Ontario Review Board
Re: John Lai
ORB File No: 7146
Hearing held on: Monday, June 2, 2025
Place of hearing: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health 1001 Queen Street West, Toronto
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before: Alternate Chairperson: Ms. C. Fromstein Members: Dr. G.A. Chaimowitz Dr. H. Moulden Mr. M.D. Segal Mr. J. Cyr
Parties Appearing: Accused: John Lai Counsel: Mr. S. Lyon
The Person in charge of Hospital: Counsel: Mr. J. MacIntyre
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. M. Feindel
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated July 17, 2025)
Introduction
On May 10, 2017, Mr. John Lai was found not guilty by reason of mental disorder on a charge of second-degree murder. He is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board (ORB or the board) dated July 15, 2024, discharging him with conditions. These include provisions requiring that he abstain from substances and submit urine for testing, that he take medication on consent, not possess any weapons, have no communication with the family members of the victim and report not less than every two weeks.
On June 2, 2025, a panel of the Ontario Review Board convened at Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH or the hospital) for Mr. Lai’s annual hearing. Mr. Lai was present and represented by counsel, Mr. Lyon. Mr. MacIntyre was counsel for the hospital. Mr. Feindel was counsel for the Crown. The daughter of the victim of the index offence attended the hearing as did two of Mr. Lai’s family members.
The purpose of the hearing was to determine whether Mr. Lai continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and, if so, what is the necessary and appropriate disposition.
The evidence at the hearing included the hospital report dated May 12, 2025, exhibit 1 and the testimony of Dr. McMaster, Mr. Lai’s most responsible psychiatrist.
Position of the Parties:
- At the outset of the hearing the parties were canvassed as to their initial positions. A joint position was put by the parties that Mr. Lai continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and that a continuation of his current conditional discharge is the necessary and appropriate disposition, with recommended changes to several of the conditions. It is requested that his reporting be reduced to not less than every four weeks and that the provisions to abstain from substances and submit urine for analysis be deleted.
Index Offence
- The details of the index offence are set out in last year’s Reasons for Disposition as follows:
“In 2015 the accused, John Lai, had moved to Peterborough to study at Trent University. In February of 2016 he rented a room from 52-year-old Cindy Torbar who acted as the landlady for the tenant John Lai and another tenant Jade Sindagaya.
About a week prior to the index offence on March 18th, the accused had left Peterborough to stay with his sister, Brenda, in Toronto. In that period of time his sister observed her brother exhibiting disturbing behaviour, including delusional references. Mr. Lai’s sister called CAMH to seek help for her brother, but she was told that he had to come in voluntarily himself. Mr. Lai refused to do that.
Mr. Lai’s disturbing behaviour culminated on Friday the 18th of March when Brenda woke to find her brother in her room with his hands around her neck stating, “there is a demon in you, and I have to get it out”. Brenda managed to calm her brother and get him off her. She tried to get him to go to hospital, but he refused. While Brenda was trying to call her mother for help, Mr. Lai quickly left the home with only shorts and a sweatshirt on and leaving his car behind. The Toronto police were called and were advised about Brenda’s concerns about his behaviour. The Toronto police contacted Peterborough police to locate John Lai.
When the Peterborough police arrived at Mr. Lai’s rental location at 261 Middlefield Road in the City of Peterborough, the accused was not present, but he showed up while they were there. He was described as calm and cooperative and tired. He denied hearing any voices and indicated to police that he felt fine and there was no need for concern. Police offered to drive him to the Peterborough Regional Hospital for a voluntary admission, but he denied that he needed any medical help. Police didn't believe they had grounds for apprehension under the Mental Health Act.
Some hours after the police had departed, the co-tenant Jade observed the accused acting in a bizarre manner. She followed him outside the house and walked and ran with him for about 20 to 30 minutes until the accused declared he was going home. Jade went into her room and the next thing she heard was Cindy yelling for help and yelling for Jade to call the police. Jade overheard John yelling “I'm Jesus Christ” and “I must kill the demons”. Jade began making efforts to call police, eventually calling 911 while Cindy (Torbar) was yelling in the background. She heard Cindy yelling “stop you're killing me, you’re hurting me!” She later heard police arrive and gunshots.
