Ontario Review Board
Re: Vladimir Dezhnev
ORB File No: 5803
Hearing held on: Wednesday, November 19, 2025
Place of hearing: Via Zoom Videoconference
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. C. Flanagan
Members: Dr. T. Verny
Dr. G. Stones
Ms. N. Nathanson
Ms. R. MacIntyre
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Vladimir Dezhnev Counsel: Mr. D. Embry
Person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Mr. D. Blumenkrans
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. M. Feindel
REASONS FOR DECISION
(Dated: December 24, 2025)
Introduction
On February 11, 2011, Mr. Vladimir Dezhnev was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (“NCR”) on a charge of assault causing bodily harm, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (Criminal Code).
Mr. Dezhnev is currently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the “Board”) dated October 15, 2025, which detains him at the Forensic Service of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto (“CAMH” or the “Hospital”), with privileges up to and including to live in the community of the Greater Toronto Area in accommodation approved by the person in charge.
On October 14, 2025, pursuant to section 672.56(b) of the Criminal Code, the Board received correspondence from CAMH indicating that Mr. Dezhnev’s liberty had been restricted for a period exceeding seven days. On October 3, 2025, Mr. Dezhnev was transferred from a Forensic General Unit (FGUB) to a Secure Forensic Unit (FATU) where he remained at the hearing date.
On November 19, 2025, a panel of the Board convened at CAMH via Zoom Audio Visual Technology to review Mr. Dezhnev’s restriction of liberty, pursuant to s. 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Dezhnev attended his hearing and was represented by his counsel, Mr. D. Embry. A Restriction of Liberty (ROL) Report dated October 23, 2025, and a Hospital Report dated September 18, 2025, were marked as Exhibits 1 and 2 respectively at the hearing.
The sole issue to be considered at this hearing is whether the restriction of liberty imposed on Mr. Dezhnev was the least onerous and least restrictive intervention in the circumstances, both initially and throughout its duration.
Initial Position of the Parties
At the commencement of the hearing, the parties were canvassed as to their positions.
Mr. Blumenkrans, on behalf of the Hospital, submitted that the decision to transfer Mr. Dezhnev from a general to a secure forensic unit was warranted and remains an ongoing restriction that is the least onerous and least restrictive.
Mr. Feindel, on behalf of the Attorney General of Ontario, supported the Hospital's position.
Mr. Embry, on behalf of Mr. Dezhnev, submitted that the initial restriction of liberty was warranted and that he would need to hear the evidence regarding the ongoing restriction of liberty.
Index Offences
- The circumstances giving rise to the index offences are abstracted from the Reasons for Disposition dated October 29, 2025, as follows:
“On Saturday April 11, 2009, at 1014, Mr. Dezhnev was a passenger on a TTC subway train that was travelling in the area of the Finch Subway station. He was approaching female passengers in an alarming manner and acting strangely. As a result, the passenger assistance alarm was activated. The TTC Finch subway station supervisor responded to the alarm, locating Mr. Dezhnev in the train's second car and directed him to exit the train in order that his unruly behaviour could be properly investigated.
Initially Mr. Dezhnev refused the supervisor's request but later complied and spoke with the supervisor as they walked along the platform. Suddenly and seemingly without reason or provocation, Mr. Dezhnev stopped, turned, and punched the victim on the right side of his face, striking him in the eye with a closed fist. He then fled the scene, running along the platform. The victim gave chase and called TTC transit control to advise them of the situation.
Mr. Dezhnev ran back onto the subway train where the victim caught up to him and attempted to wrestle him to the ground. A struggle ensued and police were called to attend.”
Background/ Psychiatric History
- Mr. Dezhnev’s personal background and psychiatric history are extensively reviewed in the Hospital Report, filed as an exhibit, and need not be repeated in these Reasons for Decision.
Current Diagnosis
- Mr. Dezhnev’s diagnoses are schizophrenia, cannabis use disorder, and antisocial personality disorder.
