Re: Thi M. Luu, 2026 CanLII 18231

Re: Thi M. Luu

ORB File No: 6839

Hearing held on: Thursday, January 22, 2026

Place of hearing: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health

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

Before:

Alternate Chairperson: Mr. J. Goldenberg

Members: Dr. G.A. Chaimowitz Dr. L. Leong Hon. B. Durno Mr. S. Doherty

Parties Appearing:

Accused: Thi M. Luu Counsel: Mr. J. Halberstadt

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

Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. R. Weinberg

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated March 2, 2026)

Overview

1. On October 5, 2015, Thi M. Luu was found not criminally responsible on charges of abduction of a person under 14 years of age.

2. Ms. Luu is currently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated January 24th, 2025, by which she was ordered to be detained her "at the Forensic Service of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto" with privileges up to living in the community in approved accommodation.

3. On Thursday, January 22, 2026, the Ontario Review Board convened a hearing and conducted the annual review of Ms. Luu's Disposition.

Positions of the Parties

4. At the outset of the hearing, the parties were canvassed at to their position before the Board.

5. Ms. Warner appeared for CAMH. Ms. Warner advised of the hospital position that Ms. Luu remains a significant threat to public safety, and if the Board so finds, the hospital submits that the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a detention order with the exact same terms as set out in last year's Disposition.

6. In response to a question from the Alternate Chair, Ms. Warner advised that if the Board were to specify the level of security, the hospital will be recommending detention order on a General Forensic Unit.

7. Ms. Weinberg appeared for the Attorney General. She supported the hospital's recommendation.

8. Mr. Halberstadt appeared for Ms. Luu. Mr. Halberstadt advised that the parties were making a joint recommendation. In response to a question from the Alternate Chair, Mr. Halberstadt and his client accept that at the present time Ms. Luu represents a significant threat to public safety and at the present time the necessary and appropriate disposition is a detention order as opposed to any other type of Disposition. Again, in response to a question for the Alternate Chair, Mr. Halberstadt stated his view that the detention order should be directed to detention on a General Forensic Unit.

Index Offence

9. The circumstances of the index offence are as follows:

"On September 23, 2010, Thi Luu was charged with one count of abduction of a person under the age of 14, after she grabbed the hand of a 3-year-old boy who was walking with his mother at the Toronto Eaton Centre. Ms. Luu told the child to "come" and pulled him away from his mother. The mother grabbed the child's other arm and demanded that Ms. Luu let go of her child, which she did."

Evidence at Hearing

10. The Board admitted into evidence the Hospital Report dated January 2nd, 2026. The Hospital Report provides a great deal of information concerning Ms. Luu, her personal history, her mental health history, details of the index offence, and Ms. Luu's course in hospital subsequent to the date of the original 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. We do note however, the stated diagnoses of schizophrenia, substance use disorder, in remission in a controlled environment.

11. The Board also admitted into evidence a letter from CAMH dated March 17th, 2025, advising that Ms. Luu "failed to return from an indirectly supervised pass to the community on March 15th, 2025." The Board understands that Ms. Luu was returned to hospital two or three days later.

12. In addition to the documentary evidence, the Board heard from Dr. Igoumenou. Dr. Igoumenou had been following Ms. Luu from October 12th to approximately two weeks ago. The Board understands that Dr. Igoumenou was replacing Dr. Meng who was on a leave. Dr. Meng is back and is now the most responsible physician. Dr. Igoumenou reported that she had discussed this matter with Dr. Meng. Dr. Igoumenou acknowledged a recent change. Ms. Luu has now reached Level 6. This level permits Ms. Luu to use indirectly supervised hospital and grounds passes. The doctor advised of the team's position that they will soon apply for Ms. Luu to receive Level 7 passes. With that level of passes, Ms. Luu will be able to go indirectly supervised into the community for rehabilitation purposes.

13. Dr. Igoumenou also noted that the clinical team is hopeful that Ms. Luu will be able to reach security Level 9. Dr. Igoumenou repeated that Ms. Luu is on a trajectory toward a discharge to the community. In fact, Ms. Luu was offered community living in a facility known as Madison Housing. Ms. Luu visited the residence and was not prepared to accept it. Indeed, when this was being discussed at the hearing, Ms. Luu interjected to state that she would not go there. The doctor understands Ms. Luu's concerns that the offered room was "too small." The doctor noted that there was a vacancy opening up in February, but Ms. Luu repeated that she was not prepared to move into that facility. The clinical team accordingly will be looking for alternative housing. The clinical team understands that Ms. Luu wants a woman's only residence.

14. In response to questions from Ms. Warner, Dr. Igoumenou noted that Ms. Luu is very good in her participation in various programs offered by the hospital. Dr. Igoumenou noted that once Ms. Luu reaches Level 7, she will be able to engage in either part time work or volunteer work.

15. In response to questions from panel members, the doctor noted that Ms. Luu was designated ALC in 2024.

16. In response to question from Mr. Halberstadt Dr. Igoumenou stated her understanding that Ms. Luu accepts that the medication is helpful.

17. No other evidence was heard at this hearing.

Final Submissions

18. At the conclusion of the evidence, all parties maintained their original position, namely that Ms. Luu currently represents a significant threat to public safety and that the present time the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a detention order. Ms. Warner made it clear that if the Board were to specify the level of security, the hospital is recommending detention on a General Forensic Unit. Ms. Weinberg agreed with the hospital's position in its entirety, as did Ms. Halberstadt. In response to a question from the Alternate Chair, Mr. Halberstadt stated that in his opinion, the detention order should be directed to a General Forensic Unit.

Findings of the Board

19. The Board accepts without reservation the evidence of Dr. Igoumenou, and the evidence contained in the Hospital Report. We note that Ms. Luu has been treated in hospital for the past 10 years. We accept the evidence that at the present time she remains a significant threat to public safety.

20. We also accept the evidence and the joint recommendation that a detention order is both necessary and appropriate.

21. In this panel's opinion, the Board should specify level of security when making a detention order. Accordingly, we will direct that Ms. Luu be detained in a General Forensic Unit at CAMH with all of the other privileges and prohibitions set out in last year's Disposition.

22. In reaching out disposition, we have taken into consideration public safety, Ms. Luu's mental condition and her other needs, and Ms. Luu's integration into society.

DATED this 2nd day of March, 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.

Mr. J. Goldenberg Alternate Chairperson

__________________ Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board