Ontario Review Board
Re: Michael Vainshtein
ORB File No: 4983
Hearing Held On: Thursday, December 4, 2025
Place of Hearing: Waypoint Centre for Mental Health
Pursuant To: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Ms. C. Finley
Members: Dr. P. L. Darby Dr. G. Kerry Ms. A. La Viola Ms. D. Smith
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Michael Vainshtein
Amicus Curiae: Mr. A. Rai
Person in charge of Hospital: Counsel: Mr. J. Thomson
Attorney-General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. S. Curry
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated January 28, 2026)
OVERVIEW
- Michael Vainshtein was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on January 10, 2008. The charges consisted of three counts of robbery using a firearm, contrary to the Criminal Code. He is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated December 30, 2024, detaining him at the High Secure Provincial Forensic Programs of the Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care, with privileges extending to staff-escorted passes on hospital grounds beyond the secure perimeter.
ISSUES
On December 4, 2025, the Board convened at Waypoint for a hearing further to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code to review the disposition. The Board was asked to determine whether Mr. Vainshtein represented a significant threat to the safety of the public at the time of the hearing, and further, what the necessary and appropriate disposition is in the circumstances according to the factors set out in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
At the outset of the hearing, Mr. Rai advised that, similar to past occasions, Mr. Vainshtein had refused to speak with representatives from his office. Given the circumstances, Mr. Rai agreed to act as Amicus Curiae. In addition, an order was issued pursuant to s. 672.5(10) of the Criminal Code, permitting Mr. Vainshtein to be absent from the hearing for reasons that forcing him to attend against his wishes would likely cause him to be violent, putting those involved at risk.
Counsel for the Hospital and Counsel for the Attorney General submitted their respective views – Mr. Vainshtein continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public – both agreeing that he continues to require the high secure forensic hospital setting at Waypoint, under the current disposition, with no change. Amicus Curiae did not take a position.
FINDINGS
- After the hearing, the Board found that Mr. Vainshtein continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to his ongoing regressive behaviours, history of aggression, and persistent mental health challenges. His continued pattern of impulsivity and aggressive actions, coupled with a lack of insight into his condition, necessitates stringent management and monitoring to mitigate risks associated with his potential for violent behaviour. Therefore, the Board concluded that the appropriate disposition is to maintain Mr. Vainshtein’s detention at Waypoint, as a less secure hospital environment would be inappropriate given his current state and the requirements for effective treatment and safety.
PERSONAL BACKGROUND
The Hospital Report dated October 21, 2025 was entered as an exhibit at the hearing. The following background information, including the events surrounding the index offences has been taken from the Hospital Report, summarized here as follows.
On January 22, 2007, Mr. Vainshtein entered a convenience store as it was closing, pretending to have a gun in his coat and demanded money from the store owner, who recognized him and felt no threat. On January 25, 2007, he was observed loitering outside a nearby video store, where he attempted another robbery by demanding $4,000 while again simulating a firearm. After being removed from the store, he was noted to have an injured hand and was described as appearing unkempt. On February 2, 2007, he entered a sushi restaurant, threatened the owner by mimicking having a gun, and stole approximately $1,500. The next day, he demanded access to the safe at a Boston Pizza restaurant, threatening staff with a firearm, which led to a struggle before he was subdued by employees and arrested, revealing he possessed $838 in cash at that time.
Mr. Vainshtein is currently 43 years old. He was born in Tbilisi, Georgia (Former Republic of the Soviet Union), and he immigrated to Canada in 1995. He did well academically, completing Grade 12, and enrolling in computer science at Seneca College, but he was unable to complete this course of study due to the onset of mental illness.
From the ages of 16 to 19, Mr. Vainshtein held several jobs. He started his work experience at a telemarketing agency, later worked for six months at Canadian Tire, and had a three-month sales position at a marketing company.
A check of the Canadian Police Information Centre database showed that Mr. Vainshtein has a documented criminal history that includes multiple convictions. In 2005, he was convicted of assault. Notably, the assault conviction stemmed from an incident in hospital, where he violently confronted his father and threatened his psychiatrist. In 2007, he was again convicted of assault. Other convictions include failure to comply with probation, and other charges of uttering threats and failure to comply with recognizance (withdrawn).
PSYCHIATRIC BACKGROUND
Mr. Vainshtein’s current psychiatric diagnosis is Treatment Resistant Schizoaffective Disorder – Bipolar Type. He has been found incapable of making decisions about his medical treatment, and incapable of managing his finances. His parents are his substitute decision makers. Mr. Vainshtein is financially supported by the Ontario Disability Support Program.
Mr. Vainshtein’s psychiatric issues began in 2003 when he was 20 years old, marked by a troubled relationship with his parents, who expressed fear for their safety. In 2004, following threats made against his sister, the police were called due to his violent behaviour, which included punching walls and expressing a lack of control. He required both physical and chemical restraints during a visit to the emergency department, highlighting the severity of his condition.
