Re: Alessio Volpini
ORB File No: 4496
Hearing held on: Wednesday, November 5, 2025
Place of hearing: St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton West 5th Campus, 100 West 5th Street
Pursuant to: Sections 672.81(1) and 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Ms. L. Banks
Members: Dr. W. Johnston Dr. G. Nexhipi Ms. B. Little
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Alessio Volpini Counsel: Mr. J. Chrolavicius
The Person in Charge of Hospital: Counsel: Mr. S. O’Brien
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. B. Adsett
REASONS FOR DECISION and DISPOSITION
(Dated November 12, 2025)
Introduction:
On May 31, 2006, Alessio Volpini was found not criminally responsible (“NCR”) on Criminal Code (“Code”) charges of assault x2 and failure to comply with probation.
Mr. Volpini is currently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (“ORB” or the “Board”) dated October 18, 2024, detaining him at the Forensic Psychiatry Program of St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton, West 5th Campus (“St. Joseph’s” or the “hospital”) with the outer limit privilege to live in the community of Hamilton in supervised accommodation approved by the person in charge.
On September 29, 2025, the hospital notified the Board that there had been a significant restriction of Mr. Volpini’s liberty (“ROL”) pursuant to section 672.56 (2) of the Code as Mr. Volpini had been placed in seclusion on September 18, 2025 until September 25, 2025.
On November 5, 2025, the Board convened a hearing at the hospital to review Mr. Volpini’s Disposition pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Code. Mr. Volpini attended the hearing and was represented by counsel, Mr. Chrolavicius.
The issues for the Board to decide are whether Mr. Volpini is a significant threat to the safety of the public and, if so, what is the necessary and appropriate Disposition for the coming year based on a consideration of the factors in s. 672.54 of the Code.
The panel also conducted a review of the restriction of Mr. Volpini’s liberty (“ROL”) from September 18, 2025 to September 25, 2025.
For the reasons which follow, the Board finds Mr. Volpini is a significant threat to the safety of the public. The Board also concluded that the necessary and appropriate Disposition was that Mr. Volpini be transferred to the High Secure Provincial Forensic Programs at the Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care (“Waypoint”). Pending that transfer, the Board ordered that he remain detained at St. Joseph’s pursuant to his existing Detention Order save and except for the removal of the privileges referred to in paragraphs 2 (g), (h), and (i) and the reporting obligation referred to in paragraph 4 (d).
The Board also concluded that the ROL initially imposed on Mr. Volpini on September 18, 2025 and continuing to September 25, 2025, was the least restrictive and least onerous intervention in the circumstances, both at the time that it was initially imposed and throughout its duration.
Positions of the Parties:
At the outset of the hearing, the parties were asked for their positions. Hospital counsel submitted that Mr. Volpini continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a Detention Order. Counsel for the hospital also recommended that Mr. Volpini be transferred to Waypoint. Counsel recommended that St. Joseph’s retain residual authority pending his transfer to Waypoint pursuant to the terms of his existing Disposition. The hospital also submitted that the ROL was warranted, necessary and appropriate, as well as the least restrictive and least onerous intervention, both initially and throughout its duration.
Crown counsel supported the hospital position in all respects.
Counsel for Mr. Volpini indicated that his client was not contesting the ROL. With regard to Disposition recommendations, counsel advised that his client rejected the hospital’s recommendation that his safe management required his transfer to Waypoint. Counsel submitted that the appropriate Disposition was a continuation of the existing Disposition detaining him at St. Joseph’s hospital.
In closing submissions, Mr. O’Brien stated that the hospital was now recommending that the residual authority to St. Joseph’s under the proposed Disposition (pending Mr. Volpini’s transfer to Waypoint) should delete any reference to the privileges identified in sections 2 (g), (h) and (i) as well as the reporting obligation referred to in paragraph 4 (d) therein. Mr. Adsett supported the hospital’s revised recommendations in closing submissions.
Mr. Chrolavicius maintained his initial position in closing submissions and highlighted the fact that Mr. Volpini has the support of his mother who resides in Hamilton. He reiterated his client’s request is to remain detained at St. Joseph's.
Index Offences:
- The circumstances of the index offence are excerpted from last year’s Board Reasons dated November 4, 2024, as follows:
“The index offences occurred on January 20, 2004. Mr. Volpini was at that time on probation for having earlier assaulted his parents. That probation order included a noncommunication clause. He nonetheless attended at his parents’ home (and they let him in). The report states Mr. Volpini’s father did so because he knew his son would just break into the house if not permitted to enter, as he had in the past.
