Ontario Review Board
Re: Siyin Hung
ORB File No: 8786
Hearing held on: Thursday, July 3, 2025
Place of hearing: Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences 700 Gordon Street, Whitby
Pursuant to: Sections 672.47(1) and 672.48(1) of the Criminal Code
Before: Alternate Chairperson: Mr. P. Capelle Members: Dr. K. Hand Dr. M. Kalia Ms. N. Nathanson Mr. K. Brisson
Parties Appearing: Accused: Siyin Hung Counsel: Mr. A. Schieck
The Person in charge of Hospital: Counsel: Ms. J. Szabo
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. N. MacDonald
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated August 1, 2025)
Introduction
On May 21, 2025, Mr. Siyin Hung was unfit to stand trial on account of mental disorder on charges of assault (x2), assault with a weapon (x2), aggravated assault, carry concealed weapon (x2) and assault bodily harm, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (the "Criminal Code")1.
The Court did not make a disposition and a Warrant of Committal was issued detaining Mr. Hung at the Forensic Assessment Rehabilitation Unit (FARU) at Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences (“Ontario Shores”), pending an initial Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the “ORB” or the “Board”).
On July 3, 2025, a panel of the Board convened a hearing pursuant to ss. 672.47(1) and 672.48(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Hung was in attendance and was represented by his counsel, Mr. Schieck.
Without Prejudice Position of the Parties
Ms. Szabo, on behalf of the hospital, advised that Mr. Hung remains unfit and the necessary and appropriate disposition is a Detention Order with terms and conditions as set out at page 16 of the Hospital Report.
Ms. MacDonald indicated that she anticipates agreeing with the hospital recommendation but would also be requesting a weapons prohibition as well as a no contact order with the victim, Gia-Mao Tran.
Mr. Schieck advised he had no instructions and was therefore unable to take a position other than having been advised by his client that he would like to go out outside for fresh air from time-to-time.
Background and Index Offences
The circumstances of the index offences are taken from the Hospital Report dated June 26, 2025, as follows:
“On July 18, 2024, at approximately 5:30 PM, the victim was attending his mother’s address at 10 Lynn Gate Crescent, in the City of Toronto. The victim has known Mr. Hung for at least 10 years as neighbours. When the victim opened his house door, Mr. Hung ambushed the victim from behind. Mr. Hung was unprovoked and began to assault the victim. The assault continued inside the victim mother’s home. Mr. Hung then asked the victim, “when are you moving out, you are a pedo”.
The victim attempted to call Mr. Hung’s mother through via cell phone, as Mr. Hung continued to assault the victim (Charge #1). Mr. Hung obtained a gold club from a golf bag in the lobby of the house and began to assault the victim, striking the victim multiple times on the back and top of the head (Charge #2). The victim fled from the home and Mr. Hung continued to chase the victim. The victim ran towards Mr. Hung’s parents, and Mr. Hung’s parents were able to restrain him.
The victim was then transported to the Birchmount Hospital. The victim sustained many injuries including a laceration on front right side of their head and the back left side of their head. These were sealed by 3 staples each. The victim also sustained abrasions on the right elbow, an abrasion and bruise on the left shoulder, a large bruise on right side of the face and from the nose to behind the ear. They also had abrasions and bruises on their forehead and above the eyebrows, a large bruise in the middle of their back on the right side, a bruise on left tricep and a fractured/ broken nose (Charge #3).
On July 19, 2024, officers attended 8 Lynn Gate Crescent, in the City of Toronto. Mr. Hung resides at 8 Lynn Gate Crescent with his parents. The witness, who is one of the parents of Mr. Hung, allowed the officers to enter their home. Mr. Hung had barricaded himself in the basement. When Mr. Hung’s parent attempted to gain access to the basement, and police advised Mr. Hung he was under arrest, Mr. Hung then attempted to flee from police and began to actively resist being arrested.
Officers observed that Mr. Hung was trying to reach towards his waistband, but officers were able to place Mr. Hung in handcuffs. Upon search, officers discovered a black folding knife in his waistband. Mr. Hung was then arrested and transported to 42 Division station; another blade was discovered on the accused’s person. It appeared to be home made, and it was placed in a soft fabric pouch and sewn on the inside of the accused’s underwear.”
