Ontario Review Board
Re: Long Thai
ORB File No: 7365
Hearing held on: Thursday, June 19, 2025
Place of hearing: Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care 401 Sunset Drive, St. Thomas
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Ms. S. Kert
Members: Dr. T. Verny Dr. J.C. Rose Ms. K. Tomaszewski Ms. C. Plyley
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Long Thai Counsel: Mr. R. Cunningham
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. J. Zamprogna
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. D. Rows
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated July 17, 2025)
Overview
On June 8, 2018, Long Thai was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCR) on Criminal Code charges of arson and failing to comply with a probation order. Mr. Thai is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board detaining him at the Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care (Southwest Centre or the Hospital), and permitting him privileges extending to living in the community of Elgin or Middlesex County in accommodation approved by the person in charge.
On June 19, 2025, this panel of the Review Board convened in-person at the Southwest Centre to hold a hearing and review that disposition. Mr. Thai was present and represented by his lawyer, Mr. R. Cunningham.
The issues to be decided at this hearing are whether Mr. Thai meets the test of posing a significant threat to the safety of the public and, if so, what is the necessary and appropriate disposition to manage that risk, considering the four factors in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
None of the parties contested a finding of significant threat. The Hospital and the Crown submitted that the current detention disposition remains necessary and appropriate, the only recommended change being the removal of the abstention clause. Mr. Thai asked the panel to consider whether his risk to the public can be managed under a conditional discharge.
After considering the evidence and the submissions, we find that the test for significant threat continues to be met, and that the necessary and appropriate disposition, which is also the least onerous and least restrictive in the circumstances, is one discharging Mr. Thai on conditions, including (but not limited to) a consent to treatment condition and continuation of the abstention requirement. These are our reasons.
Background and Index Offences
Mr. Thai was 46 years old at the time of the hearing. He was born in Vietnam and was raised there on the family rice farm. His parents and older siblings moved to California in 1973, leaving Mr. Thai in Vietnam with his aunt. He immigrated to Canada with his aunt in 1983 (at the age of 11), and has since become a Canadian citizen.
When Mr. Thai was in his early 20s, he moved to California to reconnect with his parents and siblings. In 1992, he was involved in a major motor vehicle accident on a highway near Los Angeles, during which he sustained head trauma with loss of consciousness. He was reportedly hospitalized for three months, spent time in an intensive care unit and received trauma treatment at the University of Southern California Medical Center. The details of the accident and its aftermath are incomplete due to Mr. Thai’s limited memory of the event.
Mr. Thai has reported that he began drinking at an early age. He also has a history of using cannabis and crystal methamphetamine. He had his first psychotic break in 2015, following at least two years of crystal methamphetamine use. He was diagnosed with a depressive disorder and an anxiety disorder. His subsequent complaints of bizarre delusions prompted a committal to the Windsor Regional Hospital, where he was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia. Traumatic brain injury-related neurocognitive impairment was also identified. While Mr. Thai responded to olanzapine, after discharge in January 2015, he was essentially lost to follow up until his first arrest on arson charges in May 2015.
In July 2016, Mr. Thai was convicted on charges of arson - disregard for human life and arson - causing damage to property. The two charges likely related to the same event, as the hospital report indicates that Mr. Thai received the same sentence for both - 15 months incarceration followed by probation for 24 months. He served part of his sentence at the Secure Treatment Unit of the Brockville Mental Health Centre, where he received intensive treatment, but he relapsed to substance use (crystal methamphetamine and alcohol) and was non-adherent with his psychotropic medication within months of his release in the spring of 2017. His psychotic symptoms, including auditory and visual hallucinations and paranoid persecutory delusions, recurred, and he committed the index offences on September 2, 2017.
