Ontario Review Board
Re: Bojana Jankovic
ORB File No: 6218
Hearing held on: Monday, October 27, 2025
Place of hearing: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Ms. B. Garrow
Members: Dr. R. Sheppard Dr. L. O. Lightfoot Ms. J. Ferguson Mr. S. Duffy
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Bojana Jankovic Counsel: Mr. P. Socka
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Mr. D. Blumenkrans
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. R. Mushlian
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated March 10, 2026)
Introduction
On October 19, 2012, Bojana Jankovic was found not criminally responsible on account of a mental disorder (“NCR”) on a charge of aggravated assault, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada. She is currently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (“ORB/the Board”), dated October 22, 2024, detaining her at the General Forensic Unit of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (“CAMH/the hospital”), with discretionary privileges up to and including the ability to reside in the community in accommodations approved by the person in charge.
On October 27, 2025, the Board convened to review Ms. Jankovic’s disposition pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Ms. Jankovic was present and represented by her counsel, Mr. Socka.
At the outset of the proceedings, the parties were canvassed as to their respective positions on the two issues to be examined by the panel: whether Ms. Jankovic continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and, if so, the necessary and appropriate disposition having regard to the criteria set out in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
Mr. Blumenkrans, on behalf of the hospital, submitted that Ms. Jankovic continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and the necessary and appropriate disposition is a continuation of the current detention order. Ms. Mushlian, on behalf of the Ministry of the Attorney General, concurred in the hospital’s positions.
Mr. Socka conceded that Ms. Jankovic remains a significant threat to the safety of the public and that a detention order is the necessary and appropriate disposition. However, he indicated that Ms. Jankovic would like to have the conditions of her disposition changed to allow her to travel with her family both within and outside of Canada whereas the current disposition refers only to travel outside Canada. Therefore, Ms. Jankovic would like to have condition 2 (h) of her disposition changed to allow the person in charge to permit her travel passes for up to three weeks, to travel both inside and outside Canada, upon first obtaining approval of her itinerary by the person in charge of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health or his or her designate, accompanied by a person approved by the person in charge. Both Mr. Blumenkrans, on behalf of the hospital and Mr. Mushlian on behalf of the Attorney General had no objection to such a change.
Findings
- For the reasons that follow, the panel finds that Ms. Jankovic remains a significant threat to the safety of the public and the necessary and appropriate disposition is a detention order in a General Forensic Unit of CAMH on the same terms and conditions as the current disposition with a change to condition 2 (h) to allow person in charge to allow Ms. Jankovic the ability to travel either within or outside Canada upon first obtaining approval from the person in charge of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health or his or her designate, accompanied by a person approved by the person in charge.
The Index Offence
At the time of the index offence, Ms. Jankovic was residing in an apartment with her parents and sister. On January 25, 2012, she and her mother were arguing. At one point the victim, Ms. Jankovic’s mother, began to make her way towards the apartment door, fearing that she may be in danger. Ms. Jankovic proceeded to assault the victim by striking her in the head and back and pried her fingers into both of the victim’s eye sockets.
At one point, Ms. Jankovic grabbed a serrated kitchen knife and advanced toward her mother. Fortunately, her mother was able to grab hold of the blade of the knife. Ms. Jankovic then grabbed her mother’s key chain and began to use a key to stab her mother’s left eye. During the struggle, Ms. Jankovic grabbed her mother’s legs and attempted to drag her away from the apartment door and into a bedroom. The attack stopped after Ms. Jankovic believed she had heard someone attempting to open the apartment door. When emergency services attended the apartment, three knives were found on Ms. Jankovic’s bed.
Ms. Jankovic’s mother sustained significant injuries to her left eye. At the time, she was advised that she would likely not regain sight in the left eye and that it may need to be removed. She also suffered a fracture to her left patella, which required surgery, bruising to her right eye and multiple cuts that required stitches.
Background Information
The Hospital Report provides considerable information concerning Ms. Jankovic, including her personal background, psychiatric history and course under the Board. Therefore, the details need not be reviewed beyond the following highlights. Ms. Jankovic was born in Belgrade, Serbia and immigrated to Canada in 1990 with her family at the age of 6. After graduating from high school, she received a diploma in animation at the International Academy of Design in Technology. She worked in a variety of jobs until she began receiving Ontario Disability payments in early 2011.
