Re: Adam Rossi
ORB File No: 8449
Hearing held on: Wednesday, April 30, 2025
Place of hearing: Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before: Alternate Chairperson: Ms. L. Maunder Members: Dr. W. Johnston, Dr. S. Wiseman, Mr. D. Sandor, Ms. K. Brisson
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Adam Rossi Counsel: Ms. M. Munsterman
The Person in charge of Hospital: Counsel: Dr. R. Linthorst
The Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. J. Wright
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION (Dated June 25, 2025)
Introduction
On June 12, 2024, Adam Rossi was found not criminally responsible on Criminal Code charges of second-degree murder and indignity to a dead body. At the time of the hearing, Mr. Rossi was subject to a disposition detaining him at the Forensic Assessment Unit (FAU) of the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre (Royal Ottawa), with a privilege allowing him to access the hospital and grounds escorted by staff. On April 30, 2025, the Board convened to conduct an annual review of Mr. Rossi’s disposition.
In addition to the parties and counsel, several family members and friends of the victim were present at the hearing. Mr. Rossi’s mother was also present.
An issue was raised regarding the admissibility of portions of the victim impact statements (VIS) that were filed with the Board. We heard this as a preliminary motion and ruled prior to hearing the evidence on the annual review. Our ruling is set out in detail below.
On the annual review, all parties agreed the evidence established that Mr. Rossi remained a significant threat to the safety of the public and that a detention order in the Integrated Forensic Program of the Royal Ottawa was necessary and appropriate. What was contentious between the parties was the hospital’s recommendation for the privilege of living in the community in approved, 8-hour supervised, accommodation. While Mr. Rossi agreed with the hospital, counsel for the Attorney General argued that any community living ought to be restricted to accommodation with 24-hour supervision.
For the reasons set out below, the panel agreed that the significant threat threshold continued to be met and that a detention order in the Integrated Forensic Program was the necessary and appropriate disposition. We agreed that it was also necessary and appropriate to include a community living privilege. We ordered that any approved community living be specifically at Lebreton Transitional Housing (“Lebreton”), an 8-hour supervised transitional housing facility affiliated with the Royal Ottawa.
The Index Offences
We base the following brief summary of the index offences on the Agreed Statement of Facts submitted to the Court that was the basis for the finding that Mr. Rossi committed the offences. The Agreed Statement of Facts was made an Exhibit at Mr. Rossi’s initial hearing last year but is not referenced in the Hospital Report. The Hospital Report cites the police synopsis and should be updated.
On December 10, 2022, Mr. Rossi met Sommer Boudreau in a bar in Deep River. He did not drink alcohol but was smoking cannabis that evening. He and Sommer left the bar and went to his home. Mr. Rossi understood they were having a romantic encounter but also became increasingly suspicious of Sommer once they were back at his home. During a playful physical encounter, Mr. Rossi believed Sommer was becoming aggressive and then violent. He concluded she was an assassin who was trying to kill him. Mr. Rossi became violent in response and ultimately used a large mortar bowl from a nearby table to hit Sommer on the head several times. These injuries caused her death.
Mr. Rossi believed that others may come to kill him. He decided to fake his own death and make the home look like a scene from a Saw movie. To affect this, he did several things to Sommer’s body that amounted to indignities. The scene was bloody and odd in ways consistent with Mr. Rossi’s reported delusions.
The next evening, Mr. Rossi went to a Shopper’s Drug Mart (because it was bright and public) and asked to use a phone. He called 911. When the police arrived, he told them there was a dead body in his home.
Background / Context
Mr. Rossi is 42 years old. He was born and raised in Barrie. His parents separated when he was young and he has had no contact with his father (although his siblings have, as adults). He had a difficult childhood marked by instability and at least one abusive man in the house. Nonetheless, Mr. Rossi was a fine student and there were no early behavioural issues reported.
Mr. Rossi’s education was interrupted on a couple of occasions. He quit high school at 16 to take care of his mother after she had a serious car accident. He earned his diploma a couple of years later through adult education. He went to college, hoping to become a teacher, but returned home after his stepfather died and never went to teacher’s college. He worked in retail, as a property manager and delivering pizzas.
Mr. Rossi has suffered chronic pain for many years due to rheumatoid arthritis and fibromyalgia. After trying various kinds of pain relief, he settled on cannabis as the most effective. Mr. Rossi purchased high THC strain and used on average one gram a day (on any given day between .5 and 2 grams) for his pain. But for a three-year period when he abstained, Mr. Rossi used cannabis in this fashion consistently for many years.
Mr. Rossi was briefly married when he was 30 years old and has a daughter who was born after the couple separated.
