Re: Wu Liu, 2026 CanLII 39776

Ontario Review Board

Re: Wu Liu (a.k.a Liu Wu)

ORB File No: 5260

Hearing held on: Tuesday, March 17, 2026

Place of hearing: Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences 700 Gordon Street, Whitby

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

Before:

Alternate Chairperson: Ms. C. Finley Members: Dr. P. Prendergast Dr. W. Loza Ms. J. Greenwood Ms. R. MacIntyre

Parties Appearing:

Accused: Wu Liu Counsel: Mr. C. Hynes

The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Mr. L. Crowell

Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. T. Hewitt

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated April 28, 2026)

Introduction

1On January 15, 2009, Wu Liu was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder ("NCR") on a charge of attempted murder.

2Mr. Liu is currently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated March 17, 2025, by which he was ordered to be subject to a detention order in the General Forensic Service with the ability to reside in approved accommodations.

3On Tuesday, March 17, 2026, the Ontario Review Board convened a hearing at Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences ("Ontario Shores") to conduct the annual review of Mr. Liu's Disposition.

4A Mandarin interpreter was present at the hearing and provided contemporaneous translation to Mr. Liu during the hearing.

Position of the Parties

5At the outset of the hearing, the parties were canvassed as to their recommendations to the panel.

6Mr. Crowell appeared as counsel for the hospital. He advised that the hospital's position remains that Mr. Liu is a significant threat to the safety of the public and that his risk can only be managed on a detention order. Mr. Hewitt appeared for the Attorney General and joined the hospital in their position.

7Mr. Liu was represented by counsel, Mr. Hynes. Mr. Hynes advised that his client was requesting a discharge. Mr. Hynes submitted that in the event that the Board found that Mr. Liu remained a significant threat to the safety of the public, his client agreed to the recommendations suggested by the hospital.

8For the reasons set out below, based on the expert evidence and opinion before the panel, the Board concluded that Mr. Liu continues to present a significant threat to the safety of the public.

9After considering all the evidence, including the testimony of Dr. Wang, the Hospital Report and the submissions of counsel, the panel found that the current disposition remains the necessary and appropriate disposition.

Index Offence

10"The accused had rented a room in an apartment building at 1 Reidmount Avenue about two weeks before the index offence. When his landlord became concerned about the accused's confused and unresponsive actions while walking around the building, the landlord telephoned the male victim and asked him to check on the accused.

When the victim attended the accused's apartment a scuffle ensued and in the course of this the accused stabbed the victim three times. The victim, bleeding badly, managed to make his way to the main floor where he called for help. He was then transported to Sunnybrook where he received emergency medical treatment.

The police were called and arrived at the accused's apartment. The accused was found sitting in a bed holding a large knife, possibly a machete, and flipping through magazines. They also noticed a sleeve of material with about eight knives in this sleeve lying at the accused's feet. He was unresponsive to their demands. Officers then entered the apartment to physically apprehend the accused. The accused walked toward the officers holding something in his hands and had the rolled-up sleeve of knives under his arm. He continued to ignore the demands of the police officer and he was then disabled by taser and taken into custody."

Evidence at the Hearing

11The hospital filed a report dated February 10, 2025, which was marked as Exhibit 1. The Hospital Report provides significant detail and information concerning Mr. Liu's background, mental health history, details of the index offence and his course in hospital and the community since the index offence.

12Mr. Liu's mental health diagnosis remains schizophrenia (paranoid type).

13In addition to the Hospital Report, the Board heard evidence from Dr. Wang. Dr. Wang has been Mr. Liu's doctor since 2022. He agreed and adopted the contents of the Hospital Report. In his opinion, a detention order continues to be both necessary and appropriate and the least onerous and least restrictive disposition to manage Mr. Liu's risk.

14Dr. Wang provided evidence to the panel about a number of conditions that would accompany the detention order. These comprise the recommendation of the hospital to manage Mr. Liu. Dr. Wang provided evidence that Mr. Liu continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public. Dr. Wang provided some updates since the writing of the Hospital Report indicating that Mr. Liu was recently trespassed from the hospital after having been found selling cigarettes to other co-patients.

15Dr. Wang advised that this was the second time that Mr. Liu had been trespassed. On a previous occasion, Mr. Liu was trespassed from Ontario Shores for two months but at this time no specific time frame for the prohibition had been set. At this point in time, Mr. Liu is only allowed on site for appointments or other important events like his hearing.

16Dr. Wang advised that there had been a change to Mr. Liu's medication. His valproic acid was reduced from 1750 milligrams to 1500 milligrams and this was as of two weeks before the hearing. Dr. Wang gave evidence that the medication was reduced at Mr. Liu's insistence because Mr. Liu reported side effects. Dr. Wang advised that since Mr. Liu's discharge he had been requesting that the treatment team lower the dose of his medications. Dr. Wang gave evidence that given the fragility of Mr. Liu's illness, he was hesitant to decrease the medication so shortly after discharge. However, there was some evidence to support lowering the medication and Dr. Wang wanted to ensure and maintain the therapeutic alliance.

17Dr. Wang characterized 2024 as a difficult year with 2025 showing some improvement. However, Dr. Wang was clear that it is not always known to the treatment team what triggers Mr. Liu's decompensation. The most recent one may have been related to the lowering of the Epival dosage over the preceding six months. The triggering event leading to some of Mr. Liu's other admissions to hospital have not been as clear. Dr. Wang explained that while Mr. Liu is not always interpersonally aggressive or violent when he decompensates, he can become aggressive and threatening towards staff and other members of the community and on that basis Dr. Wang still felt he posed a significant threat to the safety of the public.