Mr. Volpini was initially calm, stayed for supper and decided to sleep at the residence. However, shortly before midnight he went into his parents’ bedroom and assaulted his mother by punching her in the back of the head several times. His father went downstairs to call the police and Mr. Volpini followed. He punched his father several times in the head and tried to put a phone cord around his neck. Mr. Volpini’s parents and his brother retreated to a bedroom and held the door closed as Mr. Volpini threatened to kill them. Mr. Volpini then tried to pry the door open with a kitchen knife.
Personal Background:
The Board received in evidence the Hospital Report dated September 17, 2025 (the “Hospital Report”). The report details Mr. Volpini’s background, his criminal offending history as well as his psychiatric history and the details need not be repeated here. Some relevant information will be highlighted.
Mr. Volpini is 46 years old. He has been under the jurisdiction of the Board for approximately 21 years.
Mr. Volpini is youngest of three children. His parents described him as hyperactive, aggressive and destructive with temper tantrums as a child. According to the Hospital Report, at a young age (18 or 19) he was diagnosed with schizophrenia. As he grew older, he became more aggressive. Medication helped attenuate this. Police were called to the family home on several occasions due to Mr. Volpini’s behaviour.
Mr. Volpini has no work history apart from delivering papers as a youth.
Mr. Volpini did not graduate from high school. He was suspended from school for aggressive behaviour and truancy on several occasions.
Criminal History:
- Mr. Volipin’s criminal convictions are set out in the hospital report at page 7 and includes 4 assault convictions and an uttering threat. When he committed the index offences against his parents, he was on probation for assaulting them. He had a no contact term in his probation order towards his parents, which he breached.
Psychiatric History:
- Mr. Volpini’s psychiatric history prior to the index offences and the NCR finding is detailed in the Hospital Report at pages 4-6. Familial conflict was a common occurrence, especially in the period prior to the index offences which were assaults on his parents.
Current Diagnoses:
- Mr. Volpini’s current diagnoses are:
Schizophrenia (treatment resistant);
Cannabis Use Disorder, in sustained remission in a controlled environment; and
Alcohol Use Disorder, in sustained remission in a controlled environment.
Evidence at the Hearing:
Dr. K. Shariati gave the evidence for the hospital at the hearing. Dr. Shariati has been Mr. Volpini’s treating psychiatrist since August 2025. The doctor authored the Hospital Report as well as the ROL Report dated October 28, 2025 (the “ROL Report”) and he adopted the contents of these reports in his evidence.
Mr. Volpini continues to be assessed as incapable to make decisions regarding psychiatric treatment, and he is incapable to manage his property and financial affairs. Mr. Volpini’s mother is his substitute decision maker (“SDM”) for psychotropic treatment decisions. The Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee is his substitute decision maker for property.
Under his SDM’s consent he receives treatment for his psychiatric illness with three oral anti-psychotic medications (olanzapine, quetiapine, and risperidone) as well as an oral mood stabilizer (divalproex).
Mr. Volpini’s schizophrenia is treatment resistance. The Hospital Report indicates that “He has been observed occasionally to respond to internal stimuli. He has been noted to be laughing to himself or having loud often nonsensical outbursts. However, he denies any perceptual disturbances. His thought process is generally linear and organized when having brief, closed-ended questions/conversation, but he still displayed disorganization as usual when verbalizing for longer, with him smiling and laughing to himself with no obvious antecedent, whispering things under his breath, and having loose associations between topics.”
On a day-to-day basis, Mr. Volpini experiences active psychosis. He can be seen smiling or laughing to himself frequently. The doctor commented that Mr. Volpini’s symptoms seem less intense than in the past, but they are still present. His insight regarding his illness and the need for adherence with medication in perpetuity, as well as his overall judgment, are limited. He has a significant history of violence. All of these are static factors that drive Mr. Volpini’s ongoing risk of harm to others.
