Ontario Review Board
Re: Long Thai
ORB File No: 7365
Hearing held on: Tuesday, January 28, 2026
Place of hearing: Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care 401 Sunset Drive, St. Thomas
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. R. Bigelow
Members: Dr. J. M. Bradford Dr. L. O. Lightfoot Ms. K. Tomaszewski Ms. B. Little
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Long Thai Counsel: Mr. R. Cunningham
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. J. Zamprogna
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. K. Dalrymple
REASONS FOR DECISION
(Dated February 27, 2026)
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 (“ORB”) dated July 2, 2025 discharging him subject to certain conditions, including that he abstain absolutely from the non-medical use of alcohol or drugs or any other intoxicant; and that he attend for assessment upon request by the person in charge of the Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care, St. Joseph's Health Care London, or their designate.
By a letter dated November 14, 2025 (as amended by a corrected letter dated November 18, 2025), the Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care (the “Hospital”) advised the Board that:
Mr. Long Thai was admitted to hospital at the Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care, St. Thomas (St. Joseph’s Health Care London), on November 4, 2025. Mr. Thai’s current Disposition is a conditional discharge disposition dated July 2, 2025 (Order and Amended Disposition dated July 17, 2025).
Prior to readmission Mr. Thai was residing in an independent apartment in St. Thomas and supported by the Forensic Outreach team.
Mr. Thai was admitted to hospital following… a deterioration in mental status related to substance use, including a workplace altercation. Upon assessment, Mr. Thai agreed to stay in hospital voluntarily. He understood the purpose of the admission and was in agreement to stay. During Mr. Thai’s 10-day inpatient stay, he has remained compliant with treatment and care plans. Mr. Thai has undergone routine testing. Mr. Thai has demonstrated improved insight, judgment, and understanding of his mental state and behaviours. Following stabilization, Mr. Thai has been discharged back to his home with appropriate follow-up arranged.
This readmission does constitute a Restriction of Liberty pursuant to section 672.56(2)(b) of the Criminal Code of Canada.
On January 28, 2026, the Board convened a hearing to conduct a review of the period of increased restrictions on Mr. Thai’s liberty, which commenced on November 4, 2025, and ended 10 days later (the “ROL”).
The Board had before it a Restriction of Liberties Report dated November 18, 2025 (Exhibit 1) and a Hospital Report dated May 6, 2025 (Exhibit 2). Dr. Ajay Prakash provided oral evidence on behalf of the Hospital, standing in for Dr. Mokhber, Mr. Thai’s attending psychiatrist, who was unable to attend the hearing.
For the reasons which follow, the Board found that there was a significant restriction on the liberties of Mr. Thai during the ROL and that this was necessary and appropriate as well as the least restrictive and least onerous in the circumstances, both initially and throughout its duration.
Mr. Thai had the benefit of a Vietnamese interpreter throughout the hearing.
Background and Index Offences
Mr. Thai 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.
The latest Board Reasons for Disposition dated July 2, 2025, noted the following:
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.
- That Board determined that the least onerous, necessary and appropriate Disposition was a conditional discharge. As part of its analysis the Board noted that:
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...
Restriction of Liberty
At the outset of the hearing all parties agreed that the only matter in issue at this hearing is the restriction of liberty. All parties agreed that the current conditional discharge Disposition remains necessary and appropriate and is not in issue.
Dr. Prakash indicated that he had no instructions from the Treatment Team or the Hospital with respect to the Disposition, and could not provide any evidence on that matter.
All parties agreed that Mr. Thai was subject to a significant restriction of liberty during his 10-day admission to the Hospital, that the decision to return Mr. Thai to the Hospital was warranted, and that the restriction was the least onerous and least restrictive decision available to the Hospital. The parties agreed that the restriction remained necessary and appropriate until Mr. Thai was discharged to his home in the community.
The events which lead to the ROL are described in the ROL Report:
Mr. Thai was admitted to hospital following a deterioration in mental status related to suspected substance use, and a workplace altercation with his manager, and reportedly asking other workers the residential address of his manager. A urine sample obtained on October 29, 2025 was positive for amphetamines, with confirmation results returning positive with trace amounts. Upon assessment, Mr. Thai agreed to stay in hospital voluntarily. He stated he understood the purpose of the admission and was in agreement to stay.
