Re Minho Lee, 2026 CanLII 42156

Ontario Review Board

Re: Minho Lee

ORB File No: 4815

Hearing held on: Thursday, March 26, 2026

Place of hearing: St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton West 5th Campus, 100 West 5th Street

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

Before:

Alternate Chairperson: Ms. J. Mills

Members: Dr. R. Sheppard Dr. G. Stones Mr. A. Bouvier Ms. J. Fuller

Parties Appearing:

Accused: Minho Lee Counsel: Mr. Andrew Confente

The person in charge of Hospital: Counsel: Mr. S. O’Brien

Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. B. Adsett

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated May 5, 2026)

Introduction

1. On June 18, 2007 the accused, Minho Lee, was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCR) on a charge of robbery, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (the “Criminal Code”).

2. Mr. Lee is currently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the “Board”), dated April 2, 2025, which detains him at the Forensic Psychiatry Program at St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton, West 5^th Campus (hereafter “SJHH”). The current Disposition permits the hospital to exercise its discretion to approve hospital, grounds and community privileges for Mr. Lee at various levels of supervision and community living in 24-hr supervised accommodations. Mr. Lee is restricted from the non-medicinal use of intoxicants, including alcohol, he is required to summit samples of his urine or breath when required, and is restricted from possessing weapons.

3. On March 26, 2026, the Board convened a hearing at SJHH to conduct the annual review of the current Disposition.

4. Mr. Lee was present and represented by his counsel, Mr. Confente. At the time of the hearing, Mr. Lee was residing at SJHH on the Waterfall 3 unit.

5. The SJHH document titled “Hospital Report to the Ontario Review Board”, dated March 2, 2026 (the “Hospital Report”) April 2, 2025 Disposition and corresponding April 28, 2025 Reasons for Decision and Disposition, Rule 13 Transfer Request and CAMH Response formed the documentary record. The HR and CAMH docs were marked as exhibits and the rest were included as the record.

6. 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.

7. For the reasons set out below and based on the expert evidence and opinions before it, the Board concluded that Mr. Lee continues to present a significant threat to the safety of the public. The Board ordered that the necessary and appropriate Disposition in the circumstances is the imposition of a Detention Order with a continuation of the existing terms and conditions.

Psychiatric Diagnoses

8. Mr. Lee’s current diagnoses are:

• Schizophrenia
• Stimulant Use Disorder
• Cannabis Use Disorder
• Pedophilia
• Antisocial Personality Traits
• Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
• Autism Spectrum Disorder

9. Mr. Lee is treatment incapable. The Public Guardian and Trustee is his substitute decision maker.

Index Offence

10. A summary extracted from the Hospital Report is, as follows:

On April 3, 2007, the victim was waiting to use an ATM machine when he was approached by Mr. Lee. Mr. Lee asked the victim to buy him a ticket. The victim refused. The victim made a transaction at the ATM machine and withdrew $300. Mr. Lee stood next to him and approached him when the money was being dispensed. Mr. Lee stepped in and grabbed the money from the machine. The victim forcibly struggled with Mr. Lee and attempt to prevent him from getting the money. However, he realized that Mr. Lee was overpowering him and feared that he would become injured if he continued to resist. The victim let go of the money. Mr. Lee was about to make an escape when bystanders intervened and restrained Mr. Lee for security and police.

11. In the two years leading up to the index offence, Mr. Lee was regularly using crack cocaine, suffering from auditory hallucinations and non-compliant with prescribed medications. Following his arrest, he was assessed at the Centre for Addictions and Mental Health (CAMH) and was experiencing auditory hallucinations, psychomotor agitation and thought blocking.

Background Information

12. Mr. Lee’s history and background are outlined in the Hospital Report. Briefly, he is currently 44 years old. He was born in Seoul, South Korea. His family immigrated to Canada when he was five years old. Mr. Lee was asked to leave the family home at the age of 17. His parents returned to South Korea in 2004, and he has not had any contact with them since. Mr. Lee's only remaining relative in Canada was his grandmother, who passed away in 2010.

