Re: K. (H. J.), 2026 CanLII 21127

Re: K. (H. J.)

ORB File No: 5708/7648

Hearing held on: Wednesday, February 4, 2026

Place of hearing: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health

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

Before:

Alternate Chairperson: Mr. M. Segal

Members: Hon. N. Kozloff

Dr. G. Chaimowitz

Dr. H. Moulden

Mr. S. Duffy

Parties Appearing:

Accused: K. (H. J.)

Counsel: Mr. A. Rai

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

Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. C. Coughlan

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated March 10, 2026)

Introduction

1. On September 29, 2010, K. (H. J.) was found not criminally responsible (“NCR”) on account of mental disorder on four charges of sexual assault, and one charge each of sexual interference with person under sixteen, invitation to sexual touching under sixteen, and fail to comply with conditions of undertaking or recognizance, all contrary to the Criminal Code.

2. On April 24, 2019, K. (H. J.) was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on one charge of sexual assault, contrary to the Criminal Code.

3. K. (H. J.) is currently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (“ORB” and “the Board”) dated February 19, 2025, ordering that he be discharged subject to a number of conditions.

4. On Wednesday, February 4, 2026, the Board convened a hearing to review K. (H. J.)’s Disposition pursuant to section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. K. (H. J.) was present at the hearing and represented by Counsel, Mr. A. Rai. A Korean interpreter was present and translated the entire proceeding for K. (H. J.).

5. The issues to be determined at the hearing were whether K. (H. J.) continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public as defined in section 672.5401 of the Criminal Code and, if so, what is the necessary and appropriate disposition which is also the least onerous and least restrictive, taking into account the factors set out in section 672.54 of the Criminal Code.

Positions of the Parties

6. At the commencement of the hearing the parties were requested to provide their initial without prejudice positions with respect to the issues before the Board.

7. Counsel on behalf of the Hospital advised that the position of the Hospital was that K. (H. J.) continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate disposition is a Conditional Discharge with the same conditions as the Disposition dated February 19, 2025.

8. Counsel for the Attorney General supported the Hospital position.

9. Counsel for K. (H. J.) supported the Hospital position and expressly acknowledged that K. (H. J.) remains a significant threat to the safety of the public.

The Evidence

10. The evidence at the hearing consisted of the Hospital Report dated January 15, 2026 (Exhibit 1) and the viva voce testimony of Dr. N. Ugwunze, K. (H. J.)’s treating psychiatrist and one of the authors of the Hospital Report.

11. For the reasons that follow, the Board finds that K. (H. J.) continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate disposition is a Conditional Discharge with the same conditions as contained in the previous Disposition.

Background

12. K. (H. J.)’s Personal and Development History – including Childhood and Family History, Education History, Employment History, Relationship History, Medical History, Substance Use History, Psychiatric History, is set out in detail in the Hospital Report. As the Hospital Report is an exhibit in this hearing it is not necessary to reproduce all of that that information in these reasons. The following summary will suffice for the purposes of these Reasons:

K. (H. J.) is a 50-year-old Korean-born male who is the youngest of three brothers. He resides at My Brother’s Place, a 24-hour supervised, high-support all-male residence in Toronto, Ontario. He is single, never married and does not have any dependents. He has Canadian citizenship. He is unemployed and supported by the Ontario Disability Support Plan (“ODSP”). He was found incapable of managing property and consenting to psychiatric treatment. His brother, Mr. K. (H. J.), acts as his substitute decision maker (“SDM”) for both property and personal care.

K. (H. J.) completed grade 10 in South Korea. He began to exhibit inappropriate behaviour in school in Grade 10, likely because of emergent mental health symptoms. In Canada, he repeated Grade 10 but was unable to continue due to symptoms of his mental illness. He left school and has not attended further formal educational programs.

K. (H. J.) has been unemployed since leaving secondary school. He has been supported financially by ODSP since that time.