When police arrived at 11:45 p.m. the accused was seen at the top of the stairs holding a 10-inch butcher knife covered in blood standing over Cindy Torbar's lifeless body. The accused did not comply with the police orders that he drop his knife. As one of the officers approached Mr. Lai to drop his knife, he lunged at the body of Cindy Torbar again, stabbing her in the back. The officer discharged his firearm at Mr. Lai hitting him and causing him to finally drop the knife. He was taken to hospital for treatment for his wound where he remained for several weeks. A blood sample determined that there were no detectable levels of drugs or alcohol in his system.
An autopsy of Cindy Torbar revealed that she suffered at least 127 stab wounds, some occurring post-mortem.
When Mr. Lai’s sister Brenda saw her brother in the hospital, he continued to talk about aliens and angels and that on the night of Ms. Torbar's death he saw trillions of demons in the house and was really scared. Voices in his head told him to remain in the house and finish the demon.”
Background
The details of Mr. Lai’s background are set out in the hospital report so need not be repeated. Of particular note, Mr. Lai is now 34 years of age. The index offence was committed when he was a university student. It is reported that his sister had seen disturbing behaviours but Mr. Lai had previously refused to attend at the hospital. The police had been unable to use the Mental Health Act to detain him because he was able to act normally when seen by police. It is reported he was not using drugs at the time of the offence.
Following the index offence Mr. Lai was diagnosed in hospital with schizophrenia and treated. His current diagnoses include schizophrenia as well as substance use disorder in sustained remission. Mr. Lai has been assessed since 2021 as capable to consent to psychiatric treatment. He has remained compliant with his clozapine treatment. It is reported that while he was an inpatient he was rule abiding and that all drug tests were negative. Mr. Lai’s insight improved during the course of his hospitalization.
In March 2022, he was discharged to the TRHP-2 housing at CAMH, a 24-hour high support residence adjacent to the CAMH campus located on White Squirrel Way. His serum levels of clozapine dropped slightly following his discharge but this was felt to be perhaps due to cigarette smoking.
At last year’s hearing his treating psychiatrist, Dr. Meng, gave evidence that Mr. Lai is vulnerable to stressors and has a history of being prone to rapid decompensation with a corresponding significant loss of insight and gross lack of judgment. It was opined that close supervision was important to detect signs of decompensation which could be signalled by very subtle changes.
In the past treatment year Mr. Lai has shown good insight to managing his stress. When he was asked to work greater hours at his employment at the LCBO, he determined that this would cause him additional stress and as a result kept his hours to a manageable level. It is reported that he has had an excellent year in the community. He self-manages his medication as well as his blood work. He works two jobs at the LCBO: one as a cleaner and the other in customer service. He has received excellent reports with respect to his employment and received a raise in the past year. There is a safety plan for symptoms awareness. Mr. Lai enjoys very good family support. His family members were present at the hearing and he has visits with them three to four times a week.
Dr. McMaster testified that he has been Mr. Lai’s treating psychiatrist since Mr. Lai’s discharge to the community. Mr. Lai was, on the day of this hearing, accepted into the “Four Supportive Housing” (FSL) and will be residing at a bachelor apartment on Dowling Street. The move is anticipated to take place within a month. Dr. McMaster explained that the structure of TRP 1 and 2 forensic housing: TRP2 is on hospital grounds and offers a lot of on-site supervision. TRP1 is also located on hospital grounds at 30 White Squirrel Way. It offers 24/7 staff support and persons have their own bedroom and bathroom with a communal shared area. Mr. Lai has now been accepted into TRP1. This will provide him with his own unit. There is staff on site who usually visit once per week. He will also receive financial support which will allow him the opportunity to live in the unit, below market rent. He is permitted to reside permanently at this residence.