Evidence at the Hearing[^1]
Dr. O. O’Sullivan, the previous attending psychiatrist for Mr. Dezhnev, gave evidence to supplement the evidence contained in the ROL Report filed as an exhibit at the hearing. Dr. O’Sullivan advised that Mr. Dezhnev’s care has been transferred to Dr. C. Kung.
Dr. O’Sullivan advised Mr. Dezhnev was having a positive reporting year. He was exercising indirectly supervised passes to the community without issue and volunteering at a café. The treatment team was preparing for his discharge to the community, applying to various supportive housing providers.
(a) The Initial Restriction: Transfer to a Secure Forensic Unit on October 3, 2025
In August 2025, Mr. Dezhnev began to show the emergence of psychosis and increased levels of emotional dysregulation, representing a significant departure from his baseline. This occurred in the context of several psychosocial stressors (e.g., negative outcomes from housing applications, concerns about his grandmother’s health, news that an uncle of his will soon leave Canada and a wish to live in his condo).
Mr. Dezhnev became increasingly guarded and tense, disorganized, and was more affectively unstable with increased irritability. He was observed responding to absent stimuli, voicing paranoid ideations and became increasingly paranoid about staff members. This was particularly concerning given his strong association with serious violence in the context of acute paranoid psychosis. Dr. O’Sullivan highlighted that this was despite medication compliance and in the absence of substance use.
Dr. O’Sullivan also advised there was a litany of escalating behavioural challenges. As reported in the ROL Report, these included verbal hostility and abusive language, pass / rule breaches, multiple and persistent episodes of smoking on unit, and preoccupation and targeting of staff with verbal abuse (homophobic and transphobic remarks). He became increasingly unpredictable and intrusive with peers and was involved in verbal confrontations which required de-escalation.
To manage the risks associated with his unstable presentation, Mr. Dezhnev was transferred on October 3, 2025, from unit 1.3 (general) to unit 3.5 (secure).
(b) The Ongoing Restriction of Liberty as of the Date of the Hearing
On October 5, 2025, following his transfer to a secure forensic unit, Mr. Dezhnev was placed in locked seclusion because of escalating patterns of aggression and hostility. Mr. Dezhnev was described as highly demanding and intrusive and hostile toward staff. He minimized his behaviours, with limited accountability and poor insight.
At a team review on October 15, it was noted he remained calm, guarded and appeared to be responding to internal stimuli. He continued to have elevated scores on the Dynamic Appraisal of Situational Aggression (DASA) and was verbally abusive to staff when his needs were not met. A behavioural plan was put in place to manage his frequent requests of nursing staff.
At a team review on October 22, it was noted he continued to be highly demanding. He had threatened to start a code white due to his mail being late. He was dismissive and minimized his disruptive behaviour and made conditional threats.
At the hearing, Dr. O’Sullivan provided an update to the ROL Report, dated October 23, 2025. He reported that there has been no substance use or possession of contrabands, and Mr. Dezhnev’s passes are limited to yard access only. The doctor advised that Mr. Dezhnev continues to maintain delusional paranoid content which has improved since his readmission in October. He remains difficult to redirect, demanding and verbally aggressive towards staff. At times, he responds to internal stimuli, suggesting ongoing auditory hallucinations. The doctor highlighted that although there has been recent improvement in his behaviour, caution should be exercised given Mr. Dezhnev’s recent high scores on DASA.
Dr. O’Sullivan advised that Mr. Dezhnev is likely to be moved to an alternative secure unit in the very short term. This alternate unit focuses more on rehabilitation, rather than stabilization. The doctor stated that this will afford greater access to therapeutic and recreational programming, such as anger management and 1:1 Dialectical Behaviour Therapy (DBT) programming. Dr. O’Sullivan advised that this is seen as an interim step to returning Mr. Dezhnev to a General Forensic Unit.
