Re Christopher J. La-Russa, 2026 CanLII 15143

Ontario Review Board

Re: Christopher J. La-Russa

(a.k.a. LaRussa and/or La Russa)

ORB File No: 8276/8464

Hearing held on: Friday, January 9, 2026

Place of Hearing: Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre

Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code

Before:

Alternate Chairperson: Ms. M. Labrosse

Members: Dr. S. Lessard

Dr. G. Boulais

Mr. D. D’Intino

Ms. K. Brisson

Parties Appearing:

Accused: Christopher J. La-Russa

Counsel: Ms. C. Richards

Person in charge of hospital: Representatives: Dr. C. Sani

Dr. M. Strike

Attorney-General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. J. Wright

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated February 23, 2026)

Introduction

1. On March 22, 2023, the accused, Christopher J. La-Russa, was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (“NCR”) on two counts of fail to comply with a probation order, one count of operation of a motor vehicle while prohibited, one count of possession of stolen property under $5,000 and one count of obstruct peace officer, all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (“the Criminal Code”).

2. In addition, on January 15, 2024, Mr. La-Russa was found NCR on a charge of break and enter.

3. Mr. La-Russa is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated January 25, 2025, which detains him at the Secure Forensic Unit of the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre on terms and conditions including permission to live in the community in a minimum 8-hour supervised accommodation approved by the person in charge.

4. On January 9, 2026, a panel of the Ontario Review Board (“ORB”) convened a hearing at the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre, hereinafter referred to as the hospital, to review Mr. La-Russa’s last disposition pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. La-Russa was present for the hearing and represented by his counsel, Ms. C. Richards.

5. An updated hospital report dated December 15, 2025, was entered as Exhibit 1 for the hearing. The Stonehenge Treatment Program completion report dated May 7, 2025, was entered as Exhibit 2 for the hearing.

6. The issues for this hearing are whether Mr. La-Russa continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public, and if so, to determine the necessary and appropriate disposition for the coming year.

7. At the outset, the parties were canvassed as to their preliminary without prejudice positions for the hearing, at which time the Board was presented with a joint recommendation that Mr. La-Russa continues to meet the threshold for significant threat to the safety of the public and that the detention order continues to be necessary and appropriate, with some minor modifications to the conditions which will be elaborated in the Analysis and Conclusion section of these Reasons.

8. For the reasons set out below, the Board finds that Mr. La-Russa continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public and that a detention order remains the necessary and appropriate disposition, with the changes proposed jointly by the parties.

Index Offences

9. The circumstances of the index offences for File No. 8276 are as follows:

“On April 17, 2020, as well as on August 18, 2021, Mr. La-Russa’s driving licence was suspended.

On June 24, 2022, as well as June 27, 2022, Mr. La-Russa entered into a probation order for 12 months. Both orders included a condition that he was to keep the peace and be of good behaviour.

On December 10, 2022, Mr. La-Russa was stopped by a Provincial Police officer on Highway 17. He had been driving a motor vehicle. He told the police officer that the vehicle belonged to his boss and that he had the permission to drive it. It was later confirmed that the vehicle had been stolen. He was charged with operating a motor vehicle while prohibited from doing so and with possession of stolen property as well as two counts of failing to comply with a probation order and obstructing a peace officer.”

10. The circumstances of the index offences for file No., 8464 are as follows:

“On July 30, 2023, Mr. Larussa, who had left the Royal Ottawa Hospital without authorization, attended the home of G.H. located at 162 Sherwood Drive. At around 0409, Mr. Larussa broke a patio door in the backyard of the home. A coffee table inside the home was damaged in the process. The homeowner (G.H.) woke up from the sound and found Mr. Larussa reading a magazine in her living room. The police were contacted, and Mr. Larussa was arrested. “All rights and cautions were read and [Mr.] Larussa was found to be exhibiting strange behaviour advising officers that he was “told to break into any house,” as he was cold and had nowhere to go.”

Background History

11. Mr. La-Russa’s personal, legal and psychiatric history is set out in detail in the hospital report. Briefly summarized, Mr. La-Russa is 38 years of age and was born and raised in Ottawa. He has a twin brother and an older brother. His parents divorced when he was about six years old. Mr. La-Russa struggled in school and was one credit short of his high school diploma. He later attended Algonquin College where he took a culinary management program but did not complete it. He has a limited employment history.

12. At 26 years of age, Mr. La-Russa married Sarah and they had a son. His marriage broke down following a period of incarceration.

13. Mr. La-Russa was involved in a major automobile accident in November 2019, when he ran his truck into a hydro pole at high-speed. He suffered serious but non-life-threatening injuries.

14. At the time of his initial assessment, Mr. La-Russa reported that he had been using cocaine and drugs his whole life.

