Ontario Review Board
Re: Janusz Rusin
ORB File No: 7847
Hearing held on: Wednesday, August 13, 2025
Place of hearing: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health 1001 Queen Street West, Toronto
Pursuant to: Sections 672.48(1) and 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. P. Capelle
Members: Dr. P.E. Cook Dr. A. Park Mr. J. Goldenberg Ms. B. Little
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Janusz Rusin Counsel: Mr. J. Berman
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. M. Warner
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. M. Feindel
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated September 19, 2025)
Introduction
On February 4, 2021, Janusz Rusin was found unfit to stand trial on account of mental disorder on a charge of second-degree murder, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (the "Criminal Code"). Mr. Rusin is currently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the "Board") dated February 3, 2025, detaining him at the Secure Forensic Unit of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto (“CAMH”), with privileges up to live in the community in 24-hour a day supervised accommodation approved by the person in charge.
On August 13, 2025, a panel of the Ontario Review Board (the "ORB" or the "Board") convened a hearing pursuant to ss. 672.48(1) and 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada.
Preliminary Matters
Mr. Rusin was not in attendance but was represented by counsel, Mr. Berman.
Dr. Liu advised that Mr. Rusin had not attended his annual hearing for the past four years. Given the foregoing, Mr. Rusin’s attendance was excused pursuant to s. 672.5(10) of the Criminal Code. In Mr. Rusin’s absence, the Polish/English interpreter provided to assist him was excused.
Victim Impact Statements
Ms. Korica, the niece of Suzanna Ibbotson was in attendance together with her son Stefan Korica. Ms. Korica was given the opportunity to read the Victim Impact Statement, entered as Exhibit 2, but deferred the opportunity after being advised that the document had been carefully reviewed by all Panel members. She did request that Mr. Rusin’s Secure Forensic placement not be changed.
The Panel recognizes the enormous and continuing loss inflicted upon Ms. Ibbotson as a result of the death of her father at the hands of Janusz Rusin. We can certainly understand that attending the 2024 hearing was a traumatic experience for her and wish her well.
Without Prejudice Position of the Parties
Ms. Warner submitted that Mr. Rusin remains unfit and recommends a change to a term of the existing Detention Disposition requiring that he his detention within a “Secure Forensic” be amended to the broader term of “Forensic Service”. Mr. Feindel, for the Attorney General, together with Mr. Berman for Mr. Rusin agreed with the hospital’s position regarding Mr. Rusin’s fitness to stand trial and the ongoing propriety of a Detention Disposition. However, Mr. Feindel advised that he prefers the wording contained in the current disposition, specifically; “Secure Forensic” and will have questions as to why the proposed change to “Forensic Service” is required. Mr. Berman also stated that he was content with the wording contained in the current disposition.
Index Offences and Background
The circumstances of the index offence are taken from last year’s Reasons for Disposition as follows:
“The index offence occurred on April 21, 2020, during a violent confrontation between Mr. Rusin and an elderly co-resident of the apartment complex where they both lived. The victim, who was confined to a wheelchair, was beaten to death.”
Mr. Rusin’s personal and psychiatric history, including the details of his mental disorder and treatment since being found unfit, are described in detail in the Hospital Report, dated July 18, 2025, and entered as Exhibit 1. Briefly, Mr. Rusin is now 79 years of age. Prior to immigrating to Canada from Poland in 1989, Mr. Rusin, a chemist by training and a well-known professional boxer. He is currently separated from his spouse and has two adult daughters.
Mr. Rusin was found unfit to stand trial in February 2021. This finding has not been changed since that time.
As noted in the Board’s March 7, 2025, Reasons for Disposition, Mr. Rusin’s Forensic Clinical Team had previously sought to place him in 24/7 supervised community accommodation. However, his application was declined by several potential residences. Dr. Liu, on behalf of CAMH had recommended that the Board’s disposition include transitional placement within the Geriatric Inpatient Unit which operates within the hospital’s civil(non-forensic) psychiatric care envelope. This recommendation was put forward notwithstanding that the propriety of the proposed transfer had not been considered, let alone approved, by the Geriatric Inpatient Unit. That Panel of the Board demurred from ordering the transfer.
Current Diagnoses
Major Neurocognitive Disorder (mixed etiology)
Alcohol Use Disorder
Evidence at Hearing
Ms. Warner called Dr. Liu to testify on behalf of the hospital. He adopted the contents of the Hospital Report.