Current Diagnoses
- Unspecified Schizophrenia Spectrum and Psychotic Disorder,
- Cannabis Use Disorder,
- Cluster B Personality Traits (Borderline personality features).
Evidence at Hearing
Dr. Bhullar was asked to testify on behalf of the Hospital. The doctor advised that there were no updates to the June 26, 2025 Hospital Report. Dr. Bhullar last assessed Mr. Hung’s fitness in the hours prior to this hearing over the course of 40 minutes. She also noted that the treatment team have been assessing him every couple of days. Dr. Bhullar’s account of her meeting with Mr. Hung in advance of this hearing is as follows:
- When asked about charges he moved his fists. He was not aware how many assault charges he faces, responding that there was only one when in fact there are several.
- Asked if he knew what carry a concealed weapon charge was, he did not answer, just groaned and looked away.
- Asked if he understood what pleading guilty meant, he just shrugged his shoulders.
- Mr. Hung was aware of plea options; guilty or not guilty.
- He did not know what a trial was.
- He could not repeat or demonstrate any understanding of information provided. He groaned loudly, hummed, pretended to play drums, rubbed his eyes and temples.
- Asked about the role of defence lawyer, he responded legal and nodded when asked if they were on his side.
- Seemed to understand that the judges role is to listen to both sides and they decide
- No understanding of taking an oath or perjury.
- Evident that he could not engage meaningfully with counsel in preparation for, or, at time of trial.
Responding to questions from Ms. MacDonald, Dr. Bhullar agreed that Mr. Hung “gets some very basic elements of the court process”. Asked about whether there was a volitional element to his inability to address the Taylor test questions, Dr. Bhullar responded that Mr. Hung’s presentation remains similar to when he was at CAMH on a treatment order. In fact, his presentation has been consistent for many months having been assessed by various different health providers. She added that her patient has only been at Ontario Shores for a month and that the Treatment Team is still working on rapport building. As a result, it remains difficult to determine if his inability to respond to Taylor test questions is volitional or driven by anxiety or his psychotic disorder. She reiterated that it is too early to determine that he is malingering but stated he had been presenting this way consistently for some time across providers and programs and noted that he was started on an injectable about two months ago at CAMH. The doctor noted that if Mr. Hung wants to request something from staff he is able to do so. For example, play the piano, play guitar, or go outside.
Mr. Hung’s family visit with him multiple times per week and have noticed an improvement in his mental state. Specifically, that they can now meet for about 30 minutes, whereas when he was initially incarcerated, he did not communicate with them at all.
The treatment plan is to continue to build rapport and to gain a better understanding of Mr. Hung’s symptomology and illness. Dialectical Behavior Therapy will be initiated depending on how Mr. Hung progresses. He must be able to communicate in order to participate.
Dr. Bhullar advised that she was not opposed to a no contact provision with Gia-Mao Tran, the victim of the index offence, or a weapons prohibition.
Mr. Schieck inquired if rather than malingering if it was possible that Mr. Hung’s behaviour was protective to keep away the demons and intrusive thoughts. The doctor conceded that that was a possibility.
Asked if Mr. Hung has refused medication, the doctor responded that an injectable dose has only been administered once at Ontario Shores such that noncompliance has not been seen. Following another two to three doses full therapeutic effect of the injectable medication is anticipated. Dr. Bhullar noted that this is the first anti-psychotic he has been treated with. To date, Mr. Hung has accepted treatment which demonstrates some level of insight. He is currently considered treatment capable.
Mr. Hung is not considered a management problem. He is seen out and about on the unit at various times throughout the day.
The hospital report indicates that Mr. Hung is a transgender male and “has regularly expressed a desire to partake in gender reassignment surgery.”The report indicates that Mr. Hung has had some surgeries and there is one more surgery to be done for which Mr. Hung has been approved by the Ministry of Health. It will take place in Montreal, Quebec. Dr Bhullar indicated that the treatment team will accommodate the surgery when the time comes.
A panel member inquired about the fact that this is not referred to in terms of his diagnosis, Dr. Bhullar responded that trans sexuality is not a diagnosis included in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.
Dr. Bhullar was asked what would be required for Mr. Hung to exercise the privileges set out in paragraph (e) of the Disposition Recommendations. Dr. Bhullar responded that the privileges set out in paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) would have to be exercised successfully for a significant period of time before exercising the privileges outlined in paragraph (e).