In 2015, when he was 34 years old, Mr. Rossi had his first psychotic episode. At the time, he reported some symptoms of mania in the past. He also had paranoid delusions about being followed and monitored by the police as part of a scheme to recruit him as an undercover officer of some kind. While unwell, he reported paraphilic interest and behaviour towards his daughter. This led to him being restricted from access to his daughter and an investigation. Although the investigation did not lead to any charges, Mr. Rossi still has no contact with his daughter. (The Hospital Report suggests that it remains unclear to this day if this report was reality based on a product of his psychosis.) Mr. Rossi responded well to antipsychotic medications in hospital and was discharged after two weeks with a diagnosis of psychosis not otherwise specified.
Thereafter, Mr. Rossi had many episodes of depression, mania and psychosis. He invariably responded well and quickly to antipsychotic medications but stopped taking them either immediately or after several months when he was left to his own devices. When unwell, he was typically grandiose, paranoid, disinhibited and disorganized. On one occasion in 2020 he was described as aggressive and had to be physically and chemically restrained when he was brought to the hospital by police. He was at other times reported to have thrown objects and to have entered a stranger’s house. When stabilized, he had residual paranoia and grandiosity.
There was one lengthy gap in Mr. Rossi’s psychiatric records – he had no apparent hospitalizations between June 2017 and September 2020. This corresponded with his having stopped using cannabis in an effort to be permitted to see his daughter again.
Between 2015 and 2022, Mr. Rossi lived with his mother. In September 2022, Mr. Rossi moved to Deep River into a home his mother rented. The plan was for her to also move to Deep River once she was able to sell her business.
Mr. Rossi had stopped taking his antipsychotic medications around the same time as his move. His mother reported that in the weeks leading up to the index offence, she noticed that Mr. Rossi was not doing well – he was texting frequently, his spelling had errors and his phrasing was odd – something she recognized as a sign he was unwell. Mr. Rossi was also behaving strangely.
Approximately one week after he was arrested and detained, Mr. Rossi started back on antipsychotic medication and (as was typical) his condition quickly improved.
Mr. Rossi was found not criminally responsible in December 2023 but remained in custody at the Ottawa-Carleton Detention Centre at the time of his initial hearing last year (March 23, 2024) because there were no beds on the Forensic Assessment Unit at the Royal Ottawa. Dr. F. Wood saw him approximately once a month during that time and worked with Mr. Rossi to optimize his medications. Mr. Rossi’s symptoms of mania and psychosis were in remission.
The Current Year
Dr. Rhys Linthorst, a post-graduate year 6 resident in forensic psychiatry under the supervision of Dr. F. Wood, wrote the Hospital Report and testified at the hearing.
Mr. Rossi was finally transferred from the jail to the FAU on October 16, 2024 (ten months after he was found NCR). He has remained in the FAU since then, as required by last year’s disposition.
Dr. Linthorst testified that when Mr. Rossi first arrived at the Royal, he was downcast. In the first couple of weeks, he slowly began to participate in activities on the FAU, including the following groups: managing difficult emotions, education regarding NCR and recovery, and goal setting. By the time of the hearing, Mr. Rossi was also participating in one-to-one and group addictions counselling, one-to-one chronic pain self-management, and on a wait list for one-to-one trauma counselling.
Mr. Rossi has remained medication compliant and, although initially reluctant, agreed to switch to a long-acting injectable antipsychotic medication (LAI). While a year ago he had some residual symptoms, they have now resolved. His insight into his diagnosis and need for medication long term has improved – Dr. Linthorst described it as “good” at the hearing. Mr. Rossi’s insight into the negative impact of cannabis use on his mental health has also improved. He was described as “very motivated” not to relapse into psychosis and has accepted that he must remain abstinent from cannabis. Mr. Rossi is remorseful for the index offences.
Dr. Linthorst explained that given Mr. Rossi’s history, medication adherence and abstinence from cannabis are both crucial for Mr. Rossi to be ultimately successful in his rehabilitation. Medication adherence is assured (at least while under the jurisdiction of the Board) while Mr. Rossi agrees to a LAI. His cannabis use is being addressed with addictions counselling and relapse prevention counselling, but pain management will be essential, given that this was the basis for Mr. Rossi’s past use of cannabis. The team has started Mr. Rossi on gabapentin as a prophylactic measure, and it is being titrating up.
Dr. Linthorst described Mr. Rossi as “exceptionally compliant” with medication, having no negative or antisocial attitudes at baseline, and demonstrating emotional regulation. He has posed no difficulties with staff or other patients.
Mr. Rossi is diagnosed with bipolar disorder, cannabis use disorder, and unspecified trauma and stress-related disorder. He does not meet the criteria for paraphilic disorder.
Dr. Linthorst opined that Mr. Rossi is a moderate to high risk to reoffend.
