Ontario Review Board
Re: Long N. Thai
ORB File No: 7365
Hearing held on: Wednesday, May 13, 2026
Place of Hearing: Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care, 401 Sunset Drive, St. Thomas
Pursuant to: Section 672.81 (2) of the Criminal Code
Before: Alternate Chairperson: Mr. J. Weinstein Members: Dr. R. Kunjukrishnan Dr. P. Wright Mr. E. Siebenmorgen (by Zoom videoconference) Ms. B. Little
Parties Appearing: Accused: Long N. Thai Counsel: Mr. R. Cunningham
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. J. Zamprogna
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. K. Dalrymple
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION (Dated June 12, 2026)
Introduction
On June 8, 2018, Long N. Thai was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (“NCR”) on charges of arson with disregard for life and failing to comply with a probation order, both contrary to the Criminal Code. He was most recently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (“ORB” or “the Board”) discharging him under several conditions, including a specific residence term, reporting at least four times monthly, a “consent to treatment” clause, and a Young1 clause requiring his attendance for assessment at the Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care (“Southwest Centre” or “the Hospital”).
By way of a letter dated March 25, 2026, the Southwest Centre requested an early hearing of the Board to review Mr. Thai’s Disposition, with a view to the Hospital’s request for a Detention Disposition.
On Wednesday, May 13, 2026, a panel of the Board convened in person at the Hospital to conduct the early review of Mr. Thai’s Disposition as requested pursuant to s. 672.81 (2) of the Criminal Code. The issues at the hearing were: (a) a determination of whether Mr. Thai represents a significant threat to the safety of the public within the meaning of s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code; and (b) if so, a determination of the necessary and appropriate Disposition that is also the least onerous and least restrictive in the circumstances, having regard to the factors in s. 672.54 of the Code. Mr. Thai was present for the hearing and was represented by his counsel, Mr. Cunningham.
Supplementing the items constituting the Record for the hearing, the documentary evidence consisted of the Hospital Report dated April 9, 2026. In addition, Dr. N. Mokhber, Mr. Thai’s attending psychiatrist, gave oral evidence.
Positions of the Parties
At the start of the hearing, counsel confirmed the Hospital’s position, as recorded at pp. 142-143 of the Hospital Report, that the necessary and appropriate Disposition was a Detention Order with a full set of privileges that included community living in Elgin or Middlesex Counties in Hospital-approved accommodation, along with a provision permitting Mr. Thai to participate in a drug and alcohol rehabilitation program anywhere in Ontario for up to 90 days. The recommendation included conditions similar to those in Mr. Thai’s Conditional Discharge Disposition, including a minimum reporting term of four times monthly while living in the community.
Counsel for the Attorney General adopted the Hospital’s recommendation and counsel for Mr. Thai stated that he was not opposing it. The parties maintained their positions at the conclusion of the evidence and the panel was thus essentially presented with a joint position.
Findings
- For the following Reasons, the panel found that Mr. Thai represents a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the existing Conditional Discharge was no longer appropriate in view of significant changes that had occurred since the Board ordered it in 2025. In its place, the panel determined that the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a Detention Order containing the Hospital’s proposed terms and conditions.
Background and Index Offences
The Hospital Report contains the synopsis for the index offences and full details of Mr. Thai’s background and history, both prior to and since the offences. Last year’s Reasons for Disposition, dated July 17, 2025, include a summary of this information which is helpful context for the issues at this hearing. That summary, with minor variations and updating, appears below. It continues in the following section of these Reasons, entitled “Course Following the Index Offences”.
Mr. Thai was 53 years of age at the time of the hearing. He was born in Vietnam and was raised there on the family rice farm. His parents and older siblings moved to California in 1973, leaving Mr. Thai in Vietnam with his aunt. He immigrated to Canada with his aunt in 1983 (at the age of 11) and has since become a Canadian citizen.
When Mr. Thai was in his early 20s, he moved to California to reconnect with his parents and siblings. In 1992, he was involved in a major motor vehicle accident on a highway near Los Angeles, during which he sustained head trauma with loss of consciousness. He was reportedly hospitalized for three months, spent time in an intensive care unit and received trauma treatment at the University of Southern California Medical Center. The details of the accident and its aftermath are incomplete due to Mr. Thai’s limited memory of the event.