13. Mr. Lee completed grade 9 and was expelled from school in grade 10. He described himself as a bully who often attacked schoolmates. He was employed by several temp agencies between the ages of 17 to 20. He has been financially supported by the Ontario Disability Support Program, as well as panhandling, since 2005.

14. Mr. Lee first used cannabis at age 15 and engaged in daily use from that time, until the age of 18. He sold cannabis for a short period of time in high school and reported periods of irritability and aggression while under the influence of cannabis. At the age of 23, he began using crack cocaine. Between 2004 to late 2006, he reported smoking $200 of crack cocaine per day. This habit was supported by panhandling and on one occasion, by engaging in robbery. Mr. Lee continued the use of cocaine despite knowing that his use was causing psychological hallucinations, legal problems and financial difficulties.

15. Commencing in 2004, Mr. Lee had several hospital admissions related to paranoid ideas, auditory hallucinations, and other psychotic symptoms. He was admitted to St. Michael's Hospital in Toronto in November 2004 and had six admissions to CAMH between November 2004 and the index offence in April 2007. All of the admissions related to his psychotic symptoms, some of which resulted in physical aggression and criminal charges. A summary of the admissions provides a history of non-compliance with his prescribed anti-psychotic medications and hospital readmissions under the Mental Health Act.

16. During this same timeframe, Mr. Lee was convicted of 15 criminal offences and received probationary or short custodial sentences. His convictions include one offence of ‘robbery with violence’.

17. Since the finding of NCR on the index offence in June 2007, he has remained under the jurisdiction of the Board, subject to consecutive detention orders in multiple institutions.

18. There are three issues for determination before the Board:

1. Does Mr. Lee pose a significant threat to the safety of the public?
2. If so, what is the least onerous and restrictive disposition?
3. Should Mr. Lee’s request for a Rule 13 transfer to CAMH be granted?

Issue #1 - Does Mr. Lee pose a significant threat to the safety of the public?

Positions of the Parties

19. At the outset of the hearing, each party provided its initial position:

• The Hospital indicated that Mr. Lee continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public; and
• Counsel for the Attorney General and Mr. Lee’s counsel conceded that significant threat was made out.

Law on Significant Threat

20. In Winko, the Supreme Court outlined that, in coming to the conclusion on the issue of significant threat, a Review 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. Courtright, in addition to the documentary evidence before us.

Evidence at the Hearing

21. Dr. Courtright testified as follows:

• Mr. Lee suffers from treatment resistant schizophrenia. Symptoms of his illness include auditory hallucinations, which can be threatening or intimidating.
• He accepts treatment willingly but lacks insight into why treatment is necessary.
• He has difficulty following hospital rules. For example, he trades and steals cigarettes on the unit, which is not permitted and has a history of hospital elopements.
• In the past treatment year, he has been caught watching a video of teenage girls in bikinis.
• It has been many years since Mr. Lee has acted in a physically aggressive manner. This year, there was one incident where he struck another patient, but this was not related to his illness. This resulted in a new criminal conviction and a probationary sentence.
• Over the past year, he has had more involvement with group therapy. Mr. Lee has a behavioral plan with a reward chart, which seems to assist him in group participation. He lacks internal motivation to attend the therapies that are offered.
• He is being provided with treatment for ADHD to decrease his impulsivity.

22. With respect to significant risk, Dr. Courtright testified that Mr. Lee’s risk is the product of his treatment resistant illness, substance use disorder, impulsivity and lack of rule adherence. He lacks insight into the relationship between his illness, symptoms of psychosis and medications. If he were to stop taking his medication, he would become disorganized and disinhibited.

23. Mr. Lee has a general disregard for rules and authority, which decreases his compliance with societal expectations. This is concerning as Mr. Lee has a sexual interest in underage children and a persistent interest in child images. While he has never acted on his interest, he continues to exhibit symptoms of pedophilia. Mr. Lee also has significant stimulant cravings, specifically in relation to crystal meth, which he used for the first time during an elopement from hospital in 2022.