Dr. Linthorst testified that Mr. Rossi is ready to move to the Forensic Rehabilitation Unit (FRU) but once his disposition allows for him to be moved there, he will be put on the waitlist and it will likely be three months or more before he is moved. The plan is then for Mr. Rossi to undergo certain assessments (ability to manage tasks of independent living, etc.) and engage in further rehabilitative programs. He will slowly be granted privileges that will provide the team with helpful information about his risk factors (does he use his privileges appropriately and adhere with expectations, does he use substances, does he remain stable). Dr. Linthorst predicted that Mr. Rossi might progress through the privilege ladder quicker than many forensic patients, due to his wellness, stability, and prosocial behaviour and attitudes. Nonetheless, his progression through the ladder will be gradual and only proceed if no risk emerges in how he exercises those privileges.
Dr. Linthorst opined that Mr. Rossi may progress to the point of being ready for community living over the course of the year. If so, the team had a specific placement in mind – Lebreton, transitional supportive housing under the auspices of the Royal Ottawa. It has eight-hour a day supervision. If Mr. Rossi were moved to Lebreton, he would be assigned an Assertive Treatment Team who could potentially provide daily check-ins in addition to the oversight provided by the staff at Lebreton and the forensic team.
Dr. Linthorst explained that Lebreton was the highest scrutiny transitional housing available that was appropriate for Mr. Rossi’s level of functioning. While another transitional home (Grove) was 24-hour supervised, it caters to clientele who were lower functioning and have higher needs than Mr. Rossi. If Mr. Rossi were to apply to Grove, his application would likely be rejected. Other alternatives would look more like a group home and would be riskier for other reasons – less closely associated with the Royal, more substance use among the other residents, less access to various treatment modalities. Dr. Linthorst also stated that Mr. Rossi was not someone who was likely to decompensate over the course of 16 hours.
Mr. Rossi’s mother remains an important support for him. She visits him twice a week. She participates in meetings about his care as appropriate. She is learning more about his condition and treatment. A letter from her outlining her perspective of Mr. Rossi’s progress and condition was made an exhibit.
Mr. Rossi’s mother has secured a home in Renfrew and is hopeful that Mr. Rossi will eventually be able to live with her there. She is committed to supporting him in any way she can.
Victim Impact Statements
The Board received Victim Impact Statements (VIS) from Carrie Boudreau, Tia Boudreau, Tyee Boudreau, Shallen Dearing, and a “Community VIS” which consisted of statements from several individuals (Santana Stallberg, Tania Milosevic, Skye Mullen, Jennifer Donnelly, Olivia Picard, and Mandy Bredlaw) pulled together in one form.
In advance of the hearing, counsel for Mr. Rossi advised the Board and the other parties that in her submission portions of some of the VIS were beyond the statutory parameters and she would be asking the panel to redact certain portions. She provided the Board and the parties with her suggested redactions (a copy of which was marked as Exhibit A on the Motion).
We note that it is not uncommon for panels to receive VIS that are, in part, inadmissible and simply disabuse themselves of that portion which is inadmissible. In many cases, this manner of proceeding is agreeable to the parties, causes no prejudice and is efficient. In this case, Ms. Munsterman, on behalf of Mr. Rossi, sought to follow a more formal process. Given the engagement of the victims to date, she pointed out that there was some benefit to educating them regarding the parameters of a VIS – it is likely to come up again at subsequent annual reviews. She also pointed out that there may be prejudice to Mr. Rossi (who listened attentively to the VIS being read). Time had been allotted for the motion and we proceeded to hear it.
Before the panel deliberated regarding the VIS, several portions or statements that were at issue were withdrawn or replaced, obviating the need for the panel to consider them. We say no more about those.
The remaining proposed redactions fell into two categories – references to Mr. Rossi’s risk and what should happen to him (Carrie Boudreau’s statement at pages 4 and 5, and Tania Milosevic’s statement and Jennifer Donnelly’s statement within the Community Statement at pages 36 and 38, all Exhibit A) and references to Ms. Boudreau falling within the community of Indigenous women, murdered and missing (Tyee Boudreau’s statement at page 22, and Santana Stallberg’s statement within the Community Statement at page 35, both Exhibit A).
The panel agreed with Ms. Munsterman that the portions of Carrie Boudreau’s VIS and the Community VIS (per Tania Milosevic and Jennifer Donnelly) that referenced Mr. Rossi’s current and future dangerousness and what his disposition ought to be, should be redacted. The statements fell outside the appropriate ambit of a VIS.