Mr. Thai reported that he began drinking at an early age. He also has a history of using cannabis and crystal methamphetamine. He had his first psychotic break in 2015, following at least two years of crystal methamphetamine use. He was diagnosed with a depressive disorder and anxiety disorder. His subsequent complaints of bizarre delusions prompted a committal to the Windsor Regional Hospital, where he was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia. Traumatic brain injury-related neurocognitive impairment was also identified. While Mr. Thai responded to olanzapine, after his discharge in January 2015 he was essentially lost to follow up until his first arrest on arson charges in May 2015.
In July 2016, Mr. Thai was convicted on charges of arson - disregard for human life and arson - causing damage to property. The two charges likely related to the same event, as the hospital report indicates that Mr. Thai received the same sentence for both - 15 months incarceration followed by probation for 24 months. He served part of his sentence at the Secure Treatment Unit of the Brockville Mental Health Centre, where he received intensive treatment, but he relapsed to substance use (crystal methamphetamine and alcohol) and was non-adherent with his psychotropic medication within months of his release in the spring of 2017. His psychotic symptoms, including auditory and visual, recurred and he committed the index offences on September 2, 2017.
The circumstances of the index offences are described as follows: After being called to the scene of an active house fire, Windsor Police were advised by a witness that a male standing near the house (later identified as Mr. Thai) had been seen earlier near the lower roof of the residence. When spoken to by the police, Mr. Thai said that he lit the fire at the rear of the building. Though he was unable to provide a reason for starting the fire, he said that he used a lighter and some newspaper to start it. On arrest he was found to be in possession of a bottle of spiced rum, in contravention of his probation order that prohibited him from possessing or consuming alcohol.
Course Following the Index Offences
Following the finding of NCR in January 2018, Mr. Thai was ordered detained at the Southwest Centre. He remained an inpatient until late February 2021, when based on improvements in his affect and engagement in rehabilitation programming, he was transitioned to live at the Steele Street Treatment and Rehabilitation Program (Steele Street).
At least initially, Mr. Thai was actively engaged in the rehabilitation program at Steele Street. He was also adherent with medication. He continued to live there until he moved into a CMHA supported (but unsupervised) shared living accommodation in mid-December 2021. After this move, members of Mr. Thai’s treatment team noticed some changes in his behaviour and presentation. They suspected that he might be drinking and tampering with his urine samples.
On March 7, 2022, Mr. Thai was readmitted to the Southwest Centre after being evicted from his housing for substance use (he tested positive for amphetamines and alcohol) and suspected drug trafficking, as well as decompensation of his mental state. Given the immediacy of the eviction, and as he did not have alternative approved accommodation, he was returned to the Southwest Centre for further assessment, evaluation and discussion around future housing.
Mr. Thai remained in hospital for a year. He began working part-time in March 2023, and began transitioning back to community living in April 2023, when he returned to live at Steele Street. Of note, staff there were initially reluctant to consider Mr. Thai’s return to the residence because the last time he was there he ran an underground economy, which was quite disruptive.
While living at Steele Street, Mr. Thai continued to work four shifts per week. As the residence was closing, he gradually moved into his own independent residence in July 2023. A month later, after much progress and sustained stability, his care was transferred from the inpatient team to the forensic outreach team.
In November 2023, Mr. Thai was readmitted to the Hospital. The forensic outreach team had been contacted by his employer, who expressed concern about Mr. Thai’s mental status as he had impulsively quit his job. When outreach staff attended at his residence, Mr. Thai presented with emotional lability and tearfulness. Given the significant change in his presentation, and his refusal to come to the Hospital to meet with a psychiatrist for further assessment, police were contacted to assist in returning him to the Hospital with the use of the warrant of committal. When interviewed on admission, Mr. Thai disclosed that he had consumed crystal methamphetamine (as recently as the day of admission). He tested positive for amphetamines. He also endorsed auditory hallucinations. He was not aware that he had decompensated at the time of admission.
In hospital, Mr. Thai quickly returned to his baseline mental status. He was transparent with the treatment team, acknowledging that the loss of his father (in the month prior to his admission) and worry for his family gravely impacted his stability in the community, such that he was unable to cope and resorted to using substances. While an inpatient he was able to use community passes without incident and participated in programming. Given his progress, the decision was made to transition Mr. Thai back to his independent apartment in late February 2024. He also returned to his previous employment.
