Re Steven Lee, 2025 CanLII 89883

Ontario Review Board

Re: Steven Lee

ORB File No: 7302

Hearing held on: Wednesday, June 25, 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: Mr. J. Weinstein Members: Dr. L.E. Cappe Dr. L.O. Lightfoot Ms. M. den Haan Mr. A. Mete

Parties Appearing:

Accused: Steven Lee Counsel: Mr. P. Morabito

The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. M. Warner

Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. S. Cressman

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated September 3, 2025)

Introduction

1. On February the 7, 2018, Stephen Lee was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on a charge of assault with a weapon contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (“Criminal Code”).

2. Mr. Lee is currently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated March 19, 2024, by which he was ordered to be detained at the General Forensic Unit of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto (“CAMH” or the “hospital”) with a number of prohibitions and privileges, including the privilege of living in the community in accommodation approved by the person in charge.

3. On Wednesday, June 25, 2025, the Ontario Review Board convened a hearing at CAMH and conducted the annual review of Mr. Lee's Disposition pursuant to section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Lee attended his hearing and was represented by his counsel, Mr. P. Morabito. A Hospital Report dated June 12, 2025, was entered as Exhibit No. 1.

4. The issue at this hearing is whether Mr. Lee is a significant threat to public safety, as defined in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code. If so, the necessary, and appropriate, Disposition in the circumstances must be determined, bearing in mind the factors enunciated in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.

Positions of the Parties

5. On behalf of the hospital, Ms. Warner submitted that a Conditional Discharge was the necessary and appropriate Disposition with conditions including to reside at a named address and a consent to treatment clause.

6. Counsel for the Attorney General and for Mr. Lee did not take a position prior to hearing the evidence of the hospital. At the conclusion of the hearing, all parties supported the recommendation of the hospital, and the Board was therefore presented with a joint submission.

7. For the reasons set out below and based on the expert evidence and opinions before us, the Board concluded that Mr. Lee continues to present a significant threat to the safety of the public. The Board determined that his risk can be properly managed with a Conditional Discharge Disposition, with the conditions set out in our formal Disposition. The Board concluded that the above is the necessary, and appropriate, Disposition in the circumstances.

Index Offence

8. The circumstances of the index offence are taken from last year’s Reasons for Disposition as follows:

“The victim is the accused's father. They reside together at 39 Pemberton Avenue together with the victim's wife/accused's mother and a younger sibling of the accused.

According to his father, the accused was initially diagnosed with schizophrenia about two years after spending two weeks at North York General Hospital; however, his father states that after receiving one injection the accused stopped going for them because he didn't like the side effects. Since that time the victim has been avoiding the accused as much as possible while living in the same apartment and "accommodating his moods" so that he doesn't become angry easily.

SYNOPSIS FOR GUILTY PLEA:

On Saturday, July 1, 2017, at about 05:30 hrs. the victim was asleep in his bed with his wife at their home at 39 Pemberton Avenue, Penthouse 8 in the City of Toronto. The victim was awakened by a blow to the left side of his head and looked up to find the accused, his son, wielding a mallet in his hand. The accused began to accuse the victim of "stalking" him but when the victim tried to ask how he had been stalking him, his wife, the accused's mother, held the accused back and told the victim not to talk to the accused. The accused made an utterance that maybe he should have used a knife since the one blow did not kill the victim. The accused walked out of the bedroom and went into his bedroom. The victim's wife cleaned the up the floor while the accused changed his clothing and they went to North York General Hospital where the victim was treated and released.

The victim, his wife and son went to 32 Division at about 09:50 hrs. where they provided statements to the police. The accused was arrested at his home at 13:09 hrs. and taken into custody without incident. The accused was transported to 32 Division where he was held for a show cause hearing.

VICTIM'S INJURIES: wound on side of head – required 2 stitches to close.

WEAPON USED BY ACCUSED: mallet with round black rubber head and wood handle."

Diagnoses

9. Schizophrenia

Alcohol Use Disorder, in partial remission in a controlled environment

Unspecified Personality Disorder (Schizoid and Antisocial Traits)

Background

10. The Hospital Report provides a great deal of information concerning Mr. Lee, his personal history, his mental health history, details of the index offence, and Mr. Lee's course in hospital and in the community subsequent to the date of the NCR finding. As the Hospital Report was made an exhibit in this hearing, it is not necessary to reproduce the information contained in the Hospital Report in these reasons.

11. Briefly, Mr. Lee is 39 years old and immigrated to Canda from South Korea with his family in 1999. Mr. Lee finished all but the final year of his program at University of Waterloo and was enrolled for a time at York University.

12. His employment experience is limited to University co-op placements, and he is currently supported by the Ontario Disability Support Program. He has criminal convictions for assault, unlawfully in a dwelling, and fail to comply with probation.

