Ontario Review Board
Re: Bin Pan
ORB File No: 8500
Hearing held on: Monday, April 13, 2026
Place of hearing: Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Ms. S. Kert
Members: Dr. S. Simpson Dr. S. Wiseman Ms. K. Tomaszewski Ms. C. Plyley
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Bin Pan Counsel: Mr. S. Gehl
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. J. Zamprogna
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. J. Huber
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated May 12, 2026)
Introduction
On February 26, 2024, Bin Pan was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCR) on charges of attempted murder and assault with a weapon contrary to the Criminal Code. He is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the Board) dated April 15, 2025, ordering his detention at the Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care (the Hospital) with privileges up to and including residence in the community of Elgin County in accommodation approved by the person in charge. The disposition also contains a no-contact clause.
On Monday, April 13, 2026, the Board convened a hearing to review Mr. Pan’s disposition pursuant to section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Pan was present at the hearing and represented by counsel, Mr. Gehl. The issues to be determined at the hearing were whether Mr. Pan continued to constitute a significant threat to the safety of the public as defined in section 672.5401 of the Criminal Code and, if so, to determine the necessary and appropriate disposition that was also the least onerous and least restrictive disposition, taking into account the factors set out in section 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
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. Counsel for the Hospital indicated that it was the Hospital’s position that Mr. Pan continued to represent a significant threat to the public and that the necessary and appropriate disposition was a continuation of the current detention order with the only changes being to delete passes subsumed by more liberal passes and to add to all passes the wording “accompanied by staff, or a person or delegate that is approved by the person in charge”.
After some discussion, the Hospital recommended the wording “or delegate agency or organization” (or similar wording) rather than “delegate”.
Both counsel for the Attorney General and counsel for Mr. Pan supported the Hospital’s recommendations. Counsel for Mr. Pan conceded the issue of significant threat and that a detention order was the necessary and appropriate disposition. He did not dispute the continued inclusion of the no-contact clause.
Counsel for Mr. Pan advised the Board that Mr. Pan intends to pursue a family court order for access to his son. Mr. Pan understands that the order will not necessarily be granted, and his son has the right to refuse to meet with him if the order is granted. Mr. Pan wants the issue of whether his son will suffer from PTSD if he sees Mr. Pan to be explored in another forum. Mr. Pan is not convinced that this is the case.
The parties maintained their initial positions in final submissions, and jointly supported an additional recommendation that the no-contact clause be amended to read “refrain from contact or communication, direct or indirect, with [his wife and son] except with written revocable consent of [his wife] and with the prior written approval of the treatment team,; or through a lawyer or legal agent for the purpose of family law proceedings; or pursuant to a family court order dated after May 22, 2024”. This recommended change will permit Mr. Pan to pursue a family court order without breaching the disposition. [Note: names have been anonymized in these Reasons for privacy purposes.]
The evidence at the hearing consisted of the Hospital Report dated February 20, 2026 (Exhibit 1); a Victim Impact Statement dated March 30, 2026 (Exhibit 2); and the oral evidence of Dr. D. Curry, a psychiatry resident under the supervision of Dr. J. Quinn, Mr. Pan’s attending psychiatrist. Dr. Curry indicated he had read the Hospital Report and adopted its contents.
For the reasons that follow, the Board finds that Mr. Pan continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate disposition is a continuation of the current detention order with the changes jointly recommended by the parties.
Index Offences
- The circumstances surrounding the index offences are extracted from last year’s Reasons for Disposition and summarized as follows:
The accused, Bin PAN, resided in the city of Cambridge, with his wife, YM and 9-year-old son QP. PAN and YM also have an adult daughter, who did not reside with them. They had been married for 20 years but had been living separate lives for the past nine years and had not been intimate in that time. YM and QP slept upstairs in a bedroom; PAN slept on the main floor of the residence. They had been discussing divorce. PAN worked night shifts at a factory in Cambridge. PAN did not have a past criminal record. PAN had a history of mental health incidents, which began in January of 2022, which the family believes was triggered by PAN being laid off from work and the Ukraine war. At that time, PAN thought the Chinese Government was targeting him, and he often reported hallucinations, which were focused on being infected with radiation. PAN's family reports that PAN purchased lead-lined items and bright lights to protect himself from radiation. On Thursday, March 23, 2023, PAN stopped going to work because he began to smell burning meat, felt his flesh was burning, and was a biohazard and thought he needed to be cremated.