Since February 2024, Mr. Thai continued to live in the same independent residence in St. Thomas, which he funded on his own. He enjoyed his home and was not looking to move in the upcoming year. Over the 2024-2025 reporting year he was adherent with medication on his own consent, abstained from substance use and did not require hospital admission.
Mr. Thai also continued to work for the same employer. He worked full-time from Monday to Friday and enjoyed the social aspects of his workplace and considered his colleagues to be like family. His work schedule, including transportation, took up a significant portion of his weekdays. He also participated in various leisure activities in the community, attended church weekly and enjoyed socializing with a supportive network of friends. He followed the terms of his Disposition, and his outpatient team was not alerted to any issues with his employer.
Over the course of the year, Mr. Thai consistently denied the presence of any positive symptoms of his illness and was not observed to experience any positive symptoms. His mood remained consistent. Though he experienced some stressors (i.e. the death of his landlord and reduced work hours resulting in financial constraints), he was able to maintain stability during these times and reportedly did not resort to substance use. He reportedly recognized that drug use triggers psychotic symptoms for him and so remained committed to remaining abstinent.
As reported in last year’s Reasons, Dr. Mokhber confirmed that during the 2024-2025 reporting year, Mr. Thai attended all appointments with the treatment team, cooperated with members of the team who checked on him weekly, and had no positive urine drug screens.
In her evidence at last year’s hearing, Dr. Mokhber addressed Mr. Thai’s insight, stating that his insight into his illness and need for treatment was underdeveloped. He could identify his diagnosis but believed that the medication helped him and that he is “cured.” Generally, he stated that he did not believe he required ongoing treatment and that he only took the medication because his doctor told him that he had to. He stated that he would likely not continue to take his medications in the future (post forensics). However, on the morning of the last hearing, Mr. Thai told Dr. Mokhber (for the first time) that his medications are helping him and that he knows that he needs to take them for a long time. While unable to articulate what changed his mind, Mr. Thai had been consistently adherent with psychotropic medication on his own consent throughout his time under the Review Board and expressed some understanding of his relapse risk in the event of nonadherence.
Course Over the Last Reporting Year/Evidence at the Hearing
- The Hospital Report sets out Mr. Thai’s diagnoses as follows:
Schizophrenia;
Substance Use Disorder (alcohol and stimulants), in remission;
Major Depressive Disorder, by history; and
Antisocial Personality Traits.
At the beginning of the reporting period, Mr. Thai continued with his full‑time employment. This was a physically demanding job that he had held since 2022. He worked long afternoon shifts and, despite persistent fatigue, took pride in his reliability and work ethic. In early September 2025, he received a wage increase, which he accepted as a meaningful validation of his efforts and commitment. Aside from work, Mr. Thai continued attending church on Sundays and reported attending Talbot House, a walk‑in mental health day program, one to two times per week. He valued helping others and reported assisting a friend in distributing food and other items to individuals in need within the St. Thomas community one to two days per week. He appeared to be doing very well.
However, early signs of change began to emerge by the summer of 2025. Mr. Thai began visiting a casino to manage stress and low mood. This began with infrequent visits and modest costs, but over the following months, both the frequency of these visits and the amount of money spent increased significantly.
Signs of burnout became more evident in August of 2025. Mr. Thai missed work without notice, and his employer reported noticeable changes in his mood and behaviour. When questioned, Mr. Thai minimized the seriousness of the situation, expressing confidence that his strong work performance would protect him from termination and that he would be “okay” even if he lost his job. Clinicians observed fatigue, emotional flattening, and a growing sense of hopelessness, yet Mr. Thai resisted suggestions to take some time off work. He also became increasingly avoidant of forensic outreach staff outside of scheduled appointments.
As the fall progressed, changes in Mr. Thai’s mental state became more pronounced. In early September 2025, his communication style became more guarded and, at times, evasive. He displayed heightened irritability, a labile affect, and an intense eye gaze.