K. (H. J.) has never been involved in a relationship with an intimate partner.

In the past, K. (H. J.) has reported drinking “a little bit” of alcohol. In 2010, K. (H. J.) informed that he had smoked marijuana five to six times since moving to his then residence. He last smoked marijuana a few days prior to the December 29, 2010, interview. On that occasion, he denied that marijuana had any impact on his mental state.

K. (H. J.) is a “heavy smoker “who has smoked two packs of cigarettes per day for 20

years.

Dr. H. Kim met with K. (H. J.) on five occasions between June and August 1993. He noted that, according to K. (H. J.)’s parents, their son’s grades in school declined in grade 10, coinciding with increased presentation of “behavioural” problems (not described). At age 15, K. (H. J.) apparently appeared anxious, depressed, nervous and “unsettled.” At age 16, he began to hear voices and was experiencing paranoid ideation and persecutory thoughts.

According to Dr. Kim’s note, K. (H. J.) was seen by a psychiatrist at a general hospital in Seoul, at approximately age 16. K. (H. J.) declined to take medication at that time. Dr. Kim reported during his interview on June 3, 1994, that K. (H. J.) endorsed hearing “mixed sounds,” exhibited loose associations with tangential thinking, thought blocking and withdrawal, with impaired abstract and memory. Dr. Kim suggested a “likely” Axis I diagnosis as “chronic schizophrenia, disorganized type” that had been improperly treated. Dr. Kim also estimated K. (H. J.)’s level of intellectual functioning as the “low part of average” (i.e., between 80 and 99).

K. (H. J.) was assessed at CAMH in 1994 secondary to a charge of Sexual Assault. Diagnostic impressions at the time of admission were borderline intellectual functioning, with a query of thought disorder.

K. (H. J.) began meeting with Dr. B. Cho, K. (H. J.)’s psychiatrist at the Toronto Western Hospital (Hong Fook Community Initiative), in 2006. According to Dr. Cho, K. (H. J.)’s presentation was more in keeping with the disorganized form of schizophrenia; he rarely evidenced positive symptoms of the illness, such as delusions or hallucinations. He had been treated over the years with the antipsychotic medication, risperidone, and had never received trials of other antipsychotic medications. He had never been hospitalized for psychiatric reasons. K. (H. J.) was reportedly difficult to engage in treatment. He did not attend Hong Fook programming on a regular basis, and when he did attend, he was withdrawn and would leave after a short period of time. He was intermittently non-compliant with medication use. At times, when not taking medication, he would leave his group home and later be found in the community, sleeping on park benches. Dr. Cho noted that when K. (H. J.) refrains from taking his medication for more than a “few days” his behaviour became increasingly disorganized. He frequently did not attend scheduled appointments with Dr. Cho.

Dr. Cho queried whether K. (H. J.) suffered from developmental delay. K. (H. J.)’s brother has described K. (H. J.) as “a bit slow.” According to Dr. Kim’s notes, a formal assessment of K. (H. J.)’s cognitive capacity was completed in February 2010. Components of the assessment were administered in Korean. K. (H. J.) scored 26 out of 30 on the Folstein Mini Mental Examination, with deficits in immediate and delayed recall. Arithmetic questions were solved at a grade four level. Language development was assessed at a grade five level. His IQ was estimated to be 70 and was noted to be in the range of borderline intellectual functioning or mild mental retardation. This was noted by Dr. Kim to be a deterioration in cognitive abilities when compared to his first meeting with K. (H. J.) in 1994 (described above); it was opined that this deterioration was secondary to chronic schizophrenia.

K. (H. J.) was found NCR on September 29, 2010, on charges of Sexual Assault (x4), Failure to Comply with Probation, Sexual Interference, and Invitation to Sexual Touching. He was on house arrest until his first ORB disposition dated on May 2, 2011, after which he was subject to a Detention Order with community living. He was discharged subject to conditions on October 28, 2012.

He resided in the community until he was charged with sexual assault on June 28, 2017. The charge involved sexually assaulting a female co-resident at his boarding home. He was found NCR for this charge on April 24, 2019. He was hospitalized at CAMH from June 29, 2017, to February 12, 2019.