Mr. Rusin remains on the same Secure Forensic Unit where he can maintain structure and routine absent any changes to his presentation. During the past reporting year there has been no need for chemical or mechanical restraint and no seclusions. Dr. Liu described Mr. Rusin’s level of behavioural disturbance as being at the lower end of the spectrum.
Over the next 12 months there is no plan to discharge or transfer Mr. Rusin from the Secure Forensic Unit where he currently resides.
The recommendation to transfer to a General Forensic Unit would only be considered when the Secure Forensic Unit is deemed unsafe for Mr. Rusin. Dr. Liu added that his patient responds better to calmer co-patients housed on a General Forensic Unit. No move is imminent, but the broader designation is requested as a future safeguard.
The change of disposition wording “Secure Forensic” to “Forensic Service” is therefore requested,
in the event of an emergency, and/or
if the seclusion suites are filled on the two Secure Forensic Units, and/or
the need arises to move Mr. Rusin to a General Forensic Unit.
Dr. Liu emphasized that it remains essential for Mr. Rusin be housed on a locked unit with staffing commensurate to his physical needs. Mr. Rusin’s forensic treatment team is unanimous that he could be maintained on a Genera Forensic unit with exit controls and proper staffing.
According to Dr. Liu, his patient now responds better to structure. While he may question what is happening, he is not resistant. Mr. Rusin is mostly socially withdrawn and will often throw his food tray into the garbage during mealtime in the dining room and curse. Rather than physically interfering, he now tends to leave the dining room on his own accord and return to his room.
The treatment team anticipates that due to ongoing cognitive decline, Mr. Rusin will spend longer periods of time in his room. This reduces time he may become irritable because of exposure to the many unstable co-patients on the Secure Forensic Unit where he is currently housed.
Addressing the issue of fitness to stand trial, Dr. Liu remains of the opinion that his patient:
is unfit,
unamenable to fitness coaching and
likely permanently unfit.
Mr. Rusin often confuses the hospital with jail. He will call the Polish Embassy in that regard. He will also call police if he feels the food he is receiving is not right.
Responding to questions from Mr. Feindel, Dr. Liu advised that situational factors play a role in the request for a change in the disposition’s wording. The doctor added that if there are changes to the ecological system of the Secure Forensic Unit, Mr. Rusin may become reactive. It would therefore be safer to move him. Dr. Liu explained that there have been instances where Mr. Rusin was disturbed by ill co-patients and would stare at them although he did not attempt to approach. These types of events are triggering for Mr. Rusin. Dr. Liu conceded that there is no guarantee that similar incidents would not occur on a General Forensic Unit. Asked if the level of noise on a General Forensic Unit is lower than on a Secure Forensic Unit, Dr. Liu responded that he could not say.
Mr. Feindel suggested that if transferred to a General Forensic Unit, Mr. Rusin would have increased contact with co-patients as opposed to on a Secure Forensic Unit. Dr. Liu responded that he understood this to be the case. The doctor added that due to Mr. Rusin’s neurocognitive decline his patient has had a Personal Support Worker (PSW) assigned to him five days a week. The PSWs are assigned for personal hygiene and meal support, up to two hours per day and this assignment would continue if Mr. Rusin was transferred to a General Forensic Unit.
Mr. Feindel suggested that if transferred to a General Forensic Unit, Mr. Rusin would likely be on a mixed gender unit whereas he is currently on an all-male unit. Dr. Liu responded that potential placement on a mixed gender unit is not the primary concern. In the event gender composition of the unit is considered an issue, then the Board could specify that requirement.
Mr. Feindel further suggested, that ordinarily, a problematic patient on a Secure Forensic Treatment Unit would be transferred to the Acute Treatment unit, or, to another Secure Forensic Unit. Dr. Liu responded that such an option was not precluded.
Mr. Feindel noted that the hospital had previously made inquiries to explore a long-term community placement and that all available facilities with 24/7 supervision had responded that Mr. Rusin was inappropriate to reside there. Dr. Liu agreed, adding that discharge to the community is not envisioned in the upcoming reporting year as Mr. Rusin’s daughter Dorothy who acts as his Substitute Decision Maker (SDM) has not provided consent to long-term care placement. This is due to the concern that Mr. Rusin will not receive the same level of care as he currently receives in hospital and to guard against a repeat of the index offence.
Dr. Liu agreed that there is a greater staff-to-patient ratio on the Secure Forensic Units as compared to General Forensic Units. Further, permission of the SDM is not required vis-à-vis the movement of a patient from a Secure to a General Forensic Unit. Dr. Liu testified he is unaware if the SDM might consent to possible discharge to a long-term care facility if made aware that a transfer to a General Forensic Unit was being considered. Dr. Liu acknowledged that Mr. Rusin’s SDM’s perception is that Mr. Rusin would not receive the same level of care if transferred to a long-term care facility is reality based.
