Re Sin Kim, 2026 CanLII 45675

Re: Sin Kim

ORB File No: 4554

Hearing held on: Friday, May 1, 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. P. Prendergast Dr. M. Mamak Ms. J. Ferguson Mr. T. Wall

Parties Appearing:

Accused: Sin Kim Counsel: Ms. E. Gaudet

The person in charge of hospital: Representative: Dr. P. Darby

Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. M. Feindel

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated May 11, 2026)

1. On September 8, 2006, Ms. Sin Kim was found not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder on a charge of failing to comply with probation.

2. Ms. Kim is currently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated March 26, 2025. That Disposition directed that Ms. Kim be detained at the Forensic Service of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (“CAMH”) with a number of privileges including the privilege of living in the community in approved accommodation.

3. On Friday, May 1, 2026, the Ontario Review Board convened a hearing at CAMH and conducted the annual review of Ms. Kim’s Disposition.

4. Ms. Kim was present and was assisted by an interpreter.

5. The interpreter was kind enough not only to translate but to speak loudly given the fact that Ms. Kim’s hearing aid had been broken and was not yet repaired. We are satisfied that Ms. Kim benefitted from that arrangement.

Position of the Parties

6. At the outset of the hearing, the parties were canvassed as to their recommendations to the Board.

7. Dr. Darby appeared as the hospital’s representative as well as being Ms. Kim’s most responsible physician. Dr. Darby and the hospital are of the opinion that Ms. Kim no longer represents a significant threat to public safety and that accordingly she is entitled to be discharged absolutely.

8. Mr. Feindel appeared for the Attorney General. He anticipated supporting the hospital’s recommendation, but he did want the opportunity to ask a number of questions at this hearing.

9. Ms. Gaudet appeared for Ms. Kim. Ms. Gaudet supported her client receiving an Absolute Discharge.

Index Offence

10. Ms. Kim was convicted on a charge of criminal harassment. The victim of that offence was Dr. Im who had previously been Ms. Kim’s physician.

Evidence at Hearing

11. The Board admitted into evidence the Hospital Report dated April 7, 2026. The Hospital Report provides a great deal of information concerning Ms. Kim, her personal history, her mental health history, details of the index offence and Ms. Kim’s course in hospital and in the community subsequent to the date of the index offence. 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 diagnosis of Schizophrenia.

12. In addition to the documentary evidence the Board heard from Dr. Darby. Dr. Darby noted that in July of 2025, Ms. Kim moved into a LOFT residence located at Dufferin Road and Steeles Avenue in the Greater Toronto Area. At that time Dr. Darby became Ms. Kim’s most responsible physician. Dr. Darby, however, noted that he has known Ms. Kim for many years.

13. Another significant update is that at the present time Ms. Kim is no longer being treated with electroconvulsive therapy (“ECT”). Ms. Kim was very pleased with the decision to discontinue ECT treatment. It is her hope that this will be a permanent decision.

14. Dr. Darby noted that this residence provides 24 hours of supervision. There is a nurse present 24 hours a day. Dr. Darby noted that in addition, Ms. Kim’s sons have retained a private personal support worker who greatly assists their mother. In addition, Ms. Kim receives a considerable amount of support from her sons. They continue to take her out on weekends. Dr. Darby noted that Ms. Kim does not leave her current residence save and except with a staff person or with a family member. Dr. Darby advised that the family is in the process of making an application for a long-term care facility. Dr. Darby noted that given Ms. Kim’s current residence in the Loft facility, it will take many years before she will be approved for a long-term care facility. Dr. Darby also noted that Ms. Kim is incapable of making housing decisions and it is likely that she will remain in the Loft residence for a considerable period.

15. Dr. Darby testified that although Ms. Kim continues to have some delusions regarding Dr. Im, the victim of the index offence, nevertheless the clinical team does not believe that Ms. Kim has any ability to carry out any inappropriate conduct with Dr. Im. Recently Ms. Kim told Dr. Darby that she has no intention of attempting to contact the victim. Ms. Kim does have a phone, but it is programmed for her to reach family members only. There is no doubt in Dr. Darby’s mind that Ms. Kim does not have the ability to act out physically against the victim or, any member of the public. Ms. Kim attended at this hearing. We note that she appears extremely frail and needed assistance coming into the hearing room.

16. In response to questions from Mr. Feindel, Dr. Darby repeated his observation that Ms. Kim does not have the physical ability to cause anyone significant harm.

17. Again, in response to a question from Mr. Feindel, Dr. Darby noted that Ms. Kim is “never unsupervised.”

18. No other evidence was heard at this hearing.

Final Submissions

19. At the conclusion of the evidence, the Alternate Chair asked Mr. Feindel the position of the Crown. Mr. Feindel advised that having heard the evidence he supports Ms. Kim receiving an Absolute Discharge. Accordingly, the parties were making a joint recommendation.

Findings of the Board

20. The Board accepts the evidence of Dr. Darby and the evidence contained in the Hospital Report. Dr. Darby directed the panel to the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Winko v British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute), 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625.

21. We note the following from the Ontario Court of Appeal in R v Ferguson (2010) 2010 ONCA 810, O.J. 5138, paragraph 8:

“The meaning of the phrase “significant threat to the safety of the public” has been authoritatively set down in Winko v British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute), 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625, at paras 49-62, 69. The phrase refers to a foreseeable and substantial risk of physical or psychological harm to members of the public that is serious and beyond the trivial or annoying.”

22. We also note the following from the same case:

“A high risk of relatively trivial harm will also not meet the substantial harm standard. While the conduct must be criminal in nature, not all criminal conduct will suffice to establish a substantial risk. There must be a risk that the NCR accused will commit a “serious criminal offence”.”

23. This panel accepts that having heard all of the evidence Ms. Kim simply no longer represents a significant threat to public safety and accordingly, she is entitled to receive an Absolute Discharge.

DATED this 11^th^ day of May, 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.

Mr. J. Goldenberg Alternate Chairperson

Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board