Regarding the second category, Ms. Munsterman was concerned that the statements were inflammatory due to the suggestion that Mr. Rossi had targeted Ms. Boudreau because she was an Indigenous woman. Ms. Munsterman, however, acknowledged that there was another way of interpreting these comments – that a relevant aspect of the impact of the index offence on Sommer Boudreau’s friends and family, is that she was one of large and growing number of missing or murdered Indigenous women in this country. Ms. Munsterman was content for the statements to remain in the VIS if understood in this way. The panel left these statements in.
Having addressed the motion regarding the contents of the VIS, four of the VIS were read at the hearing. Carrie Boudreau, Sommer’s mother, was unable to attend the hearing but her statement was read by her son (Sommer’s brother). Tia and Tyee Boudreau, two of Sommer’s children read in their statements. Lastly, Shallen Dearing, a close family friend and a kind of surrogate mother to Sommer’s children, read her statement. The VIS speak for themselves. They describe the loving, lively, strong woman that Sommer was. They describe the devasting impact the index offences have had on Sommer’s family and close friends.
Significant Threat
- The panel had no trouble concluding that Mr. Rossi remains a significant threat to the safety of the public as conceded by Mr. Rossi. While Mr. Rossi has stabilized well, first in jail and more recently in hospital, he is in the early stages of his rehabilitation. He started medications and after some adjustments they appear to be optimized. While in a secure setting, he has remained abstinent from cannabis. When well-treated and abstinent from cannabis, Mr. Rossi’s illness is in remission. He is not aggressive. He is cooperative, polite, motivated to work with the team and make progress towards his rehabilitation. But Mr. Rossi has just begun the various programs and therapies designed to assist him in staying well and successfully reintegrating into the community. He has not had any unsupervised access to the hospital grounds, let alone the community. The team does not know if he will remain abstinent from cannabis when he is given access to it, particularly if he is in pain. The team does not know how he will cope with destabilizing stress. Mr. Rossi remains a significant threat to the safety of the public.
Necessary and Appropriate Disposition
The panel agreed with the parties that the necessary and appropriate disposition remained a detention order for the reasons set out above – Mr. Rossi must be gradually and cautiously granted privileges so that the team can assess how he does and if his risk increases with increased liberty. He must remain not only under a detention order, but in hospital for the time being as they work through this.
This hearing was primarily focused on the Hospital’s proposed community living term. Ultimately the panel agreed with the Hospital that it was appropriate that the disposition include a privilege of living in the community in an approved supervised setting. After hearing all the evidence, we also agreed that Mr. Rossi did not necessarily need 24-hour supervised accommodation (as advocated for by counsel for the Attorney General). We were convinced that Lebreton was the most appropriate transitional housing and that, so long as Mr. Rossi was there, 8-hour supervision would be sufficient. Accordingly, we amended the proposed term so that it specified Lebreton. Our thinking is explained below.
Mr. Rossi is not currently ready to be transitioned to community living. He must first move to the FRU (which may take several months) and from there begin the rehabilitative process, including accessing gradual privileges. However, we accepted Dr. Linthorst’s evidence that Mr. Rossi may well progress through the privilege ladder quickly, given his attitude and behaviours and current stability. He may be ready for transition to the community this year. Mr. Rossi is well-treated, his illness is in remission, he is apparently motivated to remain abstinent from cannabis, has increased insight into his illness, and does not have some of the personality characteristics that often get in the way of progress under the jurisdiction of the Board.
Although being able to put Mr. Rossi on a waitlist for housing was not the hospital’s reason for recommending the term in his disposition, including the term would also allow for that.
Given the seriousness of the index offence, we gave serious and careful consideration to whether anything short of 24-hour supervised housing would be appropriate for Mr. Rossi as he transitions to living in the community.
We were convinced that Lebreton, which was only 8-hour supervised housing, was preferable for Mr. Rossi’s transition for several reasons. As described by Dr. Linthorst, Lebreton is associated with the Royal. The forensic team and staff at Lebreton are used to working together. With the assistance of the Assertive Treatment Team, they can ensure that Mr. Rossi is closely monitored and has adequate support. While the supervision will not be 24-hour, it will be integrated in a manner that will ultimately be more effective in the particular facts of this case. At the same time, the placement there offers other benefits. The population is higher functioning than that in alternatives and is better suited to Mr. Rossi. Lebreton has programs that Mr. Rossi will be able to take advantage of. Cannabis use will be less of an issue than it would be at a group home. Importantly, Dr. Linthorst testified that Mr. Rossi will not decompensate over the course of 16 hours (and nothing in his history suggests he would decompensate quickly). Thus, although we were not convinced that any 8-hour supervised setting would be appropriate, we were convinced that permitting community living at Lebreton, was necessary and appropriate.
DATED this 25th day of June 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Leslie Maunder Alternate Chairperson
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board