Re En-Hua Shung, 2025 CanLII 69698

Re: En-Hua Shung

ORB File No: 8235

Hearing held on: Thursday, June 5, 2025

Place of hearing: Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences 700 Gordon Street, Whitby

Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code

Before: Alternate Chairperson: Ms. L. Banks Members: Dr. M. Kalia Dr. T. Wilkie Mr. D. D’Intino Mr. S. Duffy

Parties Appearing: Accused: En-Hua Shung Counsel: Ms. M. Addie The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. A. Marshall Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. N. MacDonald

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated July 17, 2025)

Introduction

1On December 14, 2022, En-Hua Shung was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on a charge of sexual assault, contrary to the Criminal Code.

2Mr. Shung is currently subject to a Detention Order Disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated March 19, 2024, ordering his detention within the Forensic Service at the Center for Addictions and Mental Health (CAMH) on terms. Until his transfer to CAMH, he is ordered detained at the Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences (“Ontario Shores”) with privileges up to indirectly supervised passes for up to 7 days in the community, within a 150km radius of Ontario Shores.

3On June 5, 2025, the Board convened a hearing in person at Ontario Shores Centre to conduct a hearing pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. The purpose of this hearing was to determine whether Mr. Shung continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public and if so, to determine the necessary and appropriate Disposition, which is also the least onerous and least restrictive means to protect the public in consideration of the circumstances.

Current Psychiatric Diagnoses:

• Schizophrenia (vs. Psychotic Disorder Due to Traumatic Brain Injury)
• Rule Out Mild or Major Neurocognitive Disorder Due to Traumatic Brain Injury
• Cannabis Abuse Disorder, in remission in a controlled environment

Index Offences:

4The details of the index offences are extracted from the Hospital Report at pages 2-3, which are as follows:

“On March 8, 2020, the victim was walking in the area of Oakwood Avenue and Rogers Road with her two-year-old child and her partner. The victim and her partner walked eastbound on Rogers Road and then proceeded to go southbound on Oakwood Avenue. As the victim had her phone out and was occupied with it, her partner was helping the child on a scooter. While the victim was looking at her phone, she suddenly felt a hand grab the left side of her buttocks and squeeze it for a couple of seconds. The victim was momentarily shocked with what happened as Mr. Shung had approached her from the rear. As Mr. Shung walked away, he grunted something that was inaudible to the victim. The victim yelled at Mr. Shung who kept walking away. The victim alerted her partner who then proceeded to go after Mr. Shung and managed to confront him. Police were called and arrived on scene. Mr. Shung attempted to flee from the police but he was caught a short distance away from the scene. He was placed under arrest for an outstanding bench warrant.”

Without Prejudice Position of the Parties:

5At the commencement of the hearing, Ms. Marshall presented the Hospital’s position, which was that a continuation of the existing Detention Order Disposition, with no changes. In response to a question. posed by the Alternate Chairperson, Ms. Marshall advised that the Hospital took no position on the proposed transfer of Mr. Shung’s care to CAMH.

6Ms. McDonald for the Attorney General agreed with the Hospital’s position.

7Counsel for Mr. Shung, Ms. Addie, agreed that the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a Detention Order however, she advised that her client wished to abandon the transfer request to CAMH.

Evidence at the Hearing:

8The Board had available the evidence and documents forming the Record, the Exhibits, and oral evidence from Dr. Bhullar.

9Dr. Bhullar adopted the contents of the Hospital Report, which she coauthored and was dated May 22, 2025. Dr. Bhullar testified that she has been Mr. Shung’s attending psychiatrist since October 22, 2025.

10Much of Dr. Bhullar’s evidence addressed the reasoning for the transfer of Mr. Shung to CAMH. As this transfer is no longer being sought by Mr. Shung, we will address the concerns raised by this issue separately below.

