Re: James Rushton
ORB File No: 8306
Hearing held on: Friday, January 23, 2026
Place of hearing: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. J. Goldenberg
Members: Dr. G. A. Chaimowitz Dr. L. Leong Hon. B. Durno Mr. S. Doherty
Parties Appearing:
Accused: James Rushton Counsel: Mr. N. Jackson
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. M. Warner
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. K. Kirec
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated February 27, 2026)
James Rushton is under the authority of the Ontario Review Board (“ORB”), after being found Not Criminally Responsible (“NCR”) on a charge of second-degree murder on May 23, 2023.
Pursuant to a Nov. 13, 2024, ORB Disposition, Mr. Rushton is subject to a Detention Order in a General Forensic Unit, with conditions, including community living in approved accommodation, weekly reporting, abstinence from substances, a prohibition from possessing weapons, and the provision of samples for substance monitoring.
At his January 23, 2026, annual review, pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code, all parties agreed Mr. Rushton continued to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and recommended no changes to the current Detention Order and conditions. Taking those most important and helpful positions into consideration, the Board is required to make their own independent determinations on the threat to public safety and if the threat exists, the appropriate disposition after weighing the factors noted in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code: Re: Hassan, 2011 ONCA 561, at para. 25.
The evidence at the hearing consisted of the Hospital Report and Dr. Benassi’s testimony.
For the following reasons, the Board finds that Mr. Rushton continues to represent a significant risk to the safety of the public and the terms of the current Detention Order should continue pending his next hearing.
Mr. Rushton
- James Rushton is 44 years of age. He has worked as a cleaner, labourer, roofer, operated his own upholstery cleaning business for three years and worked from 2017 to 2019 at the Out of the Cold Program.
Psychiatric Diagnosis
Mr. Rushton’s current diagnoses are Schizoaffective Disorder - bipolar type, Alcohol, Stimulant, and Opioid Use Disorder, in remission in a controlled environment, Antisocial Personality Disorder, Historical diagnosis of Neurodevelopmental Disorder (learning disorder and ADHD).
Mr. Rushton has insight into his mental illness. He willingly takes the recommended medications, including clozapine to which he is responding well. He has a positive relationship with his treatment team.
The Index Offence
On October 2, 2019, Mr. Rushton and his father had an argument on a Toronto street corner while both were living on the streets. His father grabbed, hit, and possibly choked James Rushton before he toppled his father and began stabbing him multiple times before getting up. Mr. Rushton kicked his father several times and circled his body before going back and stabbing him several more times. His father received over 27 stab sounds to his head, neck, and chest.
James Rushton tried to drag his father down the street by his backpack, but he was too heavy. He dropped his father and ran away, eventually going down a stairwell to a garage where police located and arrested him as he was removing his clothing with noticeable blood stains on them. While in custody, he admitted killing “that man” and he “made sure of it.” He also admitted killing a Chinese man, the Gods and the spirits made him do it.
During the offence, voices told him to kill his father to prevent global destruction. There were no positive voices.
Dr. Benassi told the Board it was not fully clear why Mr. Rushton decompensated in October 2019.
Other Criminal Offences
- Mr. Rushton has a lengthy criminal record between 1997 in Youth Court and 2018 which includes entries for numerous violent offences, the most notable being manslaughter for which he received 5 ½ years in addition to credit for 40 months pre-trial custody in 2006 when he punched a man, accidentally killing him. The victim had allegedly sexually assaulted Mr. Rushton’s female friend. At the time of the offence, Mr. Rushton was under the influence of alcohol and cocaine.
Course Since Last Disposition
Despite adhering to prescribed medications, Mr. Rushton demonstrated significant vulnerability to fluctuations in mood and psychotic symptoms. They resulted in withdrawal from rehabilitative programming, multiple medication adjustments and later in the year, risk-enhancing behaviors, including substance use, absconding from hospital and physical deterioration.
In April 2025, Mr. Rushton experienced increased anxiety and distress related to religiously themed delusions and auditory hallucinations, describing an internal conflict between evil voices encouraging him to substance abuse and voices he perceived as angels or God, encouraging adherence to Christian values and Bible reading.