Evidence at the Hearing

13. The Board had available to it the evidence and documents forming the record, the Hospital Report, and oral evidence from Dr. Swayze. Dr. Swayze is Mr. Lee's outpatient psychiatrist. He adopted the contents of the Hospital Report and testified as follows:

• over the reporting year, Mr. Lee transitioned from the hospital to TRPH housing, then to independent living. The transitions were mostly smooth;

• Mr. Lee now lives in a condo owned by his parents, and is financially supported by ODSP and a CMHA mobile funding top up;

• Mr. Lee makes major life decisions impulsively, which has implications for his mental health stability;

• Mr. Lee performs all activities of daily living independently;

• over the year, Mr. Lee's goal was to move closer to the Toronto Metropolitan University (TMU) where he was accepted as a student. The index offences were interpersonal offences. Mr. Lee thought that he would move in with strangers at his new University, which would remove all stability for his mental health. Dr. Swayze explained the rationale to Mr. Lee of why the hospital was not in support of this and Mr. Lee rescinded this impulsive wish after more thought;

• Mr. Lee has now stated that he is not pursuing his education at TMU but has wishes to return to York University. He is currently appealing a trespass order that was issued for past threats and harassment on the York University campus;

• Mr. Lee has had a stable year;

• the hospital is in support of a Conditional Discharge because Mr. Lee had a good year, he has housing which is secure and above average, he has been compliant with reporting requirements, and he intends to seek an Absolute Discharge soon;

• Mr. Lee is incapable of consent to treatment but is willing to consent to the inclusion of a treatment cause in his Disposition. Dr. Swayze feels that Mr. Lee understands the implications of a consent to treatment clause;

• Mr. Lee is treated with long-acting injectable medication, therefore there is no concern with respect to medication while Mr. Lee is residing in the community;

• Mr. Lee has been symptom free during the treatment year. Though he can be guarded, he has a reasonable rapport with the treatment team; and

• Mr. Lee did not raise any issues with Dr. Swayze with respect to travel or any plans to do so, but the hospital would support travel privileges for periods under 4 weeks with an approved itinerary. Dr. Swayze does not take issue with international travel if it is for a maximum of two weeks.

14. In response to questions for comments from counsel for the Attorney General, Dr. Swayze testified that:

• he began treating Mr. Lee within the current year;

• in last year's Reasons at paragraph 16, it was noted that the hospital stated that they absolutely needed to approve Mr. Lee's housing due to his impulsive history. The hospital no longer needs to approve Mr. Lee's residence, but will only support a Conditional Discharge which specifies a named address;

• if Mr. Lee were to decide to move out of that residence, an early hearing before the Board would be called;

• Mr. Lee is smart enough to know that if he moved from the specified residence, this would be a breach of his conditions;

• keeping in mind Mr. Lee's wish to move toward an Absolute Discharge, Mr. Lee is aware that he needs to stay at his residence, and Dr. Swayze does not think that he would risk his progress by attempting to change his residence;

• Mr. Lee has had many different ideas over the year about where he would like to pursue his education, and there is very little clarity where he will choose to go to school. He has been accepted at TMU. His parents’ condo is 5 minutes away from the subway and it is a 30-minute subway ride to the University;

• the provisions of the Mental Health Act are sufficient to return Mr. Lee to hospital if required. In last year's reasons at page 4 paragraph 18, it was noted that Mr. Lee had no insight into his deficits and would likely choose housing which was insufficient to meet his needs. Therefore, a Detention Order was requested last year, and it was deemed that the Mental Health Act provisions were insufficient. This year, however, Mr. Lee has had a good year, has stable housing, and during the discussions about moving closer to TMU, Mr. Lee was rational and accepted Dr. Swayze's reasoning;

• Dr. Swayze would like to see one more year with Mr. Lee free of psychotic symptoms; and

• decompensation due to a missed injection of Mr. Lee’s long-acting injectable medication would take some time, and the Box B criteria under the Mental Health Act would therefore be sufficient to bring Mr. Lee back to hospital in the case of a decompensation in his mental state

15. In response to questions from counsel for Mr. Lee, Dr. Swayze testified that:

• Mr. Lee lives independently without support for daily living from his parents. He receives financial support and pays rent to his parents; and

• the current travel situation is very good for Mr. Lee to go to TMU from the condo.