24. Over the past year, the treatment team wished to expand Mr. Lee’s privileges, but his difficulties with rule adherence and their concerns regarding elopement, prevented further progress. If Mr. Lee were transferred to a facility with a secure perimeter, such as Waypoint, he would have more liberties. However, between the two institutions, he prefers to remain at SJHH.

25. The treatment team does not see a strong clinical reason for transferring Mr. Lee to CAMH. They are concerned that he is motivated to move to Toronto by his drug-seeking behaviour. He advised staff that he sought a transfer to CAMH, “…because of all the drugs in Toronto.”

26. In response to questions from the counsel for the Attorney General, Dr. Courtright testified that Mr. Lee’s insight is poor; he’s been treatment incapable since 2021. He understands that he has schizophrenia but believes that his voices are God talking to him. He does not recognize a relationship between his medication compliance and a decrease in symptoms or the increase with his medication non-adherence.

27. When counsel for Mr. Lee questioned the doctor as to why Mr. Lee is not progressing through the psychiatric system, Dr. Courtright advised that this is due to internal factors specific to Mr. Lee. She elaborated that he has a positive relationship with his treatment team, but his illness is treatment resistant. They have tried both first and second-generation medications without significant success. He has been offered community placement in two residences with high supervision, but they were not suitable for Mr. Lee, due to his history of elopements and rule non-adherence.

28. In response to questions from Board members, Dr. Courtright advised that Mr. Lee requires very clear scaffolding, with rules and consequences in order to achieve his long-term goals. He makes impulsive choices that do not align with his stated goals. For example, he does not follow unit rules regarding cigarettes, despite wanting to achieve more freedoms within the hospital. Mr. Lee has had a more successful year in many respects to other years, but he has not had any elopements because he has not been allowed out of the secure area of the hospital.

29. The Hospital Report details Mr. Lee’s course of treatment over the past year as well as his treatment history dating back to 2004. Over the past reporting year, Mr. Lee has been moderately engaged in therapeutic recreational programming. During his occupational therapy sessions, he consistently indicates his desire to live on the streets, utilize illicit drugs (primarily methamphetamine), and explore different cities and areas.

30. No other evidence was called.

Analysis and Conclusions

31. Having heard and considered the entirety of the documentary and oral evidence, as well as the submissions from the parties, the Board agrees that Mr. Lee presents a significant threat to the safety of the public.

32. In coming to this conclusion, the Board finds that Mr. Lee’s lack of insight into his illness, impulsivity and significant preoccupation with substance use, make him a significant threat to the public. During the past treatment year, Mr. Lee’s expressed desire to transfer to CAMH to have greater access to drugs is particularly concerning, given his history of aggressive behaviour while using drugs.

33. Mr. Lee did not have any significant challenging behaviour over the past reporting year. His two notable incidents were the physical altercation with a co-patient and the incident where he was found watching juvenile girls in bikinis on a unit television. This was his first inappropriate media use in over two years. The report indicates that Mr. Lee does not have any meaningful protective factors against violence outside of the constraints of his Disposition. He has repeatedly declined offers to engage in therapeutic interventions aimed at decreasing his particular risk factors for violence.

Issue # 2: What is the least onerous and restrictive Disposition for Mr. Lee?

34. In light of the Board’s finding of significant threat, it is charged with shaping a Disposition for the coming year.

Positions of the Parties

35. All parties submitted that a detention order was appropriate to protect the public.

36. The Hospital sought the removal of the following terms from the existing Disposition:

• To enter the community of Hamilton for the sole purpose of attending programs, indirectly supervised;
• Passes for up to 7 days to enter the community of Southern Ontario, indirectly supervised;
• To live in the community of Southern Ontario in a 24-hour supervised accommodation approved by the person in charge of St. Joseph's Healthcare, Hamilton, West 5th Campus, or his or her designate; and
• When living in the community, report to the person in charge of Saint Joseph's Healthcare, Hamilton, West 5th Campus, or his or her designate not less than four times per month.