By early 2005, Mr. Vainshtein’s diagnosis shifted from obsessive-compulsive disorder to bipolar disorder after he discontinued his medication against medical advice. His anger escalated to physical violence during a family meeting in October 2005, where he threw a water bottle at his father and later assaulted his psychiatrist, leading to security intervention. As of November 2006, he was homeless after being evicted from multiple apartments, and after having lost his parents’ financial support for refusing to seek social assistance or disability benefits.
After the index offences, Mr. Vainshtein was assessed at Oak Ridge Mental Health Centre (now known as Waypoint), where he was deemed incapable of consenting to treatment, resulting in the initiation of anti-psychotic medication with substitute consent. Following a finding of not criminally responsible, he was transferred to CAMH, where he had a confrontational episode with a psychiatrist during medication administration. His behaviour included refusing medication, creating an unsanitary living environment, and exhibiting hostility toward staff. After extensive discussions with his parents, ECT treatment began in September 2008, leading to improved tolerance and medication adjustments. However, he continued to resist medication and treatment guidelines for the following year, culminating in his transfer to Waypoint on December 18, 2009, due to ongoing behavioural challenges.
CURRENT COURSE
Mr. Vainshtein currently resides in the Beckwith program at Waypoint under the supervision of Dr. A. Mishra. He remains in seclusion due to ongoing incidents of aggression, both verbal and physical, which are necessary to ensure the safety of others. His seclusion orders are reviewed daily by an independent psychiatrist, and a total of 13 consultations have confirmed the need for continued seclusion, which continue to be regularly assessed by the treatment team.
In terms of mental health status, Mr. Vainshtein is alert and oriented, but he displays unpredictable and impulsive behaviour, with mood fluctuations ranging from withdrawn to irritable. Although he continues to experience auditory and visual hallucinations, their intensity has reportedly diminished at times. He often engages in verbal aggression towards staff and co-patients, particularly when his demands are not met, and while physical aggression has decreased, it still manifests in forms such as spitting and throwing items.
He is regularly assessed for opportunities to come out of seclusion. Mr. Vainshtein usually engages a shower routine that allows him some freedom without restraints. While he is permitted some freedom to engage in self-care, there is an increased risk due to his unpredictable behaviour.
His parents act as his substitute decision-makers regarding treatment, and medications are mixed into his food to ensure compliance. Recently, he appeared to be improving behaviourally as he has been consuming more of the food offered to him, suggesting an increase in engagement and awareness of his treatment.
Mr. Vainshtein underwent an external seclusion consultation on February 12, 2025. Notably, Mr. Vainshtein refused to participate. Instead, the consultation was based on a review of material provided and discussions with the treatment team. Some findings included the opinion that Mr. Vainshtein continues to experience psychotic symptoms, and without seclusion measures, his risk of violent behaviour remains high. However, he has responded positively to lithium treatment over the past year, showing improved organization and compliance with blood work. Trials of various medications were recommended, recognizing that psychotherapeutic interventions may be ineffective due to his current state.
EVIDENCE AT THE HEARING
The evidence included comprehensive testimony from Dr. A. Mishra regarding Mr. Vainshtein’s current mental health status and behaviour. Dr. Mishra stated that Mr. Vainshtein demonstrated some regressive behaviour over the past year, particularly defecating on the floor instead of in the toilet, in addition to passing it on a plate under the door or defecating in the shower. To address these behaviours, a management plan was devised, including giving him an iPad with preloaded movies, which has led to a reduction in problematic behaviours. Although Mr. Vainshtein participated in seclusion relief effectively, including coming out four to five times a month, he did not engage socially with others, even during the summer when he was offered opportunities to play games in the courtyard.
During seclusion relief, Mr. Vainshtein accesses ‘high-risk’ showers without restraints, monitored by staff in a closed corridor. To increase safety, anti-slip mats have been placed in the shower area. Medication changes have shown a slight improvement in his condition. He recently managed to have blood tests without a struggle, which is essential for monitoring his lithium levels. Discussions with his parents led to the consideration of adding an atypical medication, though challenges persist due to administering covert medication mixed with food.
Mr. Vainshtein currently does not have contact with his parents, despite their desire to communicate. They recently sent him a letter, which he promptly flushed down the toilet, without reading it. Behavioural interventions have been implemented, but Mr. Vainshtein struggles with consistency in engagement during therapeutic conversations. His interactions with staff have shown some improvement, as he has had some brief conversations with a few team members. However, his overall ability to tolerate discussions about symptoms or problems remains limited, with conversations typically centering on his interests, such as bodybuilding.
At the conclusion of the hearing. Amicus agreed with the initial positions taken by Counsels for the Hospital and the Attorney General, and no further submissions were made.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
(a) Significant Threat
The Board must first determine whether Mr. Vainshtein continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public as defined in Winko v. British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute), 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625. Based on the totality of the evidence, including the testimony of Dr. Mishra, and recent clinical findings, the Board has determined that Mr. Vainshtein continues to pose a significant threat to public safety.