Dr. Shariati was asked to summarize the past year for Mr. Volpini. The doctor testified that his risk of harm has escalated and that over the past several months he has engaged in three episodes of assaultive behaviour against three different patients at the hospital. The doctor also referenced that Mr. Voilpini has engaged in several notable incidents of concern which are detailed in the Hospital Report at pages 88 to 90. The doctor advised that Mr. Volpini’s assaultive behaviours are driven by his psychotic illness, poor judgement and impulsivity. The doctor advised that Mr. Volpini’s challenging behaviours have impeded his ability to progress towards community reintegration and Dr. Shariati stated that he is not currently a candidate for community living. Notwithstanding, the doctor advised that the hospital was recommending that the community living provision remain in his Disposition for the purpose of keeping him on wait lists and for maximum flexibility.
On May 14, 2025, Mr. Volpini was transferred from Waterfall 3 to Orchard 3 following an altercation with a co-patient which occurred on May 7. He threw approximately 11 punches at the co-patient’s face in retaliation for being punched. Staff were required to separate the two patients.
Mr. Volpini was content with the transfer to the new unit. For the duration of his stay on Orchard 3, Mr. Volpini was continuously monitored for unpredictable, impulsive, aggressive and sexual behaviours (ex. shouts, laughs, curses, shadow boxes, grunts).
On August 5, 2025, Mr. Volpini was transferred from Orchard 3 to Mountain 2 following yet another altercation with a co-patient which occurred on August 1. Following this incident which Mr. Volpini initiated, he was placed in seclusion, his passes were held, and ultimately transferred off the unit to avoid further interactions with the victim of his assault.
The Hospital Report indicates that at his baseline, Mr. Volpini tends to keep to himself and frequently paces the hallways (sometimes bumping into others intentionally) on the unit and watches television in the dining area. He typically presents as calm with a flat affect, and does not usually engage in conversation with others. However, Dr. Shariati stated that Mr. Volpini requires considerable supervision as he experiences boundary issues with co-patients and he requires constant reminders of the no-contact policy at the hospital. Of note, many of Mr. Volpini’s concerning incidents involved him making degrading comments towards co-patients and/or making threatening gestures.
With regard to the episode that triggered the most recent ROL, the ROL Report indicates that on September 18, 2025, Mr. Volpini was involved in a physical altercation with a co-patient which occurred on the perimeters of the hospital grounds. Staff and security personnel intervened, and were able to return Mr. Volpini to the unit. The co-patient required attendance in the hospital ER as he suffered a facial injury (fractured orbital bone).
Dr. Shariati testified that upon Mr. Volpini’s return to the unit, he was noted to be unregulated and he continued to posture in a physically aggressive manner prompting the decision to place him into segregation until he was able to settle. He externalized blame for the altercation and showed minimal insight into his risk of harm to others. Mr. Volpini’s seclusion status began on September 18 as he posed an imminent threat of physical harm to others.
After four days, on September 22, 2025, Mr. Volpini was transferred from a dedicated seclusion room to an in-room seclusion room, with a 15-minute check-ins. By September 25, 2025, his formal seclusion status was terminated. Since that time, he has been managed pursuant to a de-escalation plan which allows for a “room seclusion exception” that has been approved by the person in charge. Pursuant to this plan, Mr. Volpini is not able to leave his room at will and there is direct line of sight on Mr. Volpini from the nursing station. When exiting his room, he is escorted by 2 dedicated staff members. He is required to be separated from the co-patient involved in the most recent altercation. Mr. Volpini is permitted out of his room twice daily for approximately half an hour to access the secure courtyard with two staff present.
Mr. Volpini has been generally cooperative with staff direction but at times expressed verbal hostility and made threats to his psychiatrist because of the restrictions he felt were unfairly placed upon him. He continues to lack insight with respect to the incident on September 18, 2025.
The doctor commented that Mr. Volpini had not been treated with clozapine for many years and his presentation deteriorated over that time frame. Dr. Shariati testified that when he reviewed the Hospital Report, it was apparent to him that there were fewer incidents of aggressivity during the time frame that Mr. Volpini had been treated with a substantive dose of clozapine. Accordingly, with the authority of Mr. Volpini’s substitute decision maker, the decision was made to restart a trial of the antipsychotic medication, clozapine, on September 28, 2025, with cross-tapering of his quetiapine and olanzapine medications.
Dr. Shariati reiterated that he believes that Mr. Volpini’s level of aggression had been better managed in the past when he was optimally treated with clozapine. The doctor stated that this medication is still being titrated up to a therapeutic dose but at present, he is only receiving 225 mg/day. Dr. Shariati stated that there has been minimal improvement in Mr. Volpini’s presentation to date since starting this medication but he expected it could take months for the full benefit of this medication to be actualized. At present, Mr. Volpini continues to make threats of physical harm directed at Dr. Shariati and he remains a risk of posing unpredictable physical harm to hospital staff and co-patients alike.