On May 18, 2025, Mr. Rushton absconded during an indirectly supervised community pass. Police were notified and he was returned to CAMH the next day. On his return, he was calm and cooperative admitting to using crack cocaine, crystal methamphetamine and alcohol while staying overnight with a friend. He was remorseful and repentant, attributing his conduct to the internal conflict between good and evil.
Dr. Benassi told the Board it was not fully clear why Mr. Rushton decompensated, although he felt an upcoming ORB hearing and his delusions were contributing factors.
In June 2025, after continuing to endorse religiously themed auditory hallucinations and appearing demoralized by his rehabilitative setback, Mr. Rushton consented to a trial of clozapine. From late June to the end of September, he remained significantly influenced by auditory hallucinations, remaining largely confined to his room, avoiding passes and appearing gaunt, having lost nearly 30 pounds.
By late September and into October, there was gradual improvement. Clozapine was titrated to 450 mg daily. There were improvements, albeit he continued to hear voices. Through November and December 2025, he showed improvement in his mental state. By the end of December, the treating team considered him to have returned to baseline, despite persistent residual auditory hallucinations.
After absconding, Mr. Rushton had to restart at the lowest level of privileges, gradually progressing to currently utilizing indirectly supervised passes on hospital grounds and staff-accompanied community passes. He maintained periodic contact with his former partner who resides in Barrie.
Mr. Rushton has insight into his mental illness, is receptive to treatment and has a positive relationship with the treatment team. He attends Narcotics Anonymous meetings locally with his peer support worker. He is very goal-oriented, wanting to earn greater liberties. All samples have been clean. He has resolved to work within the system and work his way back up the levels for passes.
In the Hospital Report, Drs. Benassi and Kravtsenyuk conclude Mr. Rushton remains a significant risk because of his history of serious violence, major mental disorder, risk of substance use, difficulties with treatment adherence, maladaptive personality disorder and elevated risk in the assessment scores outlined at pages 27-30 of the Hospital Report.
Turning next to the questions the Board is required to address.
Does Mr. Rushton pose a significant threat to the safety of the public?
The Law
A significant threat to the safety of the public means a risk of serious physical or psychological harm to members of the public – including any victim of or witness to the offence, or any person under the age of 18 years – resulting from conduct that is criminal in nature but not necessarily violent: Criminal Code, s. 672.5401.
The Board is required to impose the least onerous and least restrictive disposition compatible with public safety: Criminal Code, s. 672.54 and Re: Ramos, 2025 ONCA 820, at para. 17.
Analysis
In reaching the conclusion Mr. Rushton continues to represent a risk to public safety the Board took into consideration the following:
First, all parties agree Mr. Rushton continues to represent a risk to public safety.
Second, the Board considered the Index Offence and Mr. Rushton’s criminal record. The record for violence is a most significant concern.
Third, Drs. Benassi and Kravtsenyuk’s report concluded Mr. Rushton remains a significant threat to public safety. The Board accepts without reservation their opinion and the bases upon which it relies.
They outlined the difficulties Mr. Rushton has encountered in the last year. To his credit, Mr. Rushton has insight into his mental illness, willingly takes the recommended medication, and gets along well with his treatment team. He is goal-oriented and wants to work his way to more access to the community, including employment and living. He is working hard to regain the progress he lost when he decompensated and absconded. He is to be commended and encouraged to continue that path. There remains further progress before re-examining the significant risk issue.
What is the Appropriate and Necessary Disposition?
Analysis
- Based on the above noted record including the positions of the parties, the Board agrees a Detention Order on the current terms is the necessary and appropriate disposition for the reasons noted under the risk assessment analysis. While Mr. Rushton is making good progress since returning to CAMH, supervised and approved accommodations are required. That can only be achieved with a Detention Order: Brockville Psychiatric Hospital v. McGillis, (1996), 1996 CanLII 1828 (ON CA), 2 C.R. (5th) 242 (Ont. C.A.).
Conclusion
- After taking into consideration public safety, Mr. Rushton’s mental condition and other needs, as well as his re-integration into society, the Board unanimously finds Mr. Rushton continues to represent a significant risk to the safety of the public and the necessary and appropriate disposition is a Detention Order in a General Forensic Unit with the current conditions.
DATED this 27th day of February, 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Hon. B. Durno
Legal Member
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board