Key factors contributing to this conclusion include his ongoing regressive behaviours, his history, and continuation of aggressive behaviours, and the challenges associated with his current mental health condition.
Mr. Vainshtein continues to demonstrate a troubling pattern of regressive behaviour, including using the floor for defecation and throwing items during moments of frustration. Such actions signify a significant level of impulsivity and aggression that presents a danger to both him and others within the facility. The evidence also showed that Mr. Vainshtein has engaged in physical aggression, such as spitting at staff and punching windows, highlighting his inability to control aggressive impulses. Moreover, Mr. Vainshtein’s consistent need for seclusion is a critical indicator of the risk he poses. The necessity for frequent seclusion stems from instances of verbal and physical aggression, reinforcing the understanding that without such measures, he would likely present an imminent risk of harm to staff and co-patients. Although he has had opportunities for seclusion relief, he frequently declines social interactions, suggesting a lack of readiness for reintegration into a communal living environment.
Additionally, Mr. Vainshtein’s persistent mental health challenges, including auditory hallucinations and obsessive-compulsive symptoms, underscore the volatility of his condition. His refusal to acknowledge the seriousness of his illness contributes to an unpredictable nature, further heightening the threat he poses. The absence of insight into his condition and the reluctance to engage in therapeutic interventions prevent effective management of his aggressive tendencies.
Overall, the Board concludes that Mr. Vainshtein’s combination of regressive behaviours, history of aggression, necessity for seclusion, and ongoing psychiatric symptoms culminate in a significant threat to public safety. These assessments necessitate a continued focus on stringent management and monitoring strategies to mitigate the inherent risks associated with his potential for violent behaviour.
(b) Necessary and Appropriate
The Board must next determine the disposition that is necessary and appropriate in the circumstances. The disposition must embrace the principle of the ‘least onerous and least restrictive’ outcome, with due consideration given to Mr. Vainshtein’s liberty interests, which must also be consistently weighed together with concerns about public safety (the paramount concern), his mental condition, and his reintegration into society, as required by s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
The Board has determined that Mr. Vainshtein requires a detention order to remain at Waypoint, with no change to his current disposition, while noting the efforts Dr. Mishra and the treatment team have made to address Mr. Vainshtein’s risk. These efforts include continuous consultation with other psychiatrists, consideration of changes to medications, ongoing discussions with the substitute decision makers (his parents), and a behavioural plan designed to assist in trials out of seclusion, when it is safe to do so.
The Board’s decision is grounded in several key factors that highlight the inappropriateness of transferring Mr. Vainshtein to a less secure environment. Firstly, Mr. Vainshtein’s ongoing patterns of aggressive and regressive behaviours present a substantial risk to himself and others. His history of verbal and physical aggression necessitates a high level of supervision and security that is only available at Waypoint. Transferring him to a less secure facility would significantly increase the likelihood of him engaging in violent acts, jeopardizing the safety of staff, co-patients, and the surrounding community.
In addition, Mr. Vainshtein’s ability to manage his behaviour is heavily dependent on his current seclusion status at Waypoint. The structured environment provided by seclusion allows for consistent monitoring and intervention, which is crucial given his history of impulsive and aggressive actions. Without the confines of seclusion, the risk of his engaging in harmful behaviours increases significantly. Therefore, his treatment and behaviour management strategies are intrinsically linked to the high-security measures in place, reinforcing the necessity for him to remain detained at Waypoint.
Secondly, the challenges associated with Mr. Vainshtein’s mental health condition further support the need for continued high-security measures. His persistent symptoms, including auditory hallucinations and impulsive behaviour, demonstrate that he has not yet achieved the stability or the insight necessary for a less restrictive environment. A transition to a lower-security setting could hinder his treatment progress, as he may be less supervised and more susceptible to acting on his aggressive impulses.
Moreover, the successful management strategies currently in place at Waypoint, including structured seclusion and targeted therapeutic interventions, are specifically designed to address Mr. Vainshtein’s complex needs. A less secure environment would likely lack these comprehensive resources and protocols, increasing the risk of destabilization and potential harm during critical treatment phases.
Lastly, Mr. Vainshtein’s reluctance to engage with staff and therapeutic opportunities indicates that he is not yet ready for the increased autonomy that a less secure facility would provide. Without demonstrated insight into his condition and the ability to consistently manage his behaviours, a less secure environment could exacerbate his issues rather than facilitate meaningful reintegration into society.
In light of these considerations, the Board concludes that maintaining Mr. Vainshtein’s current detention at Waypoint is essential for ensuring his safety, the safety of others, and the successful management of his mental health condition, while providing effective means of treatment, in light of the significant risks associated with Mr. Vainshtein’s current mental state.
DATED this 28th day of January 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Ms. A. La Viola Legal Member
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board