16. In response to questions from the panel, Dr. Swayze testified that:

• three urine drug screen results were unusual during the reporting period, and the treatment team will be more vigilant in monitoring further screens. The requirement for random urine drug screens should remain in the conditions;

• alcohol is the primary substance of concern for Mr. Lee;

• the urine drug screen samples were suspicious, but insufficient for Dr. Swayze to say that Mr. Lee had consumed alcohol. Mr. Lee was informed of the issue with the dilute urine samples;

• Mr. Lee exhibited no signs of decompensation;

• if further suspicious results are noted, the hospital has methods to obtain samples including unannounced visits or requirements for a patient to present themselves for a sample immediately. Random screens might be increased until valid creatinine levels were found in samples;

• Mr. Lee says that he never abused drugs and has asked to do fewer or no urine drug screen samples. He has not had interest in attending relapse prevention programs; therefore Dr. Swayze is unsure of any benefit that would be derived from doing so; and

• if Mr. Lee were not to follow through with enrollment in school during the year, the hospital would increase the frequency with which he would be seen if he were living in the apartment alone

17. No further evidence was called by the parties.

Final Submissions of the Parties

18. In closing submissions, counsel for the hospital noted that last year the Detention Order was required because Mr. Lee was in transitional housing and the treatment team knew he would have to move, but they did not know where. This year, the hospital supports a Conditional Discharge since there is a specific address at which Mr. Lee will be living. A condition in the Disposition requiring him to remain at this address is important.

19. Counsel for the Attorney General submitted that, having heard Dr. Swayze’s evidence, they supported the hospital’s recommendation.

20. Counsel for Mr. Lee submitted that if Mr. Lee is unable to attend York University, he may attend TMU. If his plans to attend TMU fall through, the hospital will provide more support to Mr. Lee and ensure that he has structured activities.

Conclusion and Disposition

21. Having heard and considered the entirety of the evidence as well as the submissions from the parties, the Board agrees with the joint submission: Mr. Lee remains a significant threat to the safety of the public.

22. In Winko, the Supreme Court outlined that, in coming to the conclusion on the issue of significant risk, the Board should closely examine a range of evidence, including: the circumstances of the original offence; the past and expected course of the accused’s treatment; the present state of the NCR accused’s medical condition; the NCR accused’s own plans for the future; the support existing for the NCR accused in the community; and most importantly, the recommendations provided by experts who examined the NCR accused. In coming to our conclusion in this matter, the Board relies on the uncontroverted expert evidence of Dr. Swayze, in addition to the documentary evidence before us.

23. In particular, the Board relies on the re-offence scenario and composite assessment of risk set out in the Hospital Report:

Re-offence scenario

“If Mr. Lee is to re-offend, it will likely occur in the context of insufficient support, supervision and structure. Mr. Lee’s insight remains extremely limited and he lacks an internalized motivation for treatment. Elements of his personality disorder contribute to his cavalier, ambivalent engagement in his care. Absent adequate professional care and external control, he would discontinue his medication, and experience an intensification of his delusional beliefs leading him to act violently. He is at risk of a return to alcohol misuse, exacerbating his increasing behavioural dyscontrol. Those that are close to him, particularly family or neighbours could become incorporated into his delusions, as has occurred historically, and would be most at risk.”

Composite Assessment of Risk

“Mr. Lee’s actuarial assessment of static long-term risk for violent recidivism is best described as moderate. The HCR-20 Version 3 overall profile suggests a moderate risk potential. In addition, he has several salient clinical risk factors. Taken in totality, the clinical team opines that Mr. Lee continues to remain a significant threat to the safety of the public as defined in Section 672.5401.”

24. The panel acknowledges that Mr. Lee has done very well over the last reporting year, has not experienced any psychotic symptoms, has been adherent to his antipsychotic medication, and his transition into the community has been successful. It is still relatively early days yet and caution is warranted when the panel is weighing decisional options.

25. Recurrent features of this case have been Mr. Lee’s impulsive decision-making, his impaired insight, and his lack of motivation for treatment programming. While he has admirable goals of pursuing higher education, he has frequently changed programs. Despite being accepted to a program at TMU which is conveniently located to his residence, Mr. Lee has recently decided to appeal a trespass order from York University in the hope of attending a program there.

26. To his credit, he accepted the reasoning of the treatment team for opposing his idea to move from his parents’ condo into a University residence with strangers, which would have been detrimental to his mental stability. The evidence is clear that Mr. Lee’s present housing is a key component of his stability, and Dr. Swayze noted that the hospital would not support a Conditional Discharge absent a named residence in the conditions.

27. More time is required to ensure that Mr. Lee’s transition to the community continues to go well, particularly in light of the “suspicious” urine drug screens which may indicate that Mr. Lee has been consuming alcohol in contravention of his conditions.

28. In consideration of all the evidence, submissions of the parties, and the criteria set forth in s. 672.54, the paramount consideration being the safety of the public, in addition to the mental condition of Mr. Lee, his reintegration into society and his other needs, the necessary, and appropriate, Disposition is a Conditional Discharge Disposition which includes a consent to treatment clause and a specified residence as noted in the formal Disposition.

DATED this 3rd day of September, 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.

Ms. M. den Haan Legal Member

Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board