Upon admission, Mr. Thai reported his mood as 9/10 and denied symptoms of depression, mania, anger, or irritability. His affect appeared restricted, and no psychomotor agitation was observed. He denied auditory hallucinations and any delusional thinking, including paranoia or grandiosity. He discussed a recent argument with his manager, expressing that he believes the manager dislikes him and may be jealous, and referred to him as a “liar.” When asked about safety, Mr. Thai stated, “If he hits me, I’m going to knock him down”. He noted that the manager frequently used profane language toward him, which he did not reciprocate. Overall, his insight appeared limited regarding interpersonal conflict.
The following day, Mr. Thai described the prior argument with his manager as one-sided and stated it was not a “big deal” since nothing happened. When confronted about asking a coworker for his manager’s address, he repeatedly responded, “Did I?” He eventually acknowledged asking for the address, explaining it was because his manager told him to “fuck off.” He further claimed he wanted everyone’s addresses in case they became angry with him so he could find them, or he could call the police. His reasoning appeared disorganized, with jumps in logic, and he seemed fixated on the idea that his manager might come to his home, despite no evidence this had occurred. He wondered if his manager was angry with him, but his explanations were unclear.
Mr. Thai was informed of an additional positive amphetamine confirmation from November 4, 2025. Initially, he denied any use, but after clarification that the question was about how long he had been using, he admitted receiving the substance from a friend. He avoided answering how long he had been using, eventually stating he had used “a couple times” but was unsure of the first instance. After further prompting, he disclosed starting use approximately 2.5 weeks ago when a female friend was using. He described the first use as licking the substance off the woman’s nipple, which occurred three times with the same person. He remained uncertain about the second use.
When asked about other methods of substance use, Mr. Thai denied smoking or any alternative intake, insisting that licking was different from oral ingestion. The distinction between ingestion methods was explained, but he continued to deny equivalence. He reported meeting the woman who provided the substance a couple of times per week, describing her as “just a friend” rather than a girlfriend, though he acknowledged that substance use occurred during sexual encounters. The importance of discontinuing contact with this individual and avoiding substance use was emphasized, as it may have contributed to his workplace outburst. Mr. Thai appeared to find this discussion amusing, laughing periodically.
Mr. Thai reported that he contacted his workplace and was informed that his employment had been terminated. He expressed awareness that he can apply for Employment Insurance (EI) and plans to do so. It was explained to him that ongoing mental status assessments will continue while he remains in care until he is clean and stable. He was advised that his workplace is willing to reassess his employment status once he achieves stability and sobriety.
On November 7, 2025, Mr. Thai’s manager contacted Outreach staff and expressed ongoing fear for his and his family’s safety due to the events that occurred on November 4, 2025. Additionally, he shared that a staff member …reported that Mr. Thai had been requesting a coworker’s urine over the past two weeks.
Dr. Prakash told the Board that Mr. Thai’s urine drug screens have been negative since November 7, 2025. The latest drug screens were on December 4, 2025, and January 3, 2026. Mr. Thai has denied any use of drugs since his discharge from the Hospital.
Dr. Prakash explained that the ROL Report described Mr. Thai’s attendance at the Hospital as “voluntary” because the Hospital did not require the assistance of police or need to make use of the Mental Health Act (“MHA”) to compel Mr. Thai’s attendance at the Hospital.
Dr. Prakash questioned the voluntary nature of Mr. Thai’s attendance at the Hospital in the context of knowing that he had breached his Disposition by using amphetamines and that there would be negative consequences if he did not attend (e.g. potential police involvement).
Dr. Prakash agreed that the use of substances increases the likelihood of mental decompensation, and increases Mr. Thai’s risk to the public. At the time of the ROL, there was a heightened risk to the safety of the public. Mr. Thai had decompensated prior to his admission to the Hospital, exhibiting paranoia towards his manager.