Ms. Jankovic reported that growing up, she consumed alcohol a few times but stopped as it made her feel nauseous. She also reported smoking cannabis in her teens but stopped in 2002 after experiencing increased paranoid thoughts after using it. Her father reported that she consumed more alcohol in the months leading up to the index offences and she once had shown up for work inebriated.
Ms. Jankovic’s first psychiatric admission was in 2002, when she was 17 years old. Her parents reported that she had become paranoid and believed that they were trying to hurt her. The discharge diagnosis was “incipient psychosis with schizophreniform features, first episode.” In 2004 she was admitted to hospital after she presented to her outpatient psychiatrist’s office in an acutely psychotic state. Her discharge diagnosis was Bipolar Disorder, type 1.
In 2011, Ms. Jankovic had multiple admissions to hospital, often endorsing auditory hallucinations and delusions. Noncompliance with medication was noted. On one occasion, she endorsed drinking a 12-ounce bottle of vodka each of three nights before her admission. On another, her father reported that she had come to work drunk, and was not eating. Her parents also had discovered several empty bottles of alcohol in her room.
Following the finding of NCR, Ms. Jankovic was admitted to CAMH. She was discharged to SHIP high support housing in the Peel Region in May 2016. Over the following years there were four readmissions to hospital, ranging in length from approximately 3 months to 18 months. After each readmission she was discharged back to her high support residence in Brampton. Her last readmission was on July 26, 2023.
The Evidence
The evidence at the hearing consisted of Hospital Report dated October 7, 2025, and the viva voce evidence of Dr. Rai, Ms. Jankovic’s treating psychiatrist.
Ms. Jankovic’s current diagnoses are Schizoaffective Disorder and Polysubstance Abuse (alcohol, cannabis), in sustained remission. Ms. Jankovic currently resides in the Women’s General Forensic Unit at CAMH.
Ms. Jankovic had a challenging reporting year. The first half of the year to December 2024 was relatively uneventful and Ms. Jankovic remined stable. There were no breaches of her ORB disposition. She utilized passes, up to indirectly supervised, on hospital grounds and in the community, for the purpose of programming, rehabilitation and recreational activities. All of her random urine drug screens were negative for prohibited substances.
From January 2025 onwards she experienced fluctuations and frequent intermittent exacerbations in psychotic symptoms. In January 2025, there was an incident during which she became agitated and threatened to slap a patient. In February another concerning incident occurred in which she became agitated and flipped a tray of another patient. In May she became paranoid and believed a male staff member was entering her room and assaulting her. A staff change was made to alleviate her concerns in this regard. As a result of her psychotic symptoms, she assaulted a co-patient on Aug 18, 2025.
Dr. Rai, Ms. Jankovic’s treating psychiatrist gave evidence: She provided one update since the Hospital Report dated Oct. 7, 2025, was prepared. On Oct. 7, 2025, she started going out on level 4 accompanied into the community. Dr. Rai pointed out that on page 57 of the report it sets out that Ms. Jankovic is currently using level 8 hospital passes which is not correct. At present she is entitled to level 6 passes. Level 8 passes allow her to access the community indirectly supervised whereas level 6 passes allow access to the hospital grounds indirectly supervised but not the community.
Since the report was written Ms. Jankovic’s medications have been altered somewhat as the result of side effects she was experiencing. Her treatment team has lowered the dose of one of her medications and discontinued another while starting her on an oral anti-psychotic.
In the current reporting year, while on clozapine Ms. Jankovic continued to experience symptoms of her mental illness, and she experienced an exacerbation of her psychosis. She has proven to be treatment resistant. Electroconvulsive therapy was considered but Ms. Jankovic wasn’t agreeable to taking this treatment. She continues on clozapine. She now reports the attenuation of her psychotic symptoms but is still experiencing side effects which are problematic for her because of side effects. Her treatment team also added another medication, but she didn’t respond well. This month she went back on zuclopenthixol. She had side effects before but she’s back on it. If she continues to respond well to this medication and returns to her baseline we could look at getting her back into community housing.
On a positive note, Ms. Jankovic is engaged in various activities and is very engaged in 1:1 psychotherapy sessions with Dr. Cripps a few times every week.
