A thoughtful look at mental illness, violence, and the call for involuntary care in Canada—after the tragic 2025 Vancouver incident. Can rights and safety coexist? A compassionate, expert-informed perspective..
About the Author
Jonathan Arenburg is a Canadian author, speaker, and trained counsellor exploring how modern life clashes with our biology—shaping anxiety, depression, and PTSD.
Learn MoreMental Illness, Violence, and Forced Treatment: What Do We Do Now?
A National Tragedy Brings Mental Health Back into Focus
Here in Canada, mental health is once again at the centre of national discussion. The latest headline? A devastating tragedy during Vancouver’s Lapu-Lapu Day festival on April 26, 2025.
At approximately 8:14 p.m., a black Audi Q7 SUV plowed into a crowd near food trucks on East 43rd Avenue. Eleven people were killed. Over 30 were injured. The incident sent shockwaves through the community—especially within the Filipino-Canadian population.
As someone with deep ties to this community, I was heartbroken. And as details emerged, the pain deepened. The driver, Mr. Lo, was reportedly mentally ill and under treatment at the time. This revelation reignited calls for forced mental health care—something the British Columbia government is now actively considering.
But is that the right move?
Before we jump to any conclusions, we need to take a hard, honest look at the facts.
Violence and Mental Illness: Let’s Get the Facts Straight
First, and most importantly:
The vast majority of people with mental illness are not violent.
This isn’t just opinion—it’s backed by science:
- SAMHSA: “Most people with mental health conditions are no more likely to be violent than anyone else.”
- Mental Health Commission of Canada: “Experts agree that mental illness alone is not a predictor of violence.”
- CMHA: “People living with mental illness are no more likely to commit violent crimes than anyone else.”
And yet, violence can happen—rarely, but sometimes tragically so. I know this firsthand.
Two Decades on the Frontlines of Mental Health Care
I worked for nearly 20 years in a mental health care facility—eight of those on one of Nova Scotia’s most behavioural units. I’ve seen the tiny fraction of patients who truly cannot function safely in society. I’ve also seen how institutional care failed them.
For decades, we locked people away in prison-like facilities—not to help them, but to hide them. We’ve moved on from that approach, thankfully. Canada’s mental health system has made real progress in offering community-based care and respect for personal dignity.
Still, that progress has created difficult questions.
So, What Should We Do?
Let’s go back to the Vancouver incident.
Reports suggest that Mr. Lo was doing everything he was supposed to. He was engaged with the mental health system. Police spoke with him on April 25—just one day before the attack—but the criteria for hospitalization weren’t met. Hours before the tragedy, a family member contacted a psychiatric unit, warning of his delusions and paranoia.
What happened next? That remains unclear.
But if his actions stemmed from delusions—altered states of consciousness—should he be sent to prison? Would that even help?
The Vince Li Case: A National Wake-Up Call
We’ve been here before.
On July 30, 2008, Vince Li, suffering a severe psychotic episode aboard a Greyhound bus in Manitoba, brutally killed fellow passenger Tim McLean. Diagnosed with schizophrenia, Li believed he was acting under divine orders.
In 2009, he was found not criminally responsible and sent to a psychiatric facility. Over time, with treatment, he stabilized and was eventually granted an absolute discharge.
Should he still be in care? Should his freedoms have been restored?
My Perspective: Involuntary Care for a Rare Few
In my view, yes—some people should receive involuntary care.
Why? Because in that small sliver of violent cases, lives have already been lost or permanently altered. We may never be able to predict who will commit such acts—the nature of psychosis, delusion, and paranoia can be unpredictable. But once someone has committed an act of extreme violence rooted in mental illness, we have a duty not to fail them—or the public—by simply releasing them back into society unsupervised.
When someone’s illness has reached that level, continued support and structured oversight should no longer be optional. The risks—no matter how small—are too great to ignore.
But Let’s Be Clear: Prison Is Not the Answer
People with severe mental illness are not criminals. They are some of the most vulnerable members of society. Prisons are not built for treatment or healing.
Instead, we need something else.
A Better Solution: Supervised Therapeutic Communities
We should not return to the institutional model—but we do need secure, supportive environments. Imagine supervised therapeutic communities: places where individuals are required to follow their treatment plans but still live with dignity and some freedom.
This approach strikes a balance. It keeps the person safe. It keeps the public safe. And it preserves their humanity.
In Conclusion: Rights and Safety Can Coexist
The number of violent individuals with mental illness is vanishingly small—but they exist. They need support, structure, and yes, in some cases, involuntary care.
But that care must be rooted in compassion and designed for recovery—not punishment.
Because real mental health reform isn’t just about protecting society. It’s about walking beside the most vulnerable—making sure they don’t fall, and if they do, that someone is there to catch them.