Since discharge, K. (H. J.) has been residing in hospital approved accommodations. He has been followed by the CAMH Expanded Forensic Outpatient Services (“EFOPS”) since January 2020; in October 2022, his care was transferred to Dr. Ugwunze.

Index Offences

13. The following synopsis is taken directly from Dr. Wilkie’s January 9, 2011, report to the ORB. She, in turn, referenced the Supplementary Record of Arrest:

On Monday, July 13, 2009, at 10:30 a.m., the female victim was walking on the street in Toronto. Her breasts were grabbed from behind, by K. (H. J.). She screamed, and said “that’s inappropriate, who are you;” K. (H. J.) responded, “K. (H. J.).”

On July 14, 2009, at 9:10 a.m., the 14-year-old female victim was walking her dogs. The victim was approached by K. (H. J.); he attempted to pet her dog and then reached up and grabbed at her chest. The victim ran off. However, she noted that K. (H. J.) was following her. He reached out to touch her again and then asked her if he “could have sex with her.” She said “no” and ran to her house.

At 9:20 a.m., the third victim (who was the second victim’s mother) was walking the family dog. K. (H. J.) approached and tried to pet the dog. K. (H. J.) attempted to touch her chest, but she pushed his hand out of the way. When she got home, and learned what had happened to her daughter, as well, police were called to investigate.

At 9:30 a.m., the fourth female victim was walking on the street and was approached from behind, by K. (H. J.), who grabbed her waist and then her breasts. The victim started to scream. She left and went to the TTC station, where a TTC collector assisted her in calling police. While waiting for the police, she observed K. (H. J.) purchasing a small package at a kiosk in the subway station. She followed him out of the subway station.

At 11:22 a.m., the fourth victim, who was following K. (H. J.), identified him to officers and he was arrested.

On July 25, 2009, K. (H. J.) was charged with Fail to Comply with Recognizance when police checked on K. (H. J.) to determine if he was abiding by the conditions of the house arrest and he was not in his residence. He was later found by police walking outside as he was “tired of staying at home.”

14. The following edited version (including removal of the victim’s name) is based on the Agreed Statement of Facts in R. v. K. (H. J.), which is set out in the Hospital Report at pp. 18-19:

On Wednesday, June 28, 2017, at approximately 0230 hrs the victim arrived at her residence located at 136 Bedford Rd, in the City of Toronto. (136 As she opened the front door of the multi-residential building, she realized there was a fellow tenant - K. (H. J.) - approaching from behind. The victim proceeded to open the main front door and out of courtesy held the door open for K. (H. J.) to enter the building. As she was holding the door her back was to K. (H. J.) and she was waiting for him to pass her and enter the building. At one point while she was holding the door, K. (H. J.) briefly placed his hand under her buttocks over her clothing. She perceived that he had touched her vagina over her clothing. The defendant does not agree that he touched her vagina.

Shocked, the victim turned and hit K. (H. J.) with the bag that she was carrying. She said to K. (H. J.), ‘Don't do that!’ K. (H. J.) stood still and did not say or do anything. K. (H. J.) then retreated to his apartment.

The victim advised that during the incident K. (H. J.) did not say anything to her and the act was totally unprovoked. She did not sustain any injuries from this incident. She called Police K. (H. J.) remained subject to a conditional discharge disposition and resided at My Brother’s Place for the entire duration of the above reporting period. He had no readmissions to hospital. He engaged with his FOPS clinical team and attended scheduled reviews with his TCM and psychiatrist. Immediately.

15. According to the Hospital Report, K. (H. J.) was admitted to CAMH the next day. He exhibited active symptoms of schizophrenia. He remained at CAMH subject to a detention order with privileges until February 12, 2019, when he was discharged to the community, specifically My Brother’s Place. My Brother’s Place is a 24-hour supervised, high-support, all-male residence for individuals with mental illness that provides monitoring and administration of medications, meal preparation and on-site recreational programming. His clinical care was transferred to CAMH EFOPS team. Mr. Kwok has remained at My Brother’s Place ever since and has been subject to a series of conditional discharge dispositions since December of 2020.