On the night of Friday, March 24, 2023, YM was sleeping upstairs. At approximately 11:00p.m, she heard PAN downstairs. She went downstairs to see if PAN planned to go to work and reminded him to call his supervisor to tell them he was not going. As YM returned upstairs, PAN followed her and directed her into an upstairs bedroom and wanted to have sex. YM did not want to have sex. PAN insisted, told her not to be afraid and that he did not need to penetrate her. PAN touched YM with his hands. She allowed him to continue. She did not want PAN to touch her, but she was afraid to stop him because he was stronger than she was, and she was afraid of what he might do. PAN ejaculated. He then let YM go and left. YM was not injured, and she then went to sleep.
On the early morning of March 26, 2023, YM and QP were sleeping in the upstairs bedroom, and Bin PAN was on the main floor. At approximately 3:00a.m, YM and QP woke up to PAN yelling about being pushed down the stairs by his "imaginary friend." YM went downstairs, while QP stayed in the bedroom. While on the main floor, YM called out, telling QP to call 911 for help. QP called 911 at 3:18 am and then went downstairs, PAN striking YM with a bar stool. QP tried to get PAN to stop but was not able to.
Police officers arrived on the scene at 3:28 am and were directed to the kitchen by QP. Inside the kitchen, the officers found YM lying on the kitchen floor. There was a large amount of blood around her head, and her face was swollen with her eyes swollen shut. YM was unresponsive and unable to speak but had a pulse and moved. Bin PAN was also located lying on the kitchen floor. He was covered in blood but had no injuries. Officers in the area observed a broken bar stool.
At 3:33a.m, Bin PAN was arrested for assault with a weapon. Upon arrest, Bin PAN was saying unusual things, and he was transported to Cambridge Memorial Hospital for a mental health evaluation. YM was transported to Hamilton General Hospital, where she was treated for the following: fractures to her right facial bone damage behind her eye, brain hemorrhage, multiple head lacerations, air and blood around her lungs, right rib severe displacement, left rib fracture, right scapula fracture, hip fracture, right arm fracture. Due to the significant injuries to YM, Bin PAN was charged with attempted murder.
Background
Mr. Pan is currently 53 years of age and was born in China. He immigrated to Canada with his wife in 2003 and has two children, a son 12 years of age and a daughter 21 years of age. At the time of the index offences, he and his wife had been married for more than 20 years, though they had been discussing divorce. His wife advised the police that Mr. Pan had no history of being physically violent with her.
Mr. Pan completed five years of postsecondary education in “medical science” and was in the middle of his PhD year at the University of Wuhan when he immigrated to Canada. Since his arrival in Canada Mr. Pan has worked in factories to support his family.
Mr. Pan has no known history of substance use.
Mr. Pan had no involvement in the criminal justice system prior to the date of the index offences although he entered a plea of guilty to sexually assaulted his wife several hours prior to the index offences. This charge was “resolved” and was not part of the NCR finding.
Mr. Pan’s first involvement with the mental health system was in March 2022 when he went to hospital seeking support around “exposure to radioactive substances” and feeling threatened by some government agency. On examination it was noted that he was quite disorganized and tangential in his thought process and appeared to have several ideas of reference and persecutory delusions. He was admitted to hospital on a Form 1 under the Mental Health Act and improved significantly upon commencing antipsychotic medications. He was discharged after approximately three weeks with a diagnosis of schizophreniform disorder.
Mr. Pan was again admitted to hospital in April 2022 after endorsing delusional thoughts about certain people working for the government who were trying to monitor him. He again improved in hospital and was discharged after approximately three weeks.
In July 2022 Mr. Pan was brought to hospital by police after someone called the police expressing concern about Mr. Pan’s erratic driving with a child in the car. Upon admission Mr. Pan was very vague about compliance with medications. He was discharged from hospital with a diagnosis of schizophrenia and referred to the FACT team for follow-up.
