive, necessary for public safety and the NCR accused.

33The Board accepts the evidence of Dr. Pytyck and the ROL Report, filed as Exhibit 2 at the hearing. The Board finds unanimously that the restriction of liberty imposed on November 16, 2024, and continuing at the time of the hearing was necessary and appropriate and represented the least onerous and least restrictive measure at the time it was imposed and throughout its duration.

34Mr. Wang has remained perseverative on his desire to be transferred to another hospital closer to Scarborough, as evidenced by his recent elopement in October 2024. His subsequent and apparent unprovoked assault on a nurse clearly necessitated his transfer from a general to a secure forensic unit on November 16, 2024, to properly address and manage the ongoing risk of violence to others in hospital.

35It was also necessary and appropriate to have Mr. Wang remain on a secure forensic unit as of the date of the hearing. Notably, his unpredictable and unprovoked aggression has continued since his initial restriction, as evidenced by the recent assault on a recreational therapist on January 20, 2025 (a week before the hearing). In this regard, it was necessary for the treatment team to reintroduce his behavioral therapy plan, scale back his privileges, and continue to observe and assess him to properly manage his risk. Further, Mr. Wang’s ongoing wish to be transferred from Ontario Shores, as demonstrated by his elopement in October 2024, also remains a concern.

36To his credit, Mr. Wang has followed his medication regimen, and his urine drug screens have been negative. Dr. Pytyck testified that the recent assault did not seem to have a psychotic motivation. In this regard, a psychological assessment in the coming year might help with Mr. Wang's ongoing treatment plan and open DSO options for his treatment.

37In conclusion, the Board finds that the restriction of liberty imposed on Mr. Wang on November 16, 2024, and continuing at the time of the hearing was necessary and appropriate and represented the least onerous and least restrictive measure at the time it was imposed and throughout its duration.

Footnotes

1. 1Mr. Wang left the hearing at the end of Ms. Boissonneault’s questioning of Dr. Pytyck. Ms. Boissonneault advised that due to anxiety, Mr. Wang wished to be excused from the hearing and that she was fully instructed to proceed in his absence. Accordingly, pursuant to s. 672.5(10)(a) of the Criminal Code, the hearing proceeded in his absence.