When asked, the doctor advised that before such a transfer took place, there needed to be considerable improvement. This included appropriate interaction with staff and peers without Code White and/or seclusion incidents, continued adherence with his medication regimen, no contraband or substance use, and appropriate exercise of expanded privileges. In this regard, Dr. O’Sullivan was hopeful that Mr. Dezhnev would engage in anger management and 1:1 DBT programming to address his personality-based vulnerabilities.
No further evidence was called at the hearing.
Final Submissions of the Parties
Mr. Blumenkrans, on behalf of the Hospital, maintained his initial position. He submitted that the treatment team would like to see some improvement before a transfer to a forensic general unit. In the interim, a transfer to an alternate secure unit, with more programming and increased privileges, will allow the treatment team to better assess a potential transfer back to a general forensic unit.
Mr. Feindel, on behalf of the Attorney General of Ontario, adopted the submissions. He submitted that as soon as Mr. Dezhnev can get himself on track with greater privileges, he may be more motivated to work with the treatment team with a goal of eventual discharge back into the community.
Mr. Embry, on behalf of Mr. Dezhnev, submitted that having heard all the evidence, he supports the position of the hospital. He agreed that hopefully Mr. Dezhnev can get on track with greater privileges as he works toward returning to live in the community.
Analysis and Conclusion
The Board accepts the evidence of Dr. O’Sullivan and the evidence contained in the ROL Report filed as Exhibit 1 at the hearing.
Pursuant to the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Regina v. M.L.C. (2010) ONCA 843, the Board must consider not only the reason for the restriction and the initial decision to impose a restriction, but also the ongoing circumstances of the person for the period that the restriction remains in place including up to the time of review. The initial restriction of liberty and ongoing restriction of liberty must be the least onerous and least restrictive necessary for public safety and for the NCR accused.
The Board accepts the evidence of Dr. O’Sullivan and the evidence contained in the ROL Report filed as an exhibit at the hearing.
(a) The Initial Restriction: Transfer to a Secure Forensic Unit on October 3, 2025
Mr. Dezhnev has a history of serious violence when acutely psychotic. In the weeks leading up to his restriction of liberty, Mr. Dezhnev began showing a marked and sustained decompensation in his mental state with an escalating trajectory of risk behaviour. This behaviour included disorganized and aggressive behaviour, affective instability, paranoia, and likely auditory hallucinations. Notably, this decompensation in mental state occurred in the absence of substance use and with full compliance with his medication regimen.
Mr. Dezhnev also presented with ongoing behavioural challenges on the general unit, including verbal hostility and abusive language, pass / rule breaches, multiple and persistent episodes of smoking on unit, and became increasingly unpredictable and intrusive with co-patients requiring de-escalation.
As such, given the ongoing untoward behaviour and strong association with serious violence in the context of acute paranoid psychosis, this Board finds that his transfer to a secure unit was appropriate and necessary to address the ongoing risk of violence towards both staff and co-patients, and to properly manage his ongoing untoward behaviour, while on the general unit.
(b) The Ongoing Restriction of Liberty as of the Date of the Hearing
This Board also finds that this restriction of liberty, ongoing as of the date of the hearing, was necessary and appropriate. Although there has been some improvement in Mr. Dezhnev’s mental state since his transfer to a secure unit, he continues to exhibit ongoing irritability, makes frequent demands on staff, and at times responds to internal stimuli. His recent high DASA score is also of some concern. In this regard, his anticipated transfer to a different secure unit with more program options and privileges will allow the treatment team to better assess when he is able to safely return to a general unit and eventually a discharge to the community.
In conclusion, this Board finds that the restriction of liberty imposed on Mr. Dezhnev was warranted, necessary and appropriate, and the least onerous and least restrictive intervention for the Hospital to take, both initially and throughout its duration.
DATED this 24^th^ day of December 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Mr. C. Flanagan
Alternate Chairperson
__________________________
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board