16. The following excerpts are taken from the section of the Hospital Report that details K. (H. J.)’s course from December 2024 to December 2025:

K. (H. J.) remained subject to a conditional discharge disposition and resided at My Brother’s Place for the entire duration of the above reporting period. He had no readmissions to hospital. He engaged with his FOPS clinical team and attended scheduled reviews with his TCM and psychiatrist.

During this past year, K. (H. J.)’s physical health remained stable, and no significant concerns were noted.

K. (H. J.)’s mental status remained unchanged, and his insight has remained limited throughout this reporting year. K. (H. J.) routinely denied experiencing any symptoms of his illness and did not endorse any psychotic symptoms, thoughts of self-harm, suicidal or violent ideation.

K. (H. J.)’s anti-psychotic medication did not change during this reporting year. K. (H. J.) took his medication under supervision by My Brother’s Place. The housing staff indicated this client has not exhibited any problematic behavior regarding medication compliance and adherence.

K. (H. J.) is still unemployed and receives support from the Ontario Support Disability Program (ODSP). The eldest brother is the Substitute Decision Maker and handles K. (H. J.)’s finances.

K. (H. J.) maintained satisfactory personal hygiene during scheduled appointments. The housing staff reported that K. (H. J.) is able to follow instructions and assists with house chores. Throughout this reporting year, K. (H. J.) needed reminders to clean his room and complete laundry. Housing staff report having cleaning services come into the home on a weekly basis. When provided instructions, K. (H. J.) is able to complete his own laundry.

K. (H. J.) generally spends his time in the home as well as going for short walks in the local vicinity, visiting a nearby convenience store to buy snacks and coffee. K. (H. J.) smokes cigarettes daily. K. (H. J.) occasionally participates in the peer support groups at the home and has stated being happy there.

There is no requirement for K. (H. J.) was to undergo random urine drug screens. There are no concerns from staff that he has used alcohol or substances.

No significant incident or concerning behaviour was observed or reported.

During this reporting period, K. (H. J.)’s mental status has remained stable with the exception of a one-week period following a missed Risperidone dose (due to a staff error). The team noted relapses may still be unpredictable in nature and likely rapid

K. (H. J.)'s insight remains limited pertaining to his established mental illness, need for medication, signs and symptoms of his psychotic illness, relapse indicators as well as history of index offense.

K. (H. J.) remains on the waiting list for Developmental Services Ontario (DSO) day programming and housing support.

K. (H. J.) continues to have a good therapeutic relationship with his FOPS team in spite of limited insight.

17. In the section of the Hospital Report under RISK ASSESSMENT the following entries are relevant for the purposes of these Reasons:

K. (H. J.) was scored on the STATIC-99 by Dr. P. Benassi in October 2019 following his most recent sexual assault offence in 2017. The item for age at release was set at 43-years-old, when he was discharged from hospital. Compared to other adult male sexual offenders in Canada, K. (H. J.)’s score of 6 (scores range from 0 - 12) falls between the 95.6-98.6 percentile. This percentile range means that 95.6 to 98.6% of sex offenders in Canada scored at or below K. (H. J.)’s score. Conversely, 4.4% to 1.4% of sex offenders in Canada scored higher. This score, according to the developers of this tool, places K. (H. J.) in the highest risk category, Level IV b – Well above-average risk.

Dr. Melissa Hughes, Forensic Psychologist and Clinical Neuropsychologist, conducted a STATIC-2002 assessment with K. (H. J.) in July 2015. Compared to other adult male sexual offenders in Canada, K. (H. J.)’s score of +8 (scores range from 0 - 12) falls between the 93.1 – 96.4 percentiles. This percentile range means that 93.1 to 96.4% of sex offenders in Canada scored at or below K. (H. J.)’s score. Conversely, 3.6% to 6.9% of sex offenders in Canada scored higher. This score, according to the developers of this tool, places K. (H. J.) in a Moderate-High-risk category.