In response to a question posed by a panel member, Dr. Shariati predicted that there was a “low probability” that there would be “significant improvement” in Mr. Volpini’s behaviour when optimally treated with clozapine but he still thought this medication trial was worth a try. The doctor agreed that a MAPS consult might be appropriate if clozapine treatment did not yield a significant improvement.
The doctor explained that the team is trying to understand the triggers for Mr. Volpini’s active psychosis. It is noted that when medically unwell his symptoms worsen. He has a history of bowel obstruction and when he experiences bouts of this illness his psychotic symptoms worsen. Under the de-escalation plan, Mr. Volpini’s physical health is closely monitored.
Dr. Shariati was asked to characterize the tenor of the numerous notable incidents that have occurred and he said they generally are angry and aggressive outbursts by Mr. Volpini and his aggression is unpredictable and poses a real risk of significant harm to others.
Dr. Shariati stated that Mr. Volpini has been a patient at St. Joseph’s for over 8 years but at this juncture, he cannot be safely managed in the hospital’s secure forensic units.
Mr. Volpini currently exercises level 1 privileges in the courtyard on an escorted basis. The doctor stated that he had been approved for level 2 escorted passes within the secure area of hospital to access the hospital café and store but these passes are not available to him now. To Mr. Volpini’s credit, the doctor confirmed that over the past year, there have been no elopement attempts and no incidents of substance use.
Mr. Volpini continues to have a Behaviour Support Plan in place to provide strategies for adherence with daily hygiene and activities of daily living and Mr. Volpini has made significant improvements in this regard and he remains engaged with the behavioural therapist to provide support.
An ongoing area of concern with Mr. Volpini is his using public computers for watching pornography. Sexualized boundary issues were limited to viewing or attempting to view pornography in shared spaces, after which supervised computer access was put in place. There does not appear to be a risk of inappropriate contact sexual behaviour.
Overall, the Hospital Report notes:
“The most significant behaviour reductions observed this reporting period were in mild verbal aggression, threatening behaviour, and invading personal space. Mild verbal aggression reduced by 32% compared to last reporting period. Threatening behaviour decreased by 50% and invading personal space decreased by 83%. There were also fewer reports of Mr. Volpini bumping into others this reporting period compared to previous years.
Two target behaviours that did not see significant improvements were physical aggression and inappropriate media use. There were two instances of physical aggression over the past reporting year, with the most recent resulting in a unit transfer from Orchard 3 to Mountain 2. Both instances involved altercations with co-patients. Inappropriate media use was consistent with last reporting year – he accessed pornography on public computers/televisions six times.” Dr. Shariati noted that following the preparation of the Hospital Report, there weas an additional assaultive episode which triggered the ROL.
The doctor was asked his opinion on significant threat to the safety of the public and he said that Mr. Volpini meets the threshold and that is the unanimous opinion of the treatment team. In response to a question from Mr. Adsett, the doctor endorsed the forensic risk assessment conducted by Dr. Moulden (clinical psychologist) in 2024. That assessment concluded that even while an inpatient at the hospital on a Detention Order, Mr. Volpini is a moderate risk for violent recidivism. If Mr. Volpini was granted an Absolute Discharge, without any oversight, his risk would elevate to high - severe.
The doctor indicated that if Mr. Volpini was not under the jurisdiction of the Board, it is unlikely that he would continue to take his medications. Mr. Volpini suffers from a treatment resistant form of schizophrenia and if he did not adhere to his prescribed antipsychotic medications, he would decompensate rapidly, likely within 2-3 days. The doctor said that Mr. Volpini does not believe he has schizophrenia, nor that he requires treatment to attenuate the symptoms of his illness. In the context of medication non-adherence, the likely scenario is that the symptoms of Mr. Volpini’s illness would accentuate and he would be highly likely to engage in serious criminal conduct, including physically assaultive behaviours.