Dr. McMaster indicated that previously Mr. Lai, in his former residence, had the opportunity to socialize with other residents in the communal area. He now has opportunities for socialization at work; he has interactions with a patient who used to live in TRP2 accommodation and is now in the community and he spends a lot of time with his family. It is proposed that he report not less than every four weeks at which time he will meet with Dr. McMaster, who prefers to see his patients at least once per month, as well as with his caseworker.
Dr. McMaster testified that the reason for the recommendation to remove the conditions ‘to abstain from substance use and submit urine for analysis’ is because Mr. Lai has shown good insights into the harmful effects of substance use and has not been using any substances. It is reported that he has not used following the index offence. Based on this information these conditions are no longer necessary or appropriate.
Mr. Lai still represents a significant threat to the safety of the public in light of his severe persistent mental illness which led to the tragic index offence. He is now moving to the next stage in housing and will there experience greater stress. There remains a risk of decompensation and he needs to be followed by a forensic team to manage this risk. It is recognized that he is presently working and shows good insight and so it is recommended the discharge be expanded to allow him greater liberties. This also recognizes that he has a brittle mental illness and can be susceptible to the stressors. He decompensated in 2019 but Dr. McMaster explained that this occurred when he was being treated with a different medication that was not as effective as his clozapine medication. He has shown stability since being treated with clozapine.
Dr. McMaster was asked what steps Mr. Lai would need to take in a move towards a future absolute discharge. Dr. McMaster responded that it would be necessary to see Mr. Lai’s adaptability in his more independent living situation as well as his adherence to medication, his mental state and ongoing prosocial behaviour. Mr. Lai remains a significant risk at this time, in consideration of the very serious index offence that was committed as well as Mr. Lai’s vulnerability to stressors.
Dr. McMaster was asked whether the provision for restricting Mr. Lai from possessing any weapons continued to be necessary and took the position that there did not appear to be a current need for that prohibition based on his behaviour.
Submissions
- All parties maintained by their initial joint position. Mr. McIntyre indicated the hospital takes no position on the issue of the weapon prohibition. Mr. Feindel submitted that it is appropriate to maintain the weapons prohibition given the index offence and Mr. Lai’s history. Mr. Lyon expressed his agreement with the disposition and took no position on the weapon prohibition.
Analysis and Conclusion
The Board has no hesitation in accepting on the evidence before us the joint position of the parties that Mr. Lai continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. He suffers from a brittle mental illness. When unwell he committed the most serious of criminal offences. It is reported that he remains vulnerable to the effects of stress which could cause a decompensation in his mental state. He suffers from treatment resistant schizophrenia and has a history of substance use.
The Board also agrees, based on the evidence before us, that a conditional discharge as recommended by the parties is sufficient to manage Mr. Lai’s risk. He has had an excellent treatment year. He self-manages his medication and blood work and is fully compliant with his clozapine treatment. His clozapine therapy is essential to his ongoing stable mental health. He showed good insight in managing his stress. He has good family support, some social connections and will continue to be monitored by the forensic team. The hospital report noted his risk is assessed to be low on a conditional discharge. A Conditional Discharge is also supported by the evidence that Mr. Lai would be expected to attend to the hospital voluntarily, as he has in the past, if the team were to ask him to do so.
Mr. Lai will now be moving to housing with greater independence and the team is aware of the importance of continued supervision of him as this will add stressors.
The Board also determined that it remains necessary and appropriate to include the weapons prohibition. Mr. Lai is currently stable but he remains at risk because of the brittle nature of his mental disorder and the absolute necessity of full compliance with clozapine. If left to his own devices he remains at risk of rapid decompensation in the future with potential return of extreme violent behaviour.
We commend Mr. Lai for his ongoing progress and engagement with his treatment providers.
We make this disposition in consideration of the prime factor of protection of public safety, Mr. Lai’s mental condition, his reintegration into the community and his other needs.
DATED this 17th day of July, 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Ms. C. Fromstein
Alternate Chairperson
__________________
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board