The circumstances of the index offences are described in the hospital report as follows: After being called to the scene of an active house fire, Windsor Police were advised by a witness that a male standing near the house (later identified as Mr. Thai) had been seen earlier near the lower roof of the residence. When spoken to by the police, Mr. Thai said that he lit the fire at the rear of the building. Though he was unable to provide a reason for starting the fire, he said that he used a lighter and some newspaper to start the fire. On arrest he was found to be in possession of a bottle of spiced rum, in contravention of his probation order that prohibited him from possessing or consuming alcohol.
Following the finding of NCR in January 2018, Mr. Thai was ordered detained at the Southwest Centre. He remained an inpatient until late February 2021, when based on improvements in his affect and engagement in rehabilitation programming, he was transitioned to live at the Steele Street Treatment and Rehabilitation Program (Steele Street).
At least initially, Mr. Thai was actively engaged in the rehabilitation program at Steele Street. He was also adherent with medication. He continued to live at Steele Street until he moved into a CMHA supported (but unsupervised) shared living accommodation in mid-December 2021. After this move, members of Mr. Thai’s treatment team noticed some changes in his behaviour and presentation. They suspected he might be drinking and tampering with his urine samples.
On March 7, 2022, Mr. Thai was readmitted to the Southwest Centre after being evicted from his housing for substance use (he tested positive for amphetamines and alcohol) and suspected drug trafficking, as well as decompensation of his mental state. Given the immediacy of the eviction, and as he did not have alternative approved accommodation, he was returned to the Southwest Centre for further assessment, evaluation and discussion around future housing.
Mr. Thai remained in hospital for a year. He began working part-time in March 2023, and began transitioning back to community living in April 2023, when he returned to live at Steele Street. Of note, Steele Street staff were initially reluctant to consider Mr. Thai’s return to the residence because the last time he was there he ran an underground economy which was quite disruptive.
While living at Steele Street, Mr. Thai continued to work four shifts per week. As the Steele Street residence was closing, he gradually moved into his own independent residence in July 2023. A month later, after much progress and sustained stability, his care was transferred from the inpatient team to the forensic outreach team.
In November 2023, Mr. Thai was readmitted to the Hospital. The forensic outreach team had been contacted by his employer, who expressed concern about Mr. Thai’s mental status as he had impulsively quit his job. When outreach staff attended at his residence, Mr. Thai presented with emotional lability and tearfulness. Given the significant change in his presentation, and his refusal to come to the Hospital to meet with a psychiatrist for further assessment, police were contacted to assist in returning him to the Hospital with the use of the warrant. When interviewed on admission, Mr. Thai disclosed that he had consumed crystal methamphetamine (as recently as the day of admission) and he tested positive for amphetamines. He also endorsed auditory hallucinations. He was not aware that he had decompensated at the time of admission.
In hospital, Mr. Thai quickly returned to his baseline mental status. He was transparent with the treatment team, acknowledging that the loss of his father (in the month prior to his admission) and worry for his family gravely impacted his stability in the community, such that he was unable to cope and resorted to using substances. While an inpatient he was able to use community passes without incident and participated in programming. Given his progress, the decision was made to transition Mr. Thai back to his independent apartment in late February 2024. He also returned to his previous employment.
Course Since Last Hearing
At the current hearing we received evidence in the form of an updated hospital report, as well as the oral testimony of Dr. N. Mokhber, Mr. Thai’s attending psychiatrist. That evidence revealed as follows: Since February 2024, Mr. Thai has continued to live in the same independent residence in St. Thomas, which he is funding on his own. He enjoys his home and is not looking to move in the coming year. Over the past year he was adherent with medication on his own consent, abstained from substance use and did not require admission to hospital.
Mr. Thai also continued to work for the same employer. He works full-time from Monday to Friday, and enjoys the social aspects of his workplace (he considers his colleagues to be like family). His work schedule, including transportation, takes up a significant portion of his weekdays. He also participates in various leisure activities in the community, attends church weekly and enjoys socializing with a supportive network of friends. He followed the terms of his disposition and his team was not alerted to any issues with his employer.