Mr. Pan’s next admission to hospital was after he was arrested with respect to the index offence.
Mr. Pan’s current diagnosis is schizophrenia.
Evidence from the Hospital Report
Mr. Pan remained on the rehabilitation unit, A1, for the entirety of the reporting period under the psychiatric care of Dr. Jason Quinn.
To his credit, Mr. Pan shifted from a passive to active participant in his rehabilitation, treatment and goals. He engaged in leisure and psychoeducational activities and participated in transitional and vocational assessments. Medication optimization continued throughout the reporting period with good effect. Toward the latter part of the reporting period, Mr. Pan’s trajectory included transitioning to a supervised community group home.
Mr. Pan denied any positive symptoms of his illness and there were no reported or observed signs suggesting auditory or visual hallucinations. He also denied experiencing anxiety.
In June 2025, the treatment team gradually and cautiously tapered olanzapine and added a long-acting injectable (aripiprazole), in part due to Mr. Pan’s history of non-adherence. These medication changes resulted in a decrease in negative symptoms, anxiety, and psychomotor agitation. Mr. Pan had evidenced some signs suggestive of drug-induced parkinsonism earlier in the reporting period, including slow movements, but following the switch from olanzapine to aripiprazole showed improved fluidity in his movements. He was notably brighter with staff since starting aripiprazole and more frequently entered the community. Mr. Pan did not exhibit any signs of recurrence of psychotic symptoms following the changes to his regimen.
Community transition discussions and assessments continued. In January 2026, Mr. Pan’s care was discussed with the team at C.K. Clarke Centre Transitional Rehabilitation Housing Program – St. Leonard’s Community Services London and Region (the “Clarke Centre”). He was awaiting community placement which was anticipated to take place on January 28, 2026. However, on January 19, 2026, the hospital received an email from Mr. Pan’s wife, stating that Mr. Pan had left her a voicemail (in Chinese) stating an intention to pick up belongings at the home, and that he would arrive when she was not home. He made comments about their son. No threats or violent remarks were made.
When interviewed, Mr. Pan initially denied calling his wife and leaving the voicemail. Upon further discussion, he stated that he did indeed call her. He stated that she was still legally his wife and that he believed there was still an emotional connection between them. He noted that her telling the treatment team about this was a betrayal of trust. This shifted to a longer statement of his intent with the call, namely, to pick up work equipment at their home. He denied stating anything in relation to seeing his son other than intimating that he missed his son. He denied saying anything else inappropriate on the voicemail.
Mr. Pan said that his mental illness was stable, and the upcoming divorce was painful, and that this incident had nothing to do with his illness. He was aware of the no contact clause (including the prohibition on either direct or indirect contact). He denied paranoia and perceptual disturbances as motivating variables in his decision to call his wife.
On January 28, 2026, Dr. Quinn was able to speak with Mr. Pan’s wife by telephone. Mr. Pan gave consent to the team to talk with his wife to communicate that he was not going to be discharged and that he would not attempt to contact or see her in the community. Some of the voicemail contact was related to picking up his belongings. His wife reported that Mr. Pan stated that he would be waiting at the house until she got home, then his intention was to go into the house with her to see his son. He was evidently sad and wanted to see his son.
She also told Dr. Quinn that this recent call was not the first time Mr. Pan had called her. She stated that he has called many times over the last year and that she did not report this to the treatment team. He called her in 2025 on her birthday, on or about New Year’s Day, on Valentines Day, close to the time of her son’s birthday, and then recently.
Mr. Pan’s wife recently found out from her human resources manager of Mr. Pan’s intention to apply for a job at their shared former workplace.
Given the breach of Mr. Pan’s disposition, a transition to community living was delayed.
Evidence at the Hearing
- Dr. Curry provided the following evidence:
- Apart from breaching the no-contact clause, Mr. Pan had a very good year.
- On April 1, 2026, Mr. Pan began a leave of absence at the Clarke Centre, a 24/7 supervised supported home. Mr. Pan is doing well with this transition to living in the community. He is highly motivated and enjoys the Clarke Centre. The Clarke Centre staff has noted no problems to date.