K. (H. J.) was assessed using the HCR-20 v3 which was complete on 17th, December 2025.

Historical Items deemed present and relevant included: a history of problems with violence (i.e. young age), relationship, employment, major mental disorder (i.e., schizophrenia, intellectual disability), and treatment/supervision response.

Clinical items deemed present and relevant (12-month time span) included: recent problems with insight (i.e., mental disorder, violence risk, need for treatment) and symptoms of a major mental disorder. Treatment/supervision response was noted to be partially present.

Risk management factors deemed partially present and relevant in the context of the recommended disposition included: professional services and plans and living situation.

Overall, based on the HCR-20 V3 scoring, K. (H. J.)’s risk for violent recidivism is deemed to be moderate. His risk of serious physical harm and imminence of violence is deemed to be low on a conditional discharge with the current supports in place. Should be granted an absolute discharge, the above risk is expected to increase.

18. The following relevant entries appear in the Hospital Report under Clinical Risk Factors/Re-Offence Scenario:

A. Major Mental Illness

K. (H. J.) has an established severe mental illness, namely schizophrenia, a primary psychotic disorder. When unwell, he presents with psychotic symptoms and behavioural dyscontrol that have resulted in conduct that is criminal in nature. With appropriate psychotropic treatment, there has been demonstrable improvements in his psychotic illness. In addition, K. (H. J.) meets the criteria for intellectual disability based on his history of deficits impaired conceptual, social and practical/adaptive domains. Prior objective psychological testing in 2010 noted his IQ being 70, which is approximately 2 standard deviations below the normal population. Additional neuropsychological testing in 2014 indicated severe difficulties with verbal abilities and aspects of executive functioning. As well, collateral information suggests that the deficits predated the onset of his mental illness. In 2019, additional psychological testing noted that K. (H. J.)’s performance on cognitive testing ranged from average to below average depending on the area of focus. These intellectual deficits are not responsive to medications, and likely influence his executive functioning, problem-solving capacity, and judgment.

B. Problems with Insight

K. (H. J.) displays problems with understanding and appreciating his mental condition, its symptomatology, signs of relapse, the role of treatment and his risk of violent recidivism.

C. Compliance and Response to Treatment and Supervision

K. (H. J.) has previously reoffended despite being under the auspices of the Ontario Review Board. It appears that such behaviour was not psychotically driven but instead, attributable to his intellectual deficits. His ability to respond and integrate therapeutic interventions to enhance his understanding of sexual consent and appropriate behaviour is likely limited by his intellectual impairment. Without close supervision and monitoring currently in place, his compliance with treatment will be at risk.

D. Limited Structured Programs/Activities and Personal Supports

K. (H. J.) engaged minimally in structured activities during this past reporting period. He has limited personal supports in the community, beyond professional service providers and his brothers. He is enrolled in Disability Service Ontario, which provides increased funding and services to those with intellectual disabilities. This was not utilized during this reporting period.

Re-offence Scenario

If K. (H. J.) were to reoffend, it would most likely occur be in the context of exposure to destabilizers such as stress, sexual urges/impulses or frustrations, without appropriate external supervision present to guide and redirect his behavior/response. Violent recidivism would also occur in the context of a re-emergence of psychosis (including possible command auditory hallucinations and misinterpretation of cues) and its related impact on behavioural dyscontrol. Significant relapse of psychotic symptoms and offending behaviour has historically happened within weeks of relaxation of a high level of medication supervision (e.g., missing doses due to lack or lapses in medication monitoring, change in routine that leaves K. (H. J.) less able to remember to take his medication as prescribed). The corollary of this risk would likely be K. (H. J.) engaging in physically or sexually violent recidivism.

19. The relevant entry below appears in the Hospital Report under Composite Assessment of Risk:

According to R. v. Winko, a “significant threat to the safety of the public” means a real risk of physical or psychological harm to members of the public that is serious in the sense of going beyond the merely trivial or annoying. The conduct giving rise to the harm must be criminal in nature. Further, it is noted that evidence to determine whether an individual is a significant threat to the safety of the public can include the past and expected course of the NCR accused’s treatment, if any, the present state of the NCR accused’s medical condition, the NCR accused’s own plans for the future, the support services existing for the NCR accused in the community, as well as other items.