11Dr. Bhullar testified that more clarity is required around Mr. Shung’s diagnoses. He suffered a head injury in a motor vehicle collision in 1997 and his psychotic symptoms began shortly thereafter, necessitating the treatment team to clarify if Mr. Shung is suffering from a psychotic illness or symptoms relating to a traumatic brain injury. In order to obtain this clarity, a psychiatrist would need to work with a neurologist and a neuropsychological assessment would be conducted to truly appreciate Mr. Shung’s cognitive deficits.

12In the past year, Mr. Shung has been more alert and clearer in his speech since the team discontinued his benzodiazepine medication, but he still exhibits residual symptoms of psychosis despite receiving Clozapine. Mr. Shung is sensitive to Clozapine and requires very slow titration of this medication to therapeutic levels. To date, he has had a good response to this medication however it is still in the process of being titrated up to a therapeutic dose.

13Presently, Mr. Shung no longer experiences command hallucinations, but in lengthier conversations he still exhibits disorganized and tangential thinking. He has not exhibited any physically assaultive or sexually inappropriate behaviours in the past reporting year.

14Dr. Bhullar testified that Mr. Shung currently enjoys Level 5 privileges which allows for group outings into the community with staff and allows him to attending Hospital grounds and indoor Hospital walks, with staff.

15Before being ready for transfer to a General Unit, Dr. Bhullar testified that she wishes to see how Mr. Shung does on indirectly supervised Hospital grounds. To date, he has been “shadowed” by staff when using these privileges. Furthermore, the team would like to see some symptom stability.

16Mr. Shung is engaged in rehabilitative programming, but he is not absorbing as much information as Dr. Bhullar had hoped for.

17Dr. Bhullar believes that a neurocognitive assessment will give the team more of an appreciation of his cognitive abilities and allow for better tailoring of his treatment plan. Dr. Bhullar acknowledged that this was supposed to have happened following last year’s annual hearing; however, given the fact that Mr. Shung was near the top of the transfer list, she thought the assessment would have been more appropriately conducted at CAMH. Dr. Bhullar stated that if Mr. Shung is not ordered transferred to CAMH following this year’s hearing, then she undertook to refer Mr. Shung for a neurological assessment forthwith.

18Dr. Bhullar confirmed that Mr. Shung remains a significant threat to the safety of the public, with the highest degree of concern being that he engages in further inappropriate touching of females. Part of this concern flows from his superficial insight into his sexual offending; i.e., when past instances of sexually inappropriate behaviour are discussed with Mr. Shung, he either denies them or laughs it off. Dr. Bhullar described his reaction to these discussions as, “very childlike” and opined that such reactions are seen in persons with significant cognitive deficits.

19In response to questions from Ms. Addie, Dr. Bhullar confirmed that Mr. Shung did not present any behavioural issues in the past reporting year, was not physically or sexually aggressive or inappropriate sexual touching. Despite experiencing some psychotic symptoms, he is cooperative with his treatment team.

20The doctor was also asked whether or not Mr. Shung was capable of making an informed decision about whether the transfer to CAMH was in his best interests and she responded that she did not think he was capable to make that assessment but commented that he was just “comfortable” to remain at Ontario Shores. When asked if his mother visited him at Ontario Shores, she responded that his mother is elderly and has not visited him over the past several years; however, the doctor acknowledged that she did not know if Mr. Shung now had any interest in seeing his mother or pursuing a relationship with her.

21Dr. Bhullar further confirmed that it seems Mr. Shung is happy at Ontario Shores.

Analysis and Conclusions: Significant Threat and Necessary and Appropriate Disposition

22Having heard and considered the entirety of the evidence as well as the submissions from the parties, the Panel agrees with the Joint Submission: Mr. Shung remains a significant threat to the safety of the public and a Detention Order Disposition with privileges up to and including indirectly supervised passes in the community is the least onerous and least restrictive option in consideration of all of the circumstances.