With regard to the hospital’s recommendation for the transfer of Mr. Volpini’s care to Waypoint, the doctor testified that despite ongoing efforts of the treatment team to safely manage Mr. Volpini’s risk to others, he has presented with increasing aggression towards co-patients, interpersonal conflict, and an inability to follow hospital rules and protocols. Dr. Shariati testified that if Mr. Volpini remains at St. Joseph’s, he will be highly likely to be predominantly restricted to his room. Dr. Shariati stated that he believes that Mr. Volpini will have greater liberty if detained at Waypoint because the structural environment of that facility is better suited to manage his current level of risk. The doctor thought that Mr. Volpini would also be able to participate in more therapeutic and recreational programming at Waypoint than is accessible to him at St. Joseph’s. In response to questions posed by panel members, the doctor advised that the recommendation for Mr. Volpini’s transfer to Waypoint was unanimously supported by members of the treatment team. In addition, the doctor advised that he had canvassed many of Mr. Volpini’s prior psychiatric care providers and almost all were supportive of his transfer to Waypoint.
With regard to support that Mr. Volpini receives from his mother who resides in the Hamilton area, Dr. Shariati stated that she attends at the hospital and bring snacks and meals to Mr. Volpini and that he enjoys that. However, Dr. Shariati stated that Mr. Volpini’s mother and father have been victims of Mr. Volpini’s aggression in the past (including at the time of the index offence) and, in the doctor’s opinion, he understands that these visits are very brief in duration and primarily related to food delivery. The doctor did not consider these visits to be emotionally impactful for Mr. Volpini. Dr. Shariati did not think that any reduction in visits from his mother, should Mr. Volpini be transferred to Waypoint, would be a particular hardship for him.
We note that Waypoint’s Rule 13 response to the hospital’s transfer request noted, among other things, that Waypoint focuses on “… managing risk within our highest secure perimeter as opposed to assessing and managing risk at the community interface.” At Waypoint, many of the privileges previously included in Mr. Volpini’s Disposition would be inaccessible, including accompanied or indirectly supervised hospital and grounds privileges, passes of up to 7 days to enter the community of Hamilton and directly supervised for planning purposes, and a community living privilege unsupervised accommodation. Dr. Shariati noted that while these privileges are currently included in Mr. Volpini’s existing Disposition, he is also not able to exercise these privileges at St. Joseph’s because of the risk of harm he currently presents with.
The Waypoint Rule 13 response letter further states that:
“A transfer to high secure provincial forensic programs are highly restrictive in nature, given the only discretionary privilege (aside from escorts for medical, dental, legal or compassionate purposes) that we can provide beyond our high secure perimeter is hospital grounds, escorted at a minimum 2:1 staff to patient ratio, should this privilege be included in a disposition that would order Mr. Volpini to be detained at Waypoint. Mr. Volpini would only have access to this privilege, understanding that we have assessed that it is safe to do so, a few times over an annual reporting period. Any readiness on Mr. Volpini’s part to access more liberal discretionary privileges in the foreseeable future would indicate to us that a disposition ordering him to Waypoint is too onerous and restrictive.”
Dr. Shariati acknowledged that Waypoint’s response indicated that a number of other patients are currently awaiting admission to their facility and, as a result, there will likely be a significant delay until a bed at their facility will be available to Mr. Volpini should the Board agree to his transfer. In the interim, the doctor stated that the current level of privileges included in Mr. Volpini’s existing detention order should remain intact. When asked by several panel members why his Disposition should contain such liberal privileges pending Mr. Volpini’s transfer to Waypoint, the doctor stated that, despite the existence of these liberal privileges, Mr. Volpini would be highly unlikely to be exercising same.
When asked if the hospital would call for an early Board hearing if Mr. Volpini responded positively to the clozapine trial and no longer required a transfer to Waypoint to manage his risk, the doctor replied in the affirmative.
In response to questions posed relating to the hospital’s recommendation to transfer Mr. Volpini to Waypoint, the doctor advised that in the final analysis, Mr. Volpini’s risk of impulsive and unpredictable physical aggression to others necessitates his transfer at this juncture. The doctor added that Mr. Volpini has a very concerning history of assaultive violence.
The Board heard briefly from Mr. Volpini. He stated that he does not want to go to Waypoint. It is too far away. He also said that he wants to leave his room on the unit.
No further evidence was called at the hearing.
Analysis and Conclusions:
Restriction of Liberties:
The analytical framework established by Campbell (Re), 2018 ONCA 140 requires the Board to consider the liberty norm and the liberty status of an accused on a restriction. The liberty norm and liberty status for the restriction must be examined to determine the significance of the increase (if any) on the restriction of an accused’s liberty caused by the restriction. The test to be applied to significant increases in the restriction of liberty is the same as is required for Dispositions - whether the significant increase is necessary and appropriate to protect the safety of the public.