Significantly, in late October and early November of 2025, Mr. Thai began to experience conflict in his workplace, in contrast to the positive relationships he had enjoyed there in the past. He became involved in a heated verbal altercation with management, during which his speech was rapid, tangential, and difficult to follow. He jumped from one issue to another and made the situation personal and confrontational. Management described him as unpredictable and no longer recognizable as the quiet, cooperative employee they had known. Additional concerns arose when it was reported that Mr. Thai had asked a coworker for his manager’s home address, which alarmed staff and heightened fears for safety. Later that same day, his employer made the decision to terminate his employment, citing escalating behaviour and concerns about substance use. Mr. Thai also tested positive for methamphetamine on two occasions. He was readmitted to hospital from November 4 to 14, 2025 due to substance use, instability and increased risk. During his admission, his employer contacted the treatment team to express ongoing concern for his own safety and that of his family.
By late February of 2026, Mr. Thai’s substance use had escalated further, shifting from oral use of methamphetamine to snorting, and from social use to using alone. Successfully obtaining a urine sample began to require between two and four hours of waiting and repeated attempts. Mr. Thai explained this delay by stating that methamphetamine use made it difficult for him to urinate, despite consuming large amounts of fluids. His cooperation with monitoring deteriorated, and he became increasingly difficult to reach.
On February 25, 2026, after more than 24 hours of failed contact and confirmed substance use, Mr. Thai was requested to attend the Southwest Centre for assessment. He refused and stated that police would need to be involved if the clinical team required his attendance. Police were subsequently dispatched, and Mr. Thai was transported to the hospital and admitted on a Mental Health Act Form 1. At the time of admission, he presented with an angry tone, and his thought process could not be fully assessed due to limited cooperation and confusion. He reported using methamphetamine and alcohol earlier that morning. He was discharged back to his apartment on February 27, 2026, as his mental status had stabilized and he no longer met the criteria for continued detention under the Mental Health Act (MHA).
Dr. Mokhber began her evidence at the hearing by summarizing Mr. Thai’s hospital admissions during the past reporting year. She referred to the February 25-27 Form 1 admission as described above and stated that he was stable at the time of his discharge and stated that he would not use drugs again. Thereafter, he had multiple positive tests again but because his mental state remained manageable in the community, he was not admitted again until March 7, 2026. This admission was voluntary and he remained in the Hospital until March 9. He then acknowledged methamphetamine use on March 10. On March 11 and 12, he refused to come into hospital for an assessment and police were called. Mr. Thai was admitted on March 12 on a Form 1. Dr. Mokhber stated at the hearing that on admission, two police officers had to restrain his arms, and he was yelling and screaming. He was placed in seclusion for his own safety.
Mr. Thai was discharged on March 15 as he did not meet the criteria for involuntary MHA admission. During his pre-discharge assessment, he acknowledged having used fentanyl during the previous week. He was provided education concerning the importance of abstaining from substances, and a follow-up appointment with Dr. Mokhber was scheduled for March 17.
Mr. Thai did not attend that appointment, and was eventually admitted pursuant to a Form 1, followed by a Form 3. This expired on April 15, 2026, and Mr. Thai agreed to remain in the Hospital, work with the treatment team, have his medication adjusted and attend some programs. However, on April 17, he decided to leave. As he was not stable, Dr. Mokhber had to issue a Form 1, followed later by a Form 3. More recently, on May 1, she issued a Form 3 again, which was to expire on the day following the hearing. Dr. Mokhber anticipated the need to issue a Form 4 under the MHA to maintain Mr. Thai’s involuntary admission as he was not stable. He was exhibiting psychotic symptoms as recently as the morning of the hearing.
Dr. Mokhber elaborated on the circumstances of Mr. Thai’s March 17th admission. She stated that after Mr. Thai missed his appointment, he failed to respond to multiple attempts by the treatment team to contact him by telephone. He did not respond when team members attended at his door, and police were called to attend his apartment. He was found by police in his apartment in an intoxicated, almost unconscious condition. The Hospital Report states that when found by the police, Mr. Thai he made comments regarding harm that he intended to cause, as well as harm that he reported having already committed toward a female. He was admitted to the Southwest Centre after being medically cleared at the general hospital. He later admitted having taken fentanyl and also tested positive for methamphetamine.