23Mr. Shung suffers from a traumatic brain injury that has made clarifying his diagnosis challenging, as well as a substance abuse disorder. In the past, he has struggled with cannabis use which has caused or exacerbated auditory command hallucinations and delusional beliefs which led directly to the index offences.

24Mr. Shung has a series of criminal convictions on his record, which includes a number of convictions for sexual assaults and indecent acts. He is currently subject to a ten-year Sex Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA) order. He has a history of undergoing both Court-ordered NCR and Fitness assessments, where he endorsed hearing auditory hallucinations since 2002.

25He has a history of being noncompliant with his prescribed antipsychotic medications, engaging in polysubstance use and exhibiting bizarre behaviours including consuming his toilet water and his own feces. His delusions have featured grandiose beliefs and violent content. He continues to endorse a desire to resume cannabis use in the future.

26The panel agrees with the Hospital assessment outlined on page 27 of the Hospital Report: that absent ORB involvement, Mr. Shung would likely fall away from treatment, discontinue his medication, and return to substance use, given his limited insight. This would most likely cause his mental status to deteriorate (command auditory hallucination, paranoia, disorganized thinking) to the extent where the command auditory hallucinations would intensify and be difficult for him to control. In this context, Mr. Shung would be at risk of acting on his command hallucinations and engaging in physical and/or sexual violent behaviour towards a public member, causing physical and/or psychological harm.

27Therefore, the Panel agrees with the joint submission that Mr. Shung remains a significant threat to the safety of the public and that a Detention Order Disposition is the necessary and appropriate, least onerous and least restrictive Disposition in consideration of all the circumstances.

Analysis and Conclusions: Transfer to CAMH

28As discussed above, the transfer to CAMH appeared to have been requested previously by Mr. Shung for family reasons but was abandoned at this hearing by Mr. Shung through his counsel.

29At the same time, Dr. Bhullar’s evidence suggested that Ontario Shores believed that this transfer was in Mr. Shung’s best interest, because allegedly CAMH has resources and specialized programming that she felt would better manage Mr. Shung’s overall risk. Some examples of services CAMH has included a memory clinic and neuropsychological consultation through their neuropsychiatry clinic.

30Dr. Bhullar testified that Ontario Shores does not offer these services or programs in-house, and additional funding is required in order to retain a private consultant to complete a neuropsychological assessment. That funding has not been confirmed as of yet, in part, because of the then pending transfer of Mr. Shung’s care to CAMH.

31After questions from the panel, it became clear that Dr. Bhullar’s assessment regarding Mr. Shung’s best interests and the programming available from CAMH came from their website and not from any direct contact with CAMH. This was concerning to the panel.

32The panel finds that it would be inappropriate to make a determination as to whether a transfer to CAMH would be in the best interests of the patient on the basis of information solely obtained from a website.

33If the Hospital believes that Mr. Shung’s needs could be better met, and his risk better mitigated, by a transfer to CAMH, then the panel would encourage the Hospital to request an early annual hearing and present cogent, reliable and persuasive evidence that objectively establishes a case for that transfer. Information about CAMH’s programs, their capacity to work with Mr. Shung would be relevant information to present to the Board.

34The panel further encourages the Hospital to make every effort to arrange for Mr. Shung to undergo a neuropsychological assessment as soon as possible, given the uncertainty in his diagnosis and his cognitive limitations.

35We are cognizant that in coming to our determination of the necessary inappropriate as well as least onerous and least restrictive Disposition, we must consider the provisions of s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code, specifically, the need to protect the public from dangerous persons, Mr. S’s. mental condition, his reintegration into society and his “other “needs. We note Mr. Shung’s counsel’s submissions that he does not have a particularly close relationship with his mother and his proposed transfer to CAMH would not guarantee that his mother would be more available to support her son’s rehabilitation. In her submissions, Ms. Addie asserted that her client is content at Ontario Shores and, in fact, prefers to remain at this hospital. We must consider Mr. Shung’s wishes as well, given that all the evidence suggests that his risk to public safety is appropriately managed at Ontario Shores.