- Mr. Pan is currently working to prepare for an English proficiency exam. Eventually the types of activities he engaged in while living at the Hospital can be replicated, but the team does not want to overwhelm him during this transition. The Clarke Centre has an OT who will be working with him to implement structure to his days.
- Mr. Pan has had no breakthrough symptoms of schizophrenia for two years, and no delusional thought content.
- Medication is optimized now but there is room for changes if Mr. Pan exhibits any symptoms of schizophrenia.
- Mr. Pan is on a self-medication program at the Clarke Centre to assess his adherence to medication. Support is available, but to date he has been adherent to his medications.
- It is too early to determine whether Mr. Pan suffers from an anxiety disorder, and cognitive testing will be delayed until other psychological work has been completed.
- Currently, the most important psychological programing is for grief and stress to help Mr. Pan to deal with his grief over the loss of his family relationships and the impact of the index offences on his family. The plan is to work with Mr. Pan on coping skills to appropriately manage these issues.
- Mr. Pan’s contacts with his wife appear to be driven by a desire to continue contact in the context of grief; emotional impulses to share significant anniversaries and circumstances; and in the context of risk-taking behaviour (thinking his wife would not inform the team because of emotional connection). There is no indication that these actions were driven by psychosis.
- Mr. Pan has a degree of impulsivity when under stress, particularly in the context of heightened negative or positive emotions.
- Collectively these behaviours indicate that Mr. Pan has no insight into the impact of the index offences on the victims of the offences, although he is aware that he is not to contact his wife or son directly or indirectly but nonetheless did so.
- Mr. Pan now has support, and psychological work on the drivers of his actions.
- The treatment team has retrieved his belongings from the former family home, so he does not need to return there to collect them. Mr. Pan is very aware he is not to contact his wife and son. He is supervised 24/7 at the Clarke Centre. The Hospital is confident this is sufficient to manage the risk that Mr. Pan will breach the no-contact clause, in the context of a detention disposition.
Analysis and Conclusion
While Mr. Pan has made considerable progress this year, he has not yet developed insight into his violence risk and the impact of his index offences on his wife and son. This is demonstrated by his repeated contacts with his wife, and his desire to have the family court weigh in on the issue of whether his son will experience PTSD if Mr. Pan contacts him. The victim impact statement supports the conclusion that currently, Mr. Pan’s family will suffer significant psychological harm if Mr. Pan contacts them directly or indirectly or attempts to do so.
Mr. Pan appears to be driven by grief over the loss of contact, a sense of entitlement to be able to contact his family despite the prohibition, and risk-taking behaviour. Mr. Pan was not forthcoming about his breaches of the disposition. Further psychological counselling is required to address these issues.
For these reasons, although the issue of significant threat was not contested at the hearing, the Board nevertheless makes an independent finding that Mr. Pan continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public.
As noted in the re-offence scenario found on page 46 of the Hospital Report:
Absent forensic supervision and support, Mr. Pan would live independently in the community. His stress would increase if he attempted to obtain full time employment and engage in shift work which would disrupt his sleep schedule. He would want to contact his wife which would cause additional stress, and he would experience breakthrough symptoms of psychosis. He would stop his medications, and in that context, he would become paranoid and act out. Due to his underdeveloped violence risk, he would relapse and violently re-offend.
The Board agrees with the joint recommendation of the parties that the necessary and appropriate disposition is a detention disposition. Mr. Pan began living in the community very recently, and his ability to manage the stress of this transition has not yet been fully assessed. Additionally, Mr. Pan’s ability to remain adherent to his medication regimen has not been assessed in a less supervised environment. The Hospital requires the ability to approve Mr. Pan’s accommodation, and to return him to the Hospital expeditiously if he decompensates and potentially if he attempts to contact his wife or son. The Mental Health Act would not provide sufficient protection for public safety in this context. A conditional discharge is not realistic at this time.
In consideration of all the evidence, submissions of the parties and the criteria set forth in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code, the paramount consideration being the safety of the public, in addition to the mental condition of Mr. Pan, his reintegration into society and his other needs, the necessary and appropriate disposition is a detention disposition with the clauses recommended by the parties.
DATED this 12^th^ day of May 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.
Ms. K. Tomaszewski Legal Member
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board