Dr. Prakash told the Board that Mr. Thai stabilized quickly. No chemical or physical restraints were required.
Mr. Thai’s risk to the safety of the public has not changed since the Board last reviewed his Disposition. Active clinical risk factors remain in play at this time, including loss of employment, recent substance use, casino use. To Mr. Thai’s credit, Dr. Prakash testified that the most recent substance use initially occurred unexpectedly in an intimate situation.
In response to the Board’s questions about how the Hospital is managing Mr. Thai’s risk to the public now that there are no “eyes on him” at work, Dr. Prakash responded that the Treatment Team has increased the frequency of their visits to Mr. Thai. For example, team members were in contact with Mr. Thai on January 6, 11, 13, 16, and 19.
Mr. Thai continues to attend Talbot House every day for CMHA leisure activities. He attends church, volunteers and is in contact with family.
Analysis and Conclusion
Restriction of Liberty
The Board deliberated extensively about whether the attendance and admission of Mr. Thai to the Hospital constituted a restriction of liberty in the context of an accused subject to a conditional discharge who attended at the Hospital voluntarily (i.e. without the use of police, or compulsion under the MHA); and who agreed to remain in the Hospital voluntarily. Legally, Mr. Thai could have left the Hospital against medical advice at any time prior to discharge.
The Board noted that Dr. Prakash told the Board that if Mr. Thai had not agreed to attend the Hospital, the Hospital could have tried to enforce the “Young” provision in the Disposition through the enforcement provisions of the Criminal Code. Alternatively, the Hospital could have chosen to monitor Mr. Thai more closely in the community and then make a decision about calling an early Board hearing to review the Disposition.
Dr. Prakash was asked what would have happened if after attending in compliance with his Disposition, Mr. Thai had declined to be admitted to the Hospital. Dr. Prakash responded that they would have assessed Mr. Thai to determine whether he was certifiable for involuntary admission under the MHA. If not, Mr. Thai would have been released.
Dr. Prakash took the position that in the circumstances, Mr. Thai’s “voluntary” admission was coerced due to Mr. Thai’s knowledge that negative consequences could follow a refusal to be admitted to the Hospital.
None of the parties specifically addressed the question of whether, from a legal perspective (rather than from Mr. Thai’s perspective) a restriction of liberty had occurred in these circumstances.
The Board did not have the benefit of legal argument about the interplay between the MHA, involuntary versus voluntary admission, and restrictions of liberty provisions under the Criminal Code.
As a result, the Board decided it was not appropriate to make a determination on this point in this hearing without the benefit of full legal submissions, particularly in the context of the joint submission.
On the facts of this admission, it is clear that Mr. Thai experienced significantly less liberty while admitted to the Hospital than he had enjoyed prior to November 4, 2025, while living in the community under a conditional discharge.
Necessary and Appropriate and Least Onerous and Least Restrictive
The Board accepts the uncontroverted evidence of the Hospital that Mr. Thai used substances in breach of his Disposition, leading to mental decompensation (paranoia) and increased risk to the safety to the public, prior to his admission to the Hospital on November 4, 2025.
Mr. Thai has a history of substance use. He has had several incidents of substance use followed by decompensation and readmission to the Hospital for stabilization. His background indicates a pattern of increased risk to the public following substance use and mental deterioration.
In the current situation, Mr. Thai’s actions led to loss of employment, and fear by his manager for the safety of the manager and the manager’s family. It is worth noting that until this incident, Mr. Thai had a very positive relationship with his work colleagues. The manager and staff of his place of employment had provided much support to Mr. Thai.
The Board finds that Mr. Thai’s admission to Hospital on November 4, 2025, as well as the duration of his 10-day stay in the Hospital to stabilize was both necessary and appropriate, and the least restrictive and least onerous decision available to the Hospital to protect the public safety.
The evidence does not indicate that any changes should be made to Mr. Thai’s Disposition.
In reaching our Decision, the Board carefully considered public safety, Mr. Thai’s mental condition, his integration into society, and his other needs.
DATED this 27th day of February 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.
Ms. K. Tomaszewski Legal Member
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board