Criminal History

15. Mr. La-Russa has a significant criminal record spanning from 2005 to 2022 which includes 16 convictions including charges of assault, driving offences, weapons offences, and failure to comply with the conditions of undertakings and probation orders. These various convictions are listed in the hospital report.

Psychiatric History

16. Although he had never received psychiatric treatment prior to the first set of index offences, Mr. La-Russa has been subjected to several significant stressors throughout his life including his parents’ separation when he was six years of age, significant substance use, the break-up of his marriage and subsequent inability to see his son and finally a serious motor vehicle accident. His mother reported that he sustained significant neurocognitive difficulties.

17. Mr. La-Russa’s current diagnoses include:

• Psychotic disorder due to another medical condition (Traumatic brain injury) versus Unspecified schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorder, in full remission (no psychotic symptoms since the late summer of 2023).

• Alcohol use disorder, severe; in early remission in a controlled environment

• Opioid use disorder, severe;

• Stimulant use disorder, severe;

• Unspecified trauma and stress related disorder.

• Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, combined presentation.

Evidence at the Hearing

18. The hospital’s evidence was presented through its report and through the oral testimony of Dr. M. Strike, Mr. La-Russa’s attending psychiatrist and Dr. Sani (PGY-6 Resident). This evidence is summarized below.

19. Mr. La-Russa had a restriction of liberty hearing on May 15, 2025, following his discharge from the Stonehenge Residential Treatment Program and several incidents where he breached his current disposition due to relapse into substance use.

20. Following his transfer from the Forensic Rehabilitation Unit (“FRU”) to the Forensic Assessment Unit (“FAU”) and ensuing restriction of liberty hearing, Mr. La-Russa was transferred back to the FRU before again being returned to the FAU in the context of further relapse into substances.

21. Mr. La-Russa was subsequently able to navigate a trial in a step-down bed at an approved transitional group home in the community before being placed in a permanent bed at the Whymering Residence at the end of November.

22. Mr. La-Russa’s bed at Whymering was reserved for him while he attended the Concurrent Disorder Unit treatment program at the hospital which he started on December 1, 2025. Unfortunately, Mr. La-Russa had an early discharge on week four of this program following refusal to provide a urine drug screen (“UDS”). The program requires participants to provide UDS’s upon request and as he refused, Mr. La-Russa was discharged from the program.

23. The discharge summary from the CDU Program states that Mr. La-Russa demonstrated excellent engagement and did not present any psychotic symptoms during his time on the CDU five-week program. However, because of his suspected relapse and the refusal to provide the UDS when required, he was forced to leave the program. He returned to the Whymering Residence on December 30, 2025.

24. The plan had been for Mr. La-Russa to complete the CDU five-week program and then engage in a 28-day further community residential treatment program at Sobriety House. Mr. La-Russa is still slated to start that program in February of 2026, but it is unclear whether he will do so.

25. In response to questions posed to him by counsel for the Attorney General, Mr. Wright, Dr. Sani stated that the longer-term plan for Mr. La-Russa is to possibly seek a bed at the Lebreton Transitional residence which has a more robust set of programming that would be impactful on Mr. La-Russa’s rehabilitation.

26. With respect to the current risk assessment, substance use relapses are the major risk factor for Mr. La-Russa, though his relapses have become less frequent and less intense. Mr. La-Russa has not demonstrated any problematic psychiatric presentation in some time such that the treatment team is currently adopting a harm reduction approach which is deemed to be more appropriate for his rehabilitation at this point.

27. Mr. La-Russa’s mother, who was present at the hearing, is considered a very good source of support and the hospital is confident that she is well engaged in the treatment plan and that she would report to the treatment team if there were any problems observed by her when Mr. La-Russa visits at her home.

28. In response to questions posed to him by counsel for Mr. La-Russa, Ms. Richards, Dr. Sani confirmed that Mr. La-Russa’s mother is a retired probation officer and that as a result of her years of work in this field, is quite aware of the issues and has a good understanding of the challenges faced by her son. Dr. Sani emphasized that the deep engagement with family is a strong protective factor for Mr. La-Russa. Though Mr. La-Russa is not having overnight visits at his mother’s home, they do see each other very regularly.

29. Dr. Sani confirmed that there have been no incidents of elopement in the past year, and that Mr. La-Russa has demonstrated more transparency with the members of the treatment team. He is seen very frequently by the various members of his treatment team as he attends the hospital five days a week.

30. With respect to his participation in the five-week CDU addictions’ program, Dr. Sani acknowledged that Mr. La-Russa experienced a break-up of a romantic relationship during that time and that he was experiencing emotions associated with that. He did have one positive UDS screen earlier in the program but then because of his refusal to provide another UDS, he was forced to leave the program.

31. With respect to questions posed to him by members of the hearing panel, Dr. Sani acknowledged that Mr. La-Russa had had previous elopements to the province of Quebec but that there are currently no concerns in that regard. The recommendation to include community access in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec are intended to provide Mr. La-Russa with maximum opportunities for leisure activities.