Dr. Liu agreed that clinically, little has changed vis-à-vis Mr. Rusin’s presentation from the time of the index offence to the date of this hearing, but for a degree of cognitive decline. Mr. Rusin now speaks more frequently in Polish than at the time of his initial admission and must be reminded repeatedly to switch back to English so staff can communicate with him.
Mr. Feindel suggested that other units outside the forensic system, such as the Care and Complex Care Unit (CCC) might be preferable to a General Forensic Unit for Mr. Rusin. Dr. Liu responded that this type of transfer would require a hospital-wide discussion as to where the patient should be relocated. Dr. Liu advised that Mr. Rusin is very routine bound. There is no imminent plan to move him to another unit, or that he be discharged.
Responding to questions from the panel, it was confirmed that in June of 2021, Mr. Rusin was placed on a Secure Forensic Unit and has remained there since. Additionally, two years ago, his Detention Disposition stipulated that he be maintained on a Secure Forensic Unit.
Dr. Liu conceded that if transferred to a General Forensic Unit, Mr. Rusin could have greater access to alcohol or drugs brought on to the unit by co-patients. The doctor added that Mr. Rusin has had very little interaction with co-patients on the Secure Forensic unit where he is currently housed. Dr. Liu agreed with the suggestion that patients housed on a General Forensic Unit are ordinarily en route to transitioning to the community.
It was conceded by Dr. Liu that there is currently no situation necessitating a transfer request. He was asked whether it may be appropriate to wait until an issue arises with Mr. Rusin’s placement and then request an early hearing. Dr. Liu responded that this was of course a possibility, but he would prefer to be more proactive by changing the wording of his patient’s Detention Disposition,
Dr. Liu noted that there are three Secure Forensic Units. One is unsuitable for a possible transfer as it houses patients from jail and patients with severe mental distress. Dr. Liu added that the seclusion suites on the two other Secure Forensic Units are often at capacity and this is when those Secure Forensic Units are at a crisis level.
A panel member observed that it seems unlikely that any long-term care facility is willing to accept Mr. Rusin and his SDM is also unwilling to agree to that type of move. Dr. Liu responded that there is no chance that his patient would be discharged in the next reporting year such that there is no harm in amending the Detention Disposition wording from “Secure Forensic” to “Forensic Service”.
Addressing the ongoing presence of significant threat, Dr. Liu opined that because Mr. Rusin can ambulate and does not present as weak, that he maintains the physical capacity to harm another person notwithstanding that there has been no recent incident of physical violence towards staff or other patients.
Closing Observations
Ms. Warner submitted that Mr. Rusin remains unfit. The summary of the clinical year is that this is an elderly gentleman on a slow but progressive neurocognitive decline with increased reactivity to his environment. The manner that the treatment team is approaching his care is to minimize exposure to external stimuli. What the team must pay attention to is that when his environment becomes over stimulating. Specifically, patients around him creating chaos in his immediate environment. Mr. Rusin can be kept calm if moved away and allowed to socially isolate.
Dr. Liu’s request is to be enabled to transfer his patient to a General Forensic Unit if that environment is less stimulating. If a General Forensic Unit is calmer than a Secure Forensic Unit, to transfer him, would not elevate his risk as he would continue to have the services of the PSW and remain subject to his behavioural management plan.
The retention of the community living provision is important as there remain possible placements in the community where he could be managed with the consent of the SDM. Ms. Warner added that intransigent SDMs are common and continued discussion with them vis-à-vis their thinking is ongoing. In the event appropriate community placement is found and the SDM refuses, then co-payment could be required. Additionally, the absence of the community living provision could prohibit the hospital from making inquiries as to suitable long-term care opportunities.
Mr. Feindel submitted that there is currently no plan to discharge Mr. Rusin to a long-term care facility or to move him to another unit in the hospital. What is being requested is a change to the wording of the disposition to address the possibility of a crisis that impacts this patient. Mr. Feindel submitted that it is hard to envision that other patients on the Secure Forensic Unit would not also be impacted by that same hypothetical crisis.
Mr. Feindel submitted that the mechanism to address the type of changes requested by Dr. Liu is that of an early review. It is unusual to put forward that a unit change is unlikely, but just in case, a change of wording that can address all circumstances is requested. This is a hypothetical situation and Mr. Rusin requires and benefits from the Secure Forensic Unit environment where he is currently housed.