18Dr. Wang provided evidence that Mr. Liu is seen by the Forensic Outpatient Service (FOS) at least weekly. He also has check-ins and visits from CMHA workers who are assisting him as he lives in CMHA supportive housing. This allows the team to monitor changes in his mental state.

19Dr. Wang was asked questions by counsel for the Attorney General, Mr. Hewitt. He was asked about Mr. Liu's insight into his illness and the need for medication. Dr. Wang advised that when Mr. Liu is unwell his insight is much worse. He can still cooperate with medication and take the medications as prescribed; however, Dr. Wang was unsure if some of Mr. Liu's past decompensations were related to medication inconsistency. Dr. Wang advised that he did not believe that Mr. Liu had a deep understanding about the need for medication. His insight around the need for medication and treatment was not robust or thorough.

20Questions from the panel were posed to Dr. Wang who gave evidence that Mr. Liu has done many different groups during his years under the Review Board but Dr. Wang felt that Mr. Liu could benefit from CBT for psychosis and that was something that Dr. Wang could explore with him.

21In response to further questions from the panel, Dr. Wang explained that Mr. Liu's current detention order and housing arrangement allow him to stay in the community when he is well and manage any decompensation when he is unwell. Dr. Wang agreed that when Mr. Liu was on a conditional discharge there was more instability in his illness and that previously, in the year before this reporting year, Mr. Liu was the subject of a conditional discharge and became quite unwell again. The detention order allows the team the ability to intervene quickly when Mr. Liu is unwell, and this allows him to maintain his community living. Dr. Wang agreed that the ability to readmit Mr. Liu quickly in the event of a decompensation in his mental state is the primary basis for the hospital's request for a detention order. It also allows the team to approve Mr. Liu's housing which has been very stable for the time being. It is anticipated that Mr. Liu may have surgery on his arm this upcoming spring which may require follow-up, changes to his medication and cause instability. Having Mr. Liu continue on a detention order will allow the treatment team to manage this situation.

22When asked whether Mr. Liu is optimally treated, Dr. Wang explained that Mr. Liu may have been influenced by his peers as he makes complaints about side effects and refers to his medications as poisonous. He repeatedly requests to change his medications. Dr. Wang would like to see Mr. Liu be adherent to his medication and continue to take them and have a longer period of stability. When asked whether or not the treatment team can look to address any side effects Mr. Liu may be having, Dr. Wang explained that Mr. Liu does not accept the doctor's explanations about the need for medication and the lack of side effects; that this shows that he only has partial or superficial insight into the need for medications. Dr. Wang is not entirely clear on whether or not the side effects that are reported are genuine.

23No further evidence was called by any of the parties.

Submissions of Counsel

24Mr. Crowell, on behalf of the hospital, submitted that the detention order was the necessary and appropriate disposition. The detention order has been a necessary tool for the treatment team to manage Mr. Liu's risk and allow him the least onerous, least restrictive conditions that permit him to live in the community.

25The detention order was used to bring Mr. Liu back to the hospital when he decompensated, which was described in the Hospital's Report. When Mr. Liu had been subject to a conditional discharge, he decompensated more significantly as the team was unable to intervene and bring him back to the hospital as quickly as they felt was necessary at the time. This resulted in longer admissions to hospital to stabilize Mr. Liu and bring him back to his baseline so his risk to the safety of the public was manageable. When Mr. Liu is subject to a detention order, and is brought back to hospital, he is able to become stable and be returned to the community much faster. Allowing the hospital the ability to supervise Mr. Liu on a detention order with community living provides flexibility that creates a supportive treatment plan for Mr. Liu and assists him in his reintegration into the community.

26Counsel for the Attorney General, Mr. Hewitt, adopted the hospital's submissions.

27Counsel for Mr. Liu urged the panel to consider that if the convenience for the treatment was the reason for recommending a detention order, that this simply was not the least onerous or least restrictive disposition. Rather, the Board should consider a conditional discharge for Mr. Liu over the administrative or clinical advantages to the treatment team in arranging for Mr. Liu's care.

Analysis and Findings

28The Board accepts the evidence provided by Dr. Wang and the evidence contained in the Hospital Report that Mr. Liu remains a significant threat to the safety of the public. The Board further accepts that the least onerous and least restrictive disposition is to continue the detention order with no change in the conditions.

29Mr. Liu had some difficulties this year, but the treatment team is working to ensure that if there are changes in his mental state that impact on his risk to the community, he is brought back to hospital and re-stabilized so he can return to the community. It is unfortunate to hear that Mr. Liu was trespassed from hospital grounds because of selling cigarettes to co-patients. It is hoped that he can continue to engage with his team on a treatment and care plan that supports a conditional discharge.

30Dr. Wang is working with Mr. Liu to maintain a therapeutic alliance and takes Mr. Liu's requests to decrease his medication seriously. Dr. Wang weighed the costs and benefits and Mr. Liu's wishes and agreed to decrease his medication which may have led to some instability in Mr. Liu's mental state. Mr. Liu's insight into his illness remains low and this is something that may be able to be developed through further psychosocial education or, as Dr. Wang provided evidence about, perhaps Mr. Liu could restart the CBT for psychosis programming.

31The Board considered the submissions of Counsel for Mr. Liu, which urged the Board not to favour the clinical convenience of a detention order. The panel found that this was the necessary and appropriate disposition, not as a result of any ease for the treatment team or the hospital. The Board found that this disposition provides adequate protection for the safety of the public and was necessary to manage Mr. Liu's risk, while supporting his own needs and ability to live in the community.

32The panel has carefully considered all the evidence, the submissions of the parties and the criteria set for the in s. 672.54 of the Code, with the paramount consideration being the safety of the public. Further, we consider the mental state of Mr. Liu, his reintegration into society, his other needs and concluded that this is the necessary and appropriate disposition.