Ontario Review Board
Re: Keith Ru
ORB File No: 6616
Hearing held on: Friday, April 11, 2025
Place of hearing: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health 1001 Queen Street West, Toronto
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Ms. C. Fromstein
Members: Dr. L.E. Cappe
Ms. C. Young
Hon. C. Nelson
Mr. S. Duffy
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Keith Ru
Counsel: Mr. M. Schloss
The Person in charge of Hospital: Counsel: Ms. M. Warner
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. V. Culp
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated June 2, 2025)
Introduction
On September 22, 2014, Mr. Keith Ru was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on a charge of murder.
Mr. Ru is currently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated November 16, 2023, by which he was ordered to be discharged subject to a number of conditions.
On Friday, April 11, 2025, the Review Board convened a hearing in person at CAMH and conducted the annual review of Mr. Ru’s Disposition.
Mr. Ru attended at the hearing with his counsel, Mr. Schloss. Dr. Meng attended in person. Ms. V. Culp appeared on behalf of the Crown and Ms. Warner represented the hospital. Mr. C. Lee, a Cantonese interpreter, was present to assist Mr. Ru. This was, even though in previous years, Mr. Ru’s lawyer stated he did not require an interpreter.
Initial Position of the Parties
At the outset of the hearing, the parties were canvassed as to their recommendations to the Board.
Ms. Warner advised of the hospital position which was that Mr. Ru remains a significant threat to the safety of the public and, the necessary and appropriate disposition is a continuation of a conditional discharge with the exact same terms as set out in Mr. Ru’s last Disposition.
Ms. Culp agreed with the hospital’s position.
Mr. Schloss also agreed with the hospital’s position and advised that, while he was not conceding the issue of significant threat, he would make no submissions on it.
Index Offence
- "On December 6, 2012, at approximately 3:30 am, Ottawa police were called to attend to an apparent disturbance. Upon arrival to the three-storey apartment building, they met a complainant in the parking lot who indicated that there were loud screams and banging noises from a third floor apartment. When they arrived at that particular apartment, the door was secure and undamaged. They heard more sounds of a disturbance, screaming and loud banging from within. The door opened and a disheveled and bloodied young man, wearing a blood-stained T shirt, met them. The man was detained and the officers entered the apartment where they discovered another young man at the foot of a bed. He was badly injured, unconscious, and unresponsive. He had several significant cuts and slashes from an edged weapon. There was no one else in the apartment and no signs of forced entry. The bedroom was bloodied, with blood spatter on the walls and pooled blood on the floor of the bedroom. Other bloodstains were noted on various walls throughout the living room area, where a bloodied meat cleaver was also in plain view.
Paramedics arrived and provided immediate medical intervention, but the victim was pronounced dead at the scene. The detained man had a scratched and bloodied face, as well as vertical and horizontal scratches across his abdomen. He was read his rights and he indicated that he did not want to speak to counsel and that he had killed the victim. He made comments about harming himself and committing suicide. He was brought to the emergency department of the Ottawa Hospital - Civic Campus. He was treated for his minor injuries. He made comments to medical staff about intending to commit suicide. Medical staff assessed his suicide risk and it was deemed not to be imminent.
He was released to the custody of the police officers.
While in police custody, Mr. Ru continued to state he did not wish to speak to counsel, but then did so. He removed his bandages from his injured arm. He became increasingly withdrawn and unresponsive to interactions with cellblock officers, who became concerned. He was returned to hospital, received medical attention for his arm and hand and returned back to cellblock. Mr. Ru spoke with attorney Mr. Abergel. Sergeant Hudson then interviewed Mr. Ru, who behaved erratically during the encounter. Mr. Ru admitted to killing Mr. Zhao, but refused to explain the reason for his actions.”
Evidence at Hearing
The Board admitted into evidence the Hospital Report dated May 28, 2025. The Hospital Report provides a great deal of information concerning Mr. Ru, his personal history, his mental health history, details of the index offence, and Mr. Ru’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, that the stated diagnosis is schizophrenia.
In addition to the documentary evidence, the Board also heard from Dr. Meng. Dr. Meng advised that there are no updates to the Hospital Report. Mr. Ru continues to live with his parents.
Dr. Meng stated that, in order for Mr. Ru to obtain an absolute discharge, he needs to connect with a civil psychiatric team and develop a degree of comfort in working with them. As was the case last year, Mr. Ru is very reluctant to leave his present FOPS team. Notwithstanding his position, Mr. Ru enjoyed a very good year.
Mr. Ru remains medically compliant and he reports to his team every four weeks. Mr. Ru will still not make any independent living plans until such time as he finds employment.
In January 2025, he obtained his advanced diploma in Computer Programming and Analysis from Seneca College. He is financially supported by ODSP and continues to look for work. He did have a job for a while (September – December, 2024) at a computer company. He also visited China with his parents without incident (December 2024 to February 2025).
In answer to questions from Ms. Culp, Mr. Ru’s reluctance to transition to a civil team has to do with his lack of confidence and, also, with the trauma he suffered at the time of the index offence. The team does not wish to push him for fear of destabilizing him.
In answer to questions from Mr. Schloss, Dr. Meng agreed that Mr. Ru has been symptom-free since about 2019. His medication is optimized; that has been the case since last year when the dosage was increased. Mr. Ru is engaged with his outpatient team. He continues to look for work in the computer field. Dr. Meng also testified that when Mr. Ru finds employment and chooses new housing, these moves might prove stressful to him. He will benefit from support during these transitions.
In answer to a question from a Board member, Dr. Meng stated that Mr. Ru has been receptive to the team’s recommendation to reduce his medication. Also, Dr. Meng notes that Mr. Ru is respectful with authority figures.
In answer to another Board member’s question, Dr. Meng testified that the team does not anticipate Mr. Ru moving out of his parents’ house this coming year.
There was no further evidence.
Submissions
- The parties maintained their initial positions.
Conclusion
Having heard the evidence, the Board finds that Mr. Ru continues to remain a significant threat to the safety of the public. The Board finds that it is essential to Mr. Ru’s mental health that a clinical team remain in place. Mr. Ru is a withdrawn, isolated individual without much community support. The Hospital Report states that he still, at times, shows negative symptoms of his illness. The Board agrees that Mr. Ru remains susceptible to withdrawing socially and disengaging from his present risk management intervention. This would likely result in an increased risk of clinical deterioration and corresponding violent-offending risk. We accept Dr. Meng’s expert evidence that Mr. Ru remains a significant threat to the safety of the public, especially if he were to experience stressors.
In deciding that a conditional discharge is the necessary and appropriate disposition, we note that the evidence suggests that Mr. Ru’s level of risk is low. Mr. Ru, himself, seems to be indifferent to an absolute discharge at this stage.
The Board also finds that paragraph 1(g) of last year’s Disposition should be amended so that the words “existing address or” be removed, from the paragraph as it is redundant given the stipulation of his address. As well, paragraph 1(c) of last year’s Disposition should be removed as Mr. Ru has had negative screens and has not taken any substances in years. Otherwise, the conditions set out in last year’s Disposition should remain.
Mr. Ru has had a positive year. The Board acknowledges that and wishes him well.
In reaching our Disposition, the Board has taken into consideration public safety, Mr. Ru’s mental condition and his other needs, and Mr. Ru’s reintegration into society.
DATED this 2nd day of June, 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Hon. C. Nelson
Legal Member
__________________
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board