Dr. Mokhber, noting that Mr. Thai is on a long-acting injectable antipsychotic medication, stated that following his hospital admission in March, he was placed on a mood stabilizer as well. He was cooperative with his medication change, but due to his ongoing psychotic symptoms, Dr. Mokhber believes that she needs to do an assessment of his capacity to consent to his treatment.
Dr. Mokhber stated that she was not at first sure whether Mr. Thai’s psychotic symptoms are drug induced or an exacerbation of his schizophrenia. More recently, with the psychotic symptoms remaining unchanged, she formed the opinion that they are not only drug induced but dependent on his primary psychotic disorder as well. Dr. Mokhber advised, in response to a panel member’s questions, that in the two weeks prior to the hearing, Mr. Thai has been experiencing multiple psychotic symptoms, including auditory hallucinations involving multiple voices.
Dr. Mokhber explained her opinion concerning the need for a Detention Disposition. She stated that to date, a significant protective factor has been Mr. Thai’s good relationship with the treatment team. However, at this time he requires ongoing structured management. His risk profile now requires a sustained forensic framework with ongoing supervision beyond the temporary civil committal permitted under the Mental Health Act. Mr. Thai’s issues have become broader and more longitudinal. Now, the Hospital has seen recurrent issues with his non-engagement with the outreach team, and Conditional Discharges rely heavily on patients’ cooperation for effective management in the community. The level of support that Mr. Thai requires is no longer short-term or episodic in nature. The plan for Mr. Thai is to optimize his medication, stabilize his psychotic symptoms, and involve him in substance use programs to improve his insight. The concern is his drug use, as he has tested positive for substances three times in the Hospital (March 28, April 16, and April 23) during his recent admission.
As for returning Mr. Thai to the community, Dr. Mokhber said that she wants to see his privileges increased so that he can keep his apartment. As soon as he is ready to return, the plan is to provide closer supervision from the outreach team. It is difficult to put a timeline on this plan because it depends on Mr. Thai’s mental status, response to medication, and his cooperation with programs. Dr. Mokhber pointed out that there are other barriers to his successful return to the community that need to be managed, including an unhealthy social network that Mr. Thai is involved in. Some of his friends to who he provides financial support also providing him with drugs. In Dr. Mokhber’s opinion, these are issues that should be addressed before sending Mr. Thai back into the community.
In Dr. Mokhber’s opinion, substance use was a factor in the index offences and has also been a factor in Mr. Thai’s decompensations and readmissions in March of 2022, November of 2023, and in his current series of admissions. Substance use treatment is essential to addressing his risk. However, due to his currently active symptoms, he is not yet ready to engage with such treatment. Dr. Mokhber is hopeful that he will be ready to start substance use treatment while still in the Hospital and continue it in the community. She intends to discharge him back to his apartment as soon as possible as it is a safe place for him. In response to a later question from a panel member, she said that within the Hospital, Mr. Thai can engage in 1:1 substance counselling, Alcoholics (AA) attendance, and Concurrent Disorders programming. Within the community, he can attend CMHA programming and Talbot House.
Dr. Mokhber stated, in response to questions from Mr. Thai’s counsel, that work has been a protective factor for him and that the Hospital would support his return to work, though his previous employment is no longer available to him. Dr. Mokhber stated that for Mr. Thai, work adds structure and meaning to his life and limits excessive free time. With more free time, he would tend to become more involved in gambling and drug use. In the past, his workplace had also provided a means of socialization, as Mr. Thai is a very sociable person when he is well.
In response to a panel member’s request for more information about the plan to provide closer supervision upon Mr. Thai’s next discharge to the community, Dr. Mokhber said that there would, at least initially, be more frequent outpatient team visits than the four minimum monthly visits required by the current Disposition. There would also be more frequent random drug testing.
A panel member asked Dr. Mokhber about the reference in the Hospital Report about an inheritance that Mr. Thai’s mother is managing for him and whether he might come into a large amount of money, resulting in increased risk. Dr. Mokhber advised that Mr. Thai’s finances are valued at more than $5,000,000.00 U.S., and that this is managed by his mother and his sister in California. They send him money based on his requests. Dr. Mokhber was advised that Mr. Thai’s mother is sometimes hesitant to send money because she knows that he spends it on drugs, gambling, and sex. Dr. Mokhber acknowledged that having easy access to funds is a risk factor for Mr. Thai, particularly for substance use, which is clearly destabilizing for him. His mother is willing to have communication with the treatment team in relation to Mr. Thai, but he has not provided consent for the team to reach out to her.