The SDM’s position is that Mr. Rusin is being treated appropriately within a Secure Forensic Unit and resistance to long-term care placement speaks to an anxiety to the quality of care that Mr. Rusin would receive if not at CAMH. The SDMs seem to be acting in the interests of their father; they are quite satisfied with the service and care he is currently receiving.
Mr. Feindel stated that he has never before heard and that it is speculative to state that a General Forensic Unit may at times be safer than a Secure Forensic Unit, adding that this is speculative. Any potential crisis envisioned by Dr. Liu is hypothetical. A transfer to a General Forensic Unit is ordinarily contemplated when a patient is appropriate for that step.
Mr. Berman submitted that Mr. Rusin should remain on the Secure Forensic Unit where he belongs adding that any move would cause him distress.
Analysis and Decision
Fitness to Stand Trial
Earlier this year the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in R. Bharwani, 2025 SCC 26, which provides the decisive interpretation of the definition of “unfit to stand trial” within the Criminal Code as well as the application of the “fitness test”.
Before the Supreme Court of Canada, Counsel for Mr. Bharwani argued that the fitness test required an accused:
to have analytical capacity, meaning that the accused must possess the ability to make rational decisions in the conduct of their defence
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the above noted argument, stating the following at paragraph 6, vis-à-vis “fitness to stand trial”:
… an accused is fit to stand trial when they are able to make and communicate reality-based decisions in the conduct of their defence or instruct counsel to do so. Conducting a defence includes making decisions that an accused must always make personally and those which relate to the exercise of their right to full answer and defence, such as decisions about pleas, the mode of trial, selection of counsel, whether to testify, whether to call or cross-examine witnesses, and closing submissions, among others. The capacity required to make those decisions is a reality-based understanding of the nature or object of the proceedings and their possible consequences, an ability to understand the available options and their consequences, and an ability to select between those options when making decisions. Fitness to stand trial does not require an accused to make decisions in their best interests. Rather, it requires making decisions based on an understanding of reality that is not overwhelmed by delusions, hallucinations, or other symptoms of their mental disorder. Transient mental health symptoms do not necessarily compromise an accused’s ability to conduct a defence. The focus is always on assessing the extent to which an accused’s mental disorder impairs their understanding of reality when making and communicating decisions in their defence.
This issue of Mr. Rusin’s fitness to stand trail was only peripherally addressed during the evidentiary portion of the hearing as the Hospital’s position that he remains unfit and likely permanently unfit was uncontested. In making its independent finding, the Panel also relies on the information contained within the Hospital Report. An excerpt from page 26 is reproduced below
Mr. Rusin is judged to remain unfit at the time of this report. Over the past one year, he has been repeatedly assessed for Fitness.
Thereafter, at page 32 under the heading “Psychiatric Impressions and Recommendation”, subheading “Fitness to Stand Trial” an analysis regarding Mr. Rusin’s fitness to stand trial is provided and reproduced below for ease of reference:
Throughout the past supervisory year, Mr. Rusin continued to present as too cognitively impaired to participate meaningfully or communicate with counsel. This was obvious that he did not even remember those same questions that were asked just 30 minutes before. Even after psychoeducation was provided about his charge and current status under a WOC (Unfit), Mr. Rusin forgot what the charge was and why he was in hospital during the same interview session.
In my opinion, on the balance of probabilities, Mr. Rusin does not properly understand the nature and object of his criminal proceedings, the possible consequences of the proceedings, or be able to appropriately participate in the proceedings, including communicating with Counsel. This is as a consequence of his ongoing memory/cognitive impairments.
I am also of the opinion that he is likely permanently unfit. His cognitive impairments are irreversible and despite the past 4 years of clinical/behavioural stability he has not been able to benefit from Fitness coaching to improve in his Fitness. The chance of improvements in his cognitive function is infinitesimally small, so is his recovery to a state of Fitness.
Significant Risk
Ongoing significant risk to the safety of the public cannot be speculative. It must entail a real risk of serious physical or psychological harm arising from conduct that is both serious and criminal in nature.
In determining whether Mr. Rusin continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public the Board has carefully analyzed the evidence as it relates to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Winko, 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625.