Dr. Rai testified that the next reporting year will continue to have challenges for Ms. Jankovic despite the changes to her medication and the use of clozapine, which is used for treatment resistant mental health issues. The treatment plan is to optimize treatment. Electroconvulsive therapy was recommended but she was not amenable to this therapy, but the treatment team would like to discuss this again with her. Adding another anti psychotic is being considered but there have been no discussions about this yet. Efforts will be made to gradually increase passes up to level 8 provided she remains stable. She was doing well on level 8 until her relapse. Dr. Rai testified that there are a lot of factors which are not in her control. She’s been compliant with meds and engaging with psychotherapy and ECT is still a possible treatment option. Other therapies are being explored with her team. Ms. Jankovic has residual psychosis even at her baseline. Dr. Rai testified that when she becomes unwell, her judgment is compromised and that she benefits from psychotherapy. If the use of zuclopenthixol is successful and there is resolution of her residual symptoms, then ECT may no longer be discussed. Ms. Jankovic smokes cigarettes and this affects clozapine levels. Because she experiences many side effects, she did not agree to an increase in her dose, so this was not done. Ms. Jankovic has developed improved insight with respect to her mental illness and understands she needs to be on medication to do well but side effects continue to be a real issue for her.
When asked how Ms. Jankovic could again get to the point of being granted a conditional discharge, Dr. Rai testified that during this reporting year she was put back on a housing list but this was not pursued as a result of the exacerbation of her psychotic symptoms but that if she’s doing well on her treatment regime, her refusal of ECT won’t prevent her from moving back into the community.
Dr. Rai testified that it is difficult to say if Ms. Jankovic will be stable and progress enough to be able to travel with her family. It has been some years since Ms. Jankovic travelled with her family. It may be that she will become well enough to travel with her parents in this reporting year. However, when she becomes ill, delusional thoughts revolve around her parents and in particular her mother. Her relationship with her father is good. She is in regular contact with father, mother and sister. She speaks well of her mother. The treatment team has had no concerns recently with respect to her relationship with her family. This would need to continue for any travel passes to be considered.
The hospital report indicates that during this reporting year, although Ms. Jankovic has been deemed capable of consenting to psychiatric treatment, her insight continues to be limited during times of increased symptoms and stress and her insight into her index offence can fluctuate as her persecutory beliefs about her mother intensify. Dr. Rai testified that she would benefit from ongoing psychoeducation and involvement in rehabilitative programming.
The hospital report indicated that Ms. Jankovic has had several years of abstinence from drugs and alcohol use, as evidenced by negative urine drug screen results.
Analysis and Conclusion
The panel carefully considered the Hospital Report and the evidence of Dr. Rai and unanimously concluded that Ms. Jankovic continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. Ms. Jankovic has a diagnosis of Schizoaffective Disorder, and until recently, has continued to experience symptoms. When unwell, whether in the context of medication non-compliance or stressors, Ms. Jankovic has manifested prominent thought disorganization, paranoia and extreme violence, as reflected in the circumstances of the index offence. Multiple discharges to supportive housing in the community have resulted in required readmission to hospital in order to manage Ms. Jankovic’s risk to the safety of the public. Starting in January of 2025 Ms. Jankovic’s mental status deteriorated and there were incidents of concerning behaviour. The treatment team continues to make efforts to optimize Ms. Jankovic’s treatment and return her to her baseline. Because she is treatment resistant, even at her baseline Ms. Jankovic continues to experience psychotic symptoms.
Having found that Ms. Jankovic continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public, the panel must consider the necessary and appropriate disposition taking into consideration the criteria set out in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code, which includes the need to protect the public form dangerous persons, the mental condition of the accused, the integration of the accused into society and the other needs of the accused. The disposition must be the least restrictive and least onerous measure required that ensures the hospital has the ability to manage Ms. Jankovic’s risk to the community.
The panel unanimously agrees with the joint submission that the necessary and appropriate disposition is a detention order. When Ms. Jankovic is discharged into the community, she requires support and supervision. Staff at the residence will be able to provide medication supervision and monitor Ms. Jankovic’s mental status. This is crucial in light of Ms. Jankovic’s history of medication noncompliance and changes in her mental status in the face of psychosocial stressors.
Ms. Jankovic has had a challenging year as the result of experiencing symptoms of her psychosis resulting in concerning behaviours being exhibited. Changes in her medications are still being assessed in terms of their effectiveness and side effects.
In conclusion, the panel orders that Ms. Jankovic be subject to a continuation of the current detention order with the addition of the ability to travel both inside and outside of Canada provided she first obtain approval from the person in charge. This disposition represents the necessary and appropriate, but least intrusive and least onerous disposition considering the paramount factor of the safety of the public, Ms. Jankovic’s community reintegration, her mental condition, and her other needs, as required by s. 672.5 of the Criminal Code.
DATED this 10th day of March, 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Ms. J. Ferguson Legal Member
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board