37. The existing terms of the Disposition include: abstention from drugs, alcohol and other intoxicating substances; a corresponding clause permitting the hospital to take samples of urine or breath for drug/alcohol testing; and a weapons prohibition.

38. Counsel for the Attorney General agreed with the Hospital’s proposed terms.

39. Counsel for Mr. Lee sought a continuation of the terms of the April 2, 2025 Disposition.

Law on Least Onerous and Least Restrictive Dispositions

40. Section 672.54 of the Criminal Code requires the Board to make a Disposition that is the “least onerous and least restrictive to the accused.”

41. For the prohibition and abstention from substances to be appropriate, there must be evidence before the Board that the use of the substance named in the prohibition by the accused would pose a significant threat to the safety of the public: Davies (Re), 2022 ONCA 716 at para 14.

Evidence Before the Board

42. Dr. Courtright testified that before there is an air of reality to Mr. Lee living in the community, it would be important to see him succeeding in a hospital setting without elopements. Mr. Lee hasn’t been able to have a full month of indirect level 2 passes. He has also been on a waitlist for years without any change. However, there is no risk to leaving him on the list. More specifically, there is no therapeutic harm to keeping him on waitlists.

43. Evidence of Mr. Lee’s drug use prior to his index offence, criminal record and risk to the public is detailed above.

Analysis and Conclusions

44. The Board finds that the least onerous and restrictive terms for Mr. Lee are a continuation of the existing terms of his Disposition order. In consideration of whether it is appropriate to remove the community terms outlined in para 36, the Board does not find that there is sufficient evidence to justify their removal. Dr. Courtright testified that there is no therapeutic harm to having the terms in Mr. Lee’s Disposition. The Board finds that there is no risk to the public in having the discretionary terms remain in place. However, Mr. Lee would lose his placement on lengthy waitlists for community accommodations if the terms were to be removed. In the long run, this may unnecessarily restrict Mr. Lee’s liberties and ability to progress in the forensic system.

45. The Board finds that the abstention and corresponding urine/breath testing terms are appropriate given the evidence of Mr. Lee’s current preoccupation with substance use and the direct connection between the offence of robbery and his drug-seeking behaviour. The weapons prohibition is appropriate to mitigate Mr. Lee’s risk to the public as the index offence is an offence against a person, as defined in the Criminal Code.

Issue #3 – Is a transfer to CAMH appropriate?

46. The Board relies on the evidence above in assessing whether a transfer to CAMH is appropriate in the circumstances.

47. Counsel for Mr. Lee submitted that Mr. Lee has a connection to Toronto and a transfer would offer Mr. Lee a fresh start with a new team. He further advised that a transfer may assist Mr. Lee in his progression through the forensic system.

48. Counsel for the Hospital did not take a position on the transfer, but indicated there was no compelling reason for Mr. Lee to move.

49. Counsel for the Attorney General submitted that a move to CAMH was not in Mr. Lee’s best interests, as he has a five year and positive therapeutic relationship with Dr. Courtright and a move to CAMH would increase his risk of elopement.

50. The Board finds that a transfer to CAMH will not offer any benefit to Mr. Lee. Mr. Lee has advised members of his treatment team that he wishes to go to Toronto, to find and use drugs. Mr. Lee has a positive relationship with his current treatment team. The CAMH environment is similar to SJHH, and the possibility of elopements would remain a significant issue in Toronto. Moreover, Mr. Lee has no family or current ties to Toronto. Finally, the Board finds that moving to a new treatment team would likely result in additional liberty restrictions, as Mr. Lee would have to start afresh building trust and privileges.

51. In consideration of all the evidence, submissions of the parties and 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 continuation of the current detention order on the same terms and conditions as the April 2, 2025 Disposition.

DATED this 5^th day of May 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.

Jessica Fuller

Legal Member

Office of the Registrar

Ontario Review Board