Dr. Liu’s Composite Assessment of Risk is found out at page 34 of the Hospital Report and reproduced below for ease of reference:
Mr. Rusin continues to pose a significant threat to public safety as defined in Section 672.5401 of the Criminal Code at this time. This is connected to his dementia and propensity to consume excessive amount of alcohol if not properly supervised. His abnormal mental state continues to include significant cognitive impairment, on multiple domains, which may be associated with behavioural dyscontrol and re-offending behavior. When intoxicated, his cognitive impairments will be further compromised to the point that he loses behavioural control. This might lead to violence and physical aggression during interactions with people in the immediate environment.
Mr. Rusin has been found unfit to stand trial for a charge of Second Degree Murder.
If the ORB considers Mr. Rusin remains unfit to stand trial, detention in the Forensic Service at CAMH is necessary and appropriate for managing the re-offending risks. As Mr. Rusin’s clinical/behavioural manifestations have remained stable since his admission to CAMH without immediate concerns for causing harms to himself and others, the risk can be properly managed in supported environment with appropriate level of staffing support and exit control.
The Board unanimously finds that Mr. Rusin continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public. The Board considered the joint position of the parties and accepted the uncontroverted evidence of Dr. Liu that Mr. Rusin continues to pose a significant threat. The Board also relies on the Hospital Report and more specifically, the previously referenced Composite Assessment of Risk in arriving at its independent determination.
The Board therefore accepts that absent an ORB Disposition, Mr. Rusin would likely become non-compliant with prescribed medications which would lead to decompensation, alcohol abuse and the re-emergence of behaviours similar to those seen at the time of the index offence. We are satisfied that absent an ORB Disposition, it is likely that Mr. Rusin will cause serious physical or psychological harm to members of the public and such conduct will likely be criminal in nature.
(b) Disposition
Flowing from the Board’s finding that Mr. Rusin continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public it must shape a Disposition for the year ahead. Its paramount consideration in doing so must be the safety of the public while also considering Mr. Rusin’s needs pursuant to s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
The necessary and appropriate disposition for Mr. Rusin provides him as much freedom as possible without subjecting the community to a real risk of dangerous behaviour.
In considering Mr. Rusin’s needs, the Board was attentive to Dr. Liu’s request to amend the first numbered paragraph of his current Detention Disposition so as to read:
IT IS ORDERED that the accused be detained at the Forensic Service [emphasis added] of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto.
Having carefully considered the rationale put forward for the proposed amendment this Panel unanimously denies the Hospital’s request. Our determination relies largely on the testimony of Dr. Liu that recognizes Mr. Rusin has been well supported and appropriately maintained on the Secure Forensic Unit where he has been housed over the review period. Specifically, because
no situation currently exists necessitating Mr. Rusin’s transfer,
behaviourally problematic patients housed on a Secure Forensic Unit are currently transferred to the Acute Treatment Unit or to another Secure Forensic Unit,
there is a higher staff to patient ratio on the Secure Forensic Units as compared to the General Forensic Units,
Mr. Rusin has been able to maintain structure and routine absent any changes to his presentation,
Mr. Rusin has had very little interaction with co-patients,
due to ongoing cognitive decline, it is expected that Mr. Rusin will spend longer periods of time in his room thereby further reducing his exposure to co-patients,
Dr. Liu was unable to substantiate why the level of noise and/or disturbances on a General Forensic Unit is lower, therefore less triggering, than on a Secure Forensic Unit.
If transferred to a General Forensic Unit Mr. Rusin would have greater access to alcohol and/or substances brought onto the unit by co-patients.
Additionally, there was no evidence put forward that exposure to external stimuli and potential overstimulation negatively impacts Mr. Rusin in a manner any different from his co-patients on the Secure Forensic unit where he is currently housed. The negligible likelihood of community discharge constitutes insufficient justification to grant the amendment sought by the Hospital to the wording Mr. Rusin’s current Disposition.
Mr. Rusin remains properly placed on a Secure Forensic Unit environment within CAMH and the wording of his current disposition therefore need not be amended. The manner required to address the hypothetical crisis envisioned by Dr. Liu, were it to occur, is to request an early review pursuant to 672.81(2).
Conclusion
Therefore, the Board unanimously determines that the necessary and appropriate Disposition required to manage the threat Mr. Rusin poses to the safety of the public while still meeting his needs remains a Disposition, absent any changes.
In making this Disposition, the Board carefully considered the positions and submissions of the parties and the evidence of Dr. Liu and is satisfied that this determination is both necessary and appropriate. The Board reviewed the provisions of s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code and carefully considered the need to protect the public from dangerous persons, Mr. Rusin’s mental condition, his reintegration into society and other needs.
DATED this 19th day of September, 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Mr. P. Capelle Alternate Chairperson
__________________
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board