Over the course of the year, Mr. Thai consistently denied the presence of any positive symptoms of his illness, and he was not observed to experience any positive symptoms. His mood remained consistent. Though he experienced some stressors (i.e. the death of his landlord and reduced work hours resulting in financial constraints), he was able to maintain stability during these times and did not resort to substance use. As outlined in the hospital report, “He recognizes that drug use triggers psychotic symptoms for him, so he remains committed to remaining abstinent.” (p. 112 of the hospital report).
In oral testimony, Dr. Mokhber confirmed that Mr. Thai had a very good year. He attended all appointments with the treatment team, cooperated with members of the team who checked on him weekly, and had no positive urine drug screens. However, this occurred while Mr. Thai remained subject to a detention disposition.
Dr. Mokhber testified that Mr. Thai’s insight into his illness and need for treatment is underdeveloped. He can identify his diagnosis but believes that the medication helped him and that he is now “cured.” Generally Mr. Thai has said that he does not believe he requires ongoing treatment and that he only takes the medication because his doctor tells him he has to. When asked by staff if he would take his medications in the future (post forensics), he stated, “I don't know. Probably not. But I don’t know.” However, on the morning of the hearing Mr. Thai told Dr. Mokhber (for the first time) that his medications are helping him and that he knows that he needs to take them for a long time. While he could not articulate what changed his mind, Mr. Thai has been consistently adherent with psychotropic medication on his own consent throughout his time under the Review Board, and he has expressed some understanding of relapse risk if nonadherent.
In addressing the treatment team’s recommendation for the coming year, Dr. Mokhber said that the safest time to test Mr. Thai’s commitment and ability to abstain from substance use is while he remains under a detention disposition. She said that while Mr. Thai does have some insight into the impact of substance use (he knows that using drugs will worsen his mental state), he does not have a full understanding of the correlation between his substance use and relapse of his illness, has not been tested in a stressful situation, and is not able to name any strategies to manage his possible desire to use drugs going forward. The concern of the team is that were Mr. Thai to use drugs or stop his medication while on a conditional discharge, he would have to decompensate to the point where his symptoms were severe enough to bring him into hospital under Box A of the Mental Health Act (MHA). The Hospital described that it is the “timing gap” of readmission under the MHA that is the “safety gap” in this case.
Positions of the Parties, Analysis and Conclusion
In submissions, none of the parties contested a finding of significant threat. The primary issue before us was whether the risk posed by Mr. Thai to public safety can be managed under a conditional discharge (as submitted by Mr. Thai), or whether a detention disposition remains necessary and appropriate in the circumstances (the position of the Hospital and the Crown).
The Hospital and Crown recommended a detention disposition with the removal of the abstain clause. In the alternative, if the panel was considering a conditional discharge disposition, the Hospital (supported by the Crown) submitted that the abstain and related testing clause should be maintained, Mr. Thai should be required to continue to live at his current residence, and his reporting requirement (not less than 4x per month) should continue, among other conditions.
Mr. Thai sought a discharge on conditions, including a consent to treatment condition. He did not object to the other conditions recommended by the Hospital.
Having heard and considered all of the evidence, we agree that the threshold test for significant threat continues to be met. Mr. Thai’s symptoms of his major mental illness (schizophrenia) are well contained with his current antipsychotic medication (Invega Trinza), an injectable medication that he receives on his own consent every three months. Although he has been adherent with medication under the jurisdiction of the Review Board, until very recently Mr. Thai has been adamant that he does not believe his diagnosis, that if he did have a mental disorder it has been cured, and that he does not need the medication that he is receiving. We agree with the treatment team that given his lack of insight in multiple (relevant) domains, absent the oversight and supervision provided under a Review Board disposition, there is a real risk that Mr. Thai will reduce or discontinue his antipsychotic medication. Were that to occur, and particularly if he relapsed to substance use, it is likely that Mr. Thai would decompensate and experience paranoid and delusional thinking, leading to behaviour similar to what occurred at the time of the index offence.