Closing Observations
Ms. Szabo submitted that the hospital was not opposed to the aforementioned no contact provision or weapons prohibition.
Mr. Schieck initially stated that because there is no evidence of contact or weapons use since the inception of treatment adding them to a disposition is moot since Mr. Hung is unlikely to be released from hospital within the next year. Nonetheless, he took no exception to their inclusion.
Mr. Schieck stated he was hopeful that Mr. Hung’s prognosis will be positive given that he is being treated as a capable individual and is in the early stages of treatment. Further, to Mr. Hung’s credit, he is not a management problem on the unit.
Analysis and Decision
The test for fitness to stand trial, as set out in R. v. Taylor, is one of limited cognitive capacity. This means that the person charged must be able to understand the nature and object of the proceedings and their possible consequences and that he can recount to counsel facts necessary to allow counsel to properly prepare a defence. This last point has been elaborated upon by the Court of Appeal in R. v. Morrissey, 2007 ONCA 770, at para. 29, wherein Blair J.A. stated:
“The ability to communicate with counsel in the context of a fitness inquiry speaks to the ability to seek and receive legal advice.”
At para. 36 the Court stated:
“An accused must be mentally fit to stand trial in order to ensure that the trial meets minimum standards of fairness and accords with principles of fundamental justice such as the right to be present at one's own trial and the right to make full answer and defence... Meaningful presence and meaningful participation at the trial, therefore, are the touchstones of the inquiry into fitness.”
The Court of Appeal addressed the fitness tests in R. v. Bharwani, 2023 ONCA 203 at para 167. The Court emphasized the need for meaningful participation in proceedings to be fit for trial including the ability to conduct a defence and to instruct counsel to do so. “The accused must have the ability to make decisions. This involves the ability to understand available options, the ability to select from those options, the ability to understand the basic consequences arising from those options, and the ability to intelligibly communicate to either counsel or the court the decision arrived upon.”
The Board unanimously finds that Mr. Hung remains unfit to stand trial. In arriving at this determination, the Board considered that the Crown’s Representative joined with the Hospital’s position and recommendation whereas Counsel for Mr. Hung was unable to advance a position, absent instructions from his client. The Panel was aided by Dr. Bhullar’s uncontroverted evidence at the hearing that, in her opinion, Mr, Hung remains unfit. Clearly, given Mr. Hung’s responses to the Taylor test questions he lacks a reality based understanding of the nature, object and possible consequences of a court proceeding. He was only able to respond correctly to one of the nine questions put to him in the hours preceding today’s hearing, the question regarding available plea options. Moreover, based on the principles set out in Bharwani, Mr. Hung is not able meaningfully participate in the proceedings in terms of instructing counsel and conducting a defence.
(b) Disposition
Flowing from the Board’s finding that Mr. Hung remains unfit it must shape a Disposition for the year ahead. Its paramount consideration in doing so must be the safety of the public while also considering Mr. Hung’s needs pursuant to s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
The necessary and appropriate disposition for Mr. Hung provides him as much freedom as possible without subjecting the community to a real risk of dangerous behaviour.
In considering Mr. Hung needs, the Board was attentive to Dr. Bhullar’s evidence that it is too early to determine if Mr. Hung’s inability to engage in the assessment process is volitional and therefore attributable to malingering; the faking of symptoms for secondary gain.
For clarity, paragraph (e) of the Hospital’s Disposition Recommendations is amended by adding “of Ontario” so as to read:
(e) passes for up to 12 hours to enter the community of Ontario within a 150 km radius of Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Science, indirectly supervised.
The uncontested rationale, which this Panel of the Board accepts, as to why the Hospital believes Mr. Hung to represent a risk to public safety is set out in the first paragraph of the Clinical Assessment of Risk, found at page 15 of the Hospital Report and reproduced below for ease of reference:
Mr. Hung’s risk flows from his psychotic illness, history of violence (serious index offence), personality features (borderline personality features), and history of cannabis use, which previously led to psychotic symptoms.
Given the foregoing, and as Mr. Hung remains in the early days of treatment at Ontario Shores, a Detention Disposition, with the addition of a weapons prohibition and a no contact order is the appropriate mechanism to manage his risk to public safety.
DATED this 1st day of August 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Mr. P. Capelle Alternate Chairperson Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board