Given K. (H. J.)’s mental illness and intellectual disability, his history of reoffending while under the jurisdiction of the Review Board, his need for high-support/supervision in the community, his lack of insight (I.e. mental condition, role of treatment, risk of reoffending, legal status), and the risk assessment scores, it is the treatment team’s opinion that K. (H. J.) continues to meet the threshold for significant risk to the public as defined in Section 672.5401.

20. The relevant entries below are taken from the Hospital Report:

Other Criminogenic Needs

K. (H. J.) will continue to require high-support, supervised housing to reduce his risk of treatment non-compliance and re-offending behaviour. He would benefit from an all-male housing to reduce risk of sexually assaultive behaviour towards other vulnerable individuals.

K. (H. J.) will benefit from engagement in pro-social activities and programming to structure his time and enhance social interaction skills.

The clinical team will continue to support him in maintaining close relations with his family, who are significant personal supports and invaluable in maintaining his community reintegration.

Team Review of Recommendation

The clinical team is unanimous in its opinion that the current conditional discharge disposition as crafted represents the least restrictive and onerous, as well as being the necessary and appropriate disposition in the current circumstance.

Evidence at the Hearing

21. Dr. Ugwunze was the only witness who testified at the hearing. As noted above he is K. (H. J.)’s outpatient attending psychiatrist.

22. In response to questions from counsel for the hospital, the doctor reported that K. (H. J.), who has continued to reside at My Brother’s Place for the past seven years, had a good year.

23. The only concern was a single missed dose of medication (through no fault of K. (H. J.)’s) that caused significant decompensation for ten days.

24. K. (H. J.) has been approved for Passport Funding which is intended to connect him with a Korean speaking case worker, but none has been identified as yet, and the search will be widened.

25. K. (H. J.) is “very happy” with his accommodation, as is his (“SDM”) brother.

26. A conditional discharge continues to be the necessary and appropriate disposition for K. (H. J.).

27. In response to questions from counsel for K. (H. J.), the doctor confirmed that there have been no readmissions, that K. (H. J.) has been medication adherent, that there have been no acts of aggression or physical violence, and no concerns about alcohol or substance use.

28. In response to a question from the panel on the issue of risk management, specifically whether sexual education programming for him was realistic. Dr. Ugwunze replied in the affirmative, stating that K. (H. J.) had completed some basic level programming two years ago.

29. Regarding phallometric testing, this has been a nonstarter as the SDM would not provide consent.

Note: The panel questioned the appropriateness and validity of phallometric testing, given K. (H. J.)’s intellectual functioning.

Final Submissions

30. All parties jointly submitted that a Conditional Discharge with the same terms and conditions as ordered in last year’s Disposition is the necessary and appropriate disposition.

Analysis and Conclusion

31. The panel unanimously agrees that the clear, convincing, and uncontradicted evidence is that “(G)iven K. (H. J.)’s mental illness and intellectual disability, his history of reoffending while under the jurisdiction of the Review Board, his need for high-support/supervision in the community, his lack of insight (I.e. mental condition, role of treatment, risk of reoffending, legal status), and the risk assessment scores”, he continues to meet the threshold for significant risk to the public as defined in section 672.5401.

32. The panel is also in unanimous agreement that the proposed Conditional Discharge is the necessary and appropriate, least restrictive, and least onerous disposition. K. (H. J.) is very happy with his accommodation. He is well supported there, and his needs are being met. Efforts to improve his situation are ongoing i.e. the search for a Korean speaking case worker with Passport Funding.

33. Accordingly, the Board orders a continuation of the Conditional Discharge.

DATED this day 10^th of March, 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.

Hon. N. Kozloff

Legal Member

__________________

Office of the Registrar

Ontario Review Board