A panel member expressed concern that the Hospital did not carry forward into its recommended privileges a term of Mr. Thai’s Conditional Discharge that allowed him to travel to California. Dr. Mokhber advised that Mr. Thai has not exercised this privilege in the past and has expressed that he does not wish to. In addition, Dr. Mokhber stated that in light of Mr. Thai’s current psychotic symptoms, it is not realistic for him to be able to exercise such a privilege in the coming year in any event. Mr. Thai has expressed that he does not wish to leave Canada and Dr. Mokhber confirmed that he is not seen as a risk for absconding to the United States.
No further evidence was led following that of Dr. Mokhber.
Analysis and Conclusions
Significant Threat
- In their respective submissions, no party disputed the issue of significant threat. In the panel’s view, the list of factors contained in the Clinical Risk Summary in the Hospital Report (pp. 140-141) is amply borne out in the evidence. Absent oversight by the Review Board, Mr. Thai would rapidly fall away from treatment for his major mental illness and would relapse into substance use that would exacerbate the symptoms of his illness. Even under the auspices of a Conditional Discharge and the efforts of the Hospital’s forensic outreach team, Mr. Thai relapsed into serious substance use over the past reporting year, and despite his adherence to long-acting injectable medication, has relapsed into significant psychotic symptoms. While symptomatic and under the influence of substances, he expressed ideation of intending to harm others. In the circumstances, the panel readily accepts as plausible the reoffence scenario in the Hospital Report, expressed as follows:
“In the absence of forensic supervision, Mr. Thai would be at high risk of disengaging from prescribed medication and treatment, given his limited insight into his mental illness and ongoing need for structure and oversight. As routine life stressors emerge, he would likely struggle to manage these effectively and would be unlikely to proactively seek support from mental health services during periods of early destabilization. Consistent with his recent pattern, he would instead attempt to cope independently, increasing the likelihood of relapse to substance use. This would likely result in a rapid deterioration in mental state, impaired judgment, and behavioural dysregulation, thereby significantly increasing the risk of reoffending and the potential for serious harm to members of the public or himself.”
- The panel is therefore amply satisfied that in the absence of forensic system oversight, Mr. Thai is likely to engage in criminal conduct that would result in serious physical or psychological harm to other persons.
The Disposition
A Detention Order is now necessary to manage Mr. Thai’s public safety risk. The evidence of his repeated relapses into methamphetamine use and mental health deterioration over the past reporting period, together with the very limited ability of the Hospital to intervene and manage his risk by relying on the Mental Health Act, are compelling in this regard.
During the months since receiving a Conditional Discharge, Mr. Thai lost his employment, which had come to be a significant protective factor over the years. His workplace had supplied him with structure, meaningful work, and a positive social network. Mr. Thai’s relapse into substance use correlated with challenges to his outreach team’s ability to effectively monitor and support him. He failed to attend an appointment with his attending psychiatrist and also refused to attend for assessment when asked to do so, as required by his Disposition. This necessitated the assistance of the police and the use of the Mental Health Act.
The panel accepts Dr. Mokhber’s evidence that a Detention Order is needed to maintain Mr. Thai in hospital in a manner that is no longer short-term or merely episodic. His mental condition and risk have worsened significantly in the past reporting period, such that he again requires the sustained structure of the forensic hospital environment. Indeed, Dr. Mokhber could not specify a tentative timeframe for Mr. Thai’s readiness to return to the community.
Even after Mr. Thai’s transition back to community living, the Hospital will require the authority to intervene expeditiously should he once again relapse into substance use. His mental health deterioration, relapse to methamphetamine use, and overall change in his life circumstances create a picture very different from the evidence that prompted the Board to order a Conditional Discharge in 2025.
Accordingly, the panel accepted the parties’ joint position that the necessary and appropriate Disposition at this juncture is a Detention Order. In approaching this matter, the panel has considered the evidence through the lens of the factors in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
DATED this 12th day of June, 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Eric Siebenmorgen Legal Member
____________________________
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board
Footnotes
- Named for Young (Re), 2011 ONCA 432.