32. With respect to the anticipated Sobriety House Program, the treatment team is still unsure whether this will go ahead. Dr. Strike added that the current barrier is Mr. La-Russa’s level of engagement. Sobriety House will immediately discharge a participant if there is evidence that they are using. The hospital does not want Mr. La-Russa to attend a treatment program simply for the sake of doing so. It will only be beneficial to him if he is prepared to properly engage.

33. Dr. Sani acknowledged that there is some lack of clarity with respect to the impact of the traumatic brain injury on Mr. La-Russa’s presentation, though it stands to reason that this contributes to his impulsivity. It is also something that contributes to Mr. La-Russa’s overall increased brain fragility.

34. Dr. Sani was asked to describe the harm reduction approach adopted in the case of Mr. La-Russa. He responded that the hospital is adopting this given that Mr. La-Russa has shown some level of engagement and has not demonstrated an increase in psychotic symptoms when he has relapsed into substance use, which episodes seem to be less frequent and less intense. The hospital is working with Mr. La-Russa to encourage him to tolerate stressors without resorting to substance use. When he is unable to do so, the response of the treatment team is to adopt a non-punitive approach.

35. When he has relapsed in the recent year, Mr. La-Russa tends to favour cocaine and stimulants. Dr. Sani confirmed that if Mr. La-Russa goes to the Lebreton Residence there will be no tolerance of his use of drugs on site.

36. With respect to questions arising, Dr. Sani acknowledged to Ms. Richards that previous concerns about Mr. La-Russa absconding or eloping to the Province of Quebec occurred in 2023. Furthermore, if Mr. La-Russa was to experience any issues while being in the Province of Quebec, he understands the police can execute a Form 49 in Quebec. Dr. Sani also confirmed that given that Mr. La-Russa now has better boundaries in place with his ex-girlfriend, that he is not as susceptible to engaging in negative situations with her leading to relapse and elopement as has been the case in the past.

37. The hospital’s risk assessment is found on pages 76 and 77 of the hospital report and Mr. La-Russa’s reoffence scenario is summarized as follows:

“Despite overall improvement in his trajectory, Mr. La-Russa’s reoffence scenario continues to be most likely in the context of decompensation of psychosis, resulting from medication non-adherence, recreational drug use, and/or psychosocial stress. Delusional beliefs and disorganization of psychosis can drive him to act aggressively toward others. He may engage in criminal activity in the absence of psychosis.”

38. No other evidence was presented.

Submissions of the Parties

39. As stated, the parties maintained their joint position for the maintenance of the current disposition with the following changes to the disposition:

• Permission to reside in the community in accommodation approved by the person in charge;

• Permission to enter the community of Quebec and Eastern Ontario within a 100 km radius of the ROMHC, indirectly supervised.

• Permission to travel, for up to four days at a time, within Ontario or Quebec, indirectly supervised.

Analysis and Conclusion

40. Having considered all of the evidence tendered at the hearing, and the joint submission of the parties, the Board finds that Mr. La-Russa continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public as defined in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code of Canada and as further defined in the Supreme Court of Canada decision Winko v. British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute), 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625.

41. According to R. v. Winko, a significant threat to the safety of the public means a real risk of physical or psychological harm to members of the public that is serious in the sense of going beyond the merely trivial or annoying. The conduct giving rise to the harm must be criminal in nature.

42. In reaching our finding that Mr. La-Russa continues to meet the threshold for significant threat to the safety of the public, we considered the joint submission of the parties and the uncontroverted evidence of the hospital regarding Mr. La-Russa’s current diagnoses, his long history of severe substance use disorder, and an extensive history of criminal offending including when experiencing decompensation of his mental condition.

43. Mr. La-Russa continues to struggle considerably with his addictions. He has had several failed attempts at treatment in the past year but appears to be more open with his treatment team, as well as experiencing relapses that are shorter in duration and less intense. The hospital is currently adopting a harm-reduction approach, as a means of helping Mr. La-Russa develop better insight and engagement.

44. Mr. La-Russa continues to require the extensive support and oversight from his treatment team at the hospital and may soon start a further treatment program or be considered for one the transitional housing programs of the hospital. We wish him much success in the coming year.

45. We have taken into consideration the factors at s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code of Canada, namely the protection of the public, which is the paramount consideration, the mental condition of the accused, his reintegration into society and his other needs in coming to the unanimous finding that a detention order on the same terms and conditions remains, with the above-mentioned changes, is the necessary and appropriate and least onerous and least restrictive disposition in all of the circumstances.

DATED this 23rd day of February 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.

Ms. M. Labrosse Alternate Chairperson

__________________

Office of the Registrar

Ontario Review Board