Pursuant to the decision of (Re) Campbell, the Board agreed that a restriction of liberty had taken place when Mr. Volpini assaulted a co-patient and was placed in seclusion. The Board accepts the uncontradicted evidence of Dr. Shariati that Mr. Volpini’s risk of engaging in further episodes of physical aggression required that he be transferred to seclusion on September 18, 2025. In the assessment of the treatment team, it was necessary to restrict his access to other patients and staff at that time as he posed an ongoing risk of unpredictable physical harm to others. In addition, he expressed limited insight into his behaviours and continue to externalizes blame.
Prior to ordering Mr. Volpini into seclusion, the treatment team had imposed less restrictive measures, including close monitoring of his mental state, escorted pass use, separation of Mr. Volpini from likely targets of his hostility, and increased external structure. Despite these other measures, Mr. Volpini engaged in physical aggression requiring seclusion. These measures continue to be used to safely manage Mr. Volpini’s risk.
Mr. Volpini’s ongoing seclusion until September 25, 2025, remained necessary and appropriate and it represented the least onerous and least restrictive intervention in the circumstances available to the hospital. Mr. Volpini’s mental state had not yet returned to his baseline presentation. For all of the above-noted reasons, his placement in seclusion throughout the ROL period remained the least restrictive and least onerous intervention in the circumstances and was warranted for public safety.
Disposition:
The Board finds Mr. Volpini remains a significant threat to the safety of the public based on the expert evidence before us, having taken into consideration s. 672.5401 of the Code, Winko, and its related authorities. In Winko the court explained that the threshold of significant risk to the safety of the public was a significant one. The risk must not be speculative. It must be significant both as to substance (i.e., the nature of criminal offending likely if the person is granted an Absolute Discharge), and as to the likelihood of its occurrence. It must be more likely than not that, if the person is absolutely discharged, that he will engage in criminal offending that is serious. The Board is satisfied the threshold is met in this case.
Mr. Volpini suffers from a major mental illness, schizophrenia, which is treatment resistant. Over the past year, there have been several notable incidents which inform the issue of risk. Mr. Volpini’s continues to experience behaviour dyscontrol, unpredictable outbursts of anger and incidents of agitation and physical aggression. There have been several assaultive incidents over the year in review, the most recent of which occurred in September, 2025.
The Board is satisfied that if not under the ORB’s jurisdiction, Mr. Volpini would become medication noncompliant and would decompensate to a degree that he would likely incorporate members of the public into his delusions such that they would be at risk of causing serious physical harm to others. The Board relies on the risk assessment of Dr. Moulden (clinical psychologist) completed in 2024, wherein she assessed Mr. Volpini as a moderate risk for violent recidivism while an inpatient on a Detention Order at the hospital and his risk would be high to severe if on an Absolute Discharge.
The Board also notes Mr. Volpini’s lack of insight, albeit this is not determinative of significant threat, it does inform overall the risk he poses as he does not believe he has schizophrenia and sees no need for treatment.
In light of our finding of significant threat, the board must come to a decision as to the least onerous, and least restrictive disposition necessary to manage, Mr. Volpini’s risk. At this juncture, the Board agrees with the hospital and the Crown’s recommendation that the necessary and appropriate Disposition for the coming year is his transfer to Waypoint.
In terms of the residual authority of the hospital while Mr. Volpini awaits transfer to Waypoint, the Board finds on the basis of the evidence before us, that given Mr. Volpini’s current level of risk and his likely progression over the course of the upcoming reporting year, he will be highly unlikely to be a candidate for community living or for accessing indirectly supervised community privileges for any period of time.
In light of the foregoing, the Board concluded that the necessary and appropriate Disposition is that Mr. Volpini be transferred to the High Secure Provincial Forensic Programs at the Waypoint and that pending that transfer, Mr. Volpini remain detained at St. Joseph’s pursuant to his existing Detention Order save and except for the removal of the privileges referred to in paragraphs 2 (g), (h), and (i) and the reporting obligation referred to in paragraph 4 (d).
In arriving at our disposition, the Board has considered the paramount factor of public safety, Mr. Volpini’s reintegration into the community, his mental condition and other needs, all as required by s. 672.54 of the Code.
DATED this 12th day of November 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Ms. L. Banks Alternate Chairperson
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board