We also find that the necessary and appropriate disposition, which is also the least onerous and least restrictive in the circumstances, is a conditional discharge, with conditions to include those outlined above.
Mr. Thai had a good year. He has not required readmission to hospital since his discharge back to independent living in February 2024, about 16 months ago. He likes where he is living in St. Thomas, has a stable lifestyle there, and has not expressed any interest in moving in the foreseeable future. He is employed on a full-time basis and likes both his workplace and the people that he works with there. He has remained adherent with medication on his own consent.
Dr. Mokhber testified that as long as Mr. Thai stays on medication and off drugs, and as long as the treatment team can be closely in touch with/monitor him and bring him into the Hospital proactively should he begin to decompensate, then his risk in the community is low. In other words, with the appropriate safeguards and conditions in place, Mr. Thai’s risk to public safety (which is the paramount consideration) can be managed in the community.
In our view, that does not have to occur under a detention disposition. While it may be that, as suggested by Dr. Mokhber, testing Mr. Thai’s commitment to abstinence while he remains subject to a detention disposition is the safest way to move him forward through the forensic system, in the circumstances it is not the least onerous and least restrictive way to do so. Given Mr. Thai’s current living, employment and social situations, as well as his success over the past year, all of the requisite criteria suggested by Dr. Mokhber can be addressed through conditions in a conditional discharge.
Under a Board disposition, Mr. Thai has been adherent with medication because he believes this is necessary if a doctor tells him he must. As suggested by counsel for Mr. Thai, this view can be reinforced with the use of a consent to treatment condition. Were he to be non-adherent to treatment, Mr. Thai could be arrested and taken to the hospital for assessment.
Maintaining the abstention condition will also assist in mitigating Mr. Thai’s risk to the public. In the past, stress, including the stress of ordinary life, has been a trigger for Mr. Thai’s relapse to substance use – when he becomes frustrated or upset, drug use has historically been his dominant coping mechanism. In spite of him facing some stressors, that has not occurred over the past year, which is a credit to Mr. Thai. This may have something to do with him internalizing some of the risks associated for him with drug use (including an awareness of what he stands to lose if he relapses), or it may be related to the fact of the substance prohibition. Either way, given the rapidity and severity of his decompensation after his substance use in November 2023 (and previously), it is not clear to us on the evidence why the provisions of the MHA could not be used to respond quickly to return Mr. Thai to the Hospital in the event that he relapsed, particularly as he has a history of arson when he is experiencing the symptoms of his illness.
Finally, Mr. Thai will continue to be closely monitored in the community. He will be required to continue to live in his current apartment and to remain within Ontario, except for travel to California (where he has family) with an approved itinerary. His antipsychotic medication is provided by injection every three months, so it will be obvious to the team if he misses it. He is currently seen frequently (weekly) by treatment team staff who can monitor for changes in his mental status, and this will continue under the proposed reporting condition. A condition requiring that he attend for assessment upon request by the person in charge of the Southwest Centre or their designate (failing which he can be arrested for that purpose) means that Mr. Thai can be seen and assessed by a mental health professional in a timely way for the purposes of a Form 1, should that be necessary.
Mr. Thai also has “eyes on” him at work where he is employed full time and where his co-workers and boss are very familiar with him. Indeed, it was his boss who alerted the team to concerns about changes in Mr. Thai’s mental state before his last admission. In his spare time he socializes with friends and attends church regularly. All of these safeguards in the community can assist in ensuring that any signs of decompensation or a return to drug use can be caught early to prevent Mr. Thai from engaging in harm. Continued prohibitions on the possession of weapons and incendiary devices will also assist in this regard.
Accordingly, considering public safety, which is paramount, as well as Mr. Thai’s mental condition, his reintegration into society and his other needs, we find that the necessary and appropriate disposition to manage his risk, which is also the least onerous and least restrictive to be imposed in the circumstances is a conditional discharge with the conditions outlined above.
DATED this 17th day of July 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.
Ms. S. Kert
Alternate Chairperson
____________________________
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board