Re Vitali Volhovski, 2026 CanLII 34221

Re: Vitali Volhovski

ORB File No: 5090

Hearing held on: Tuesday, March 31, 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. Weinstein

Members: Dr. S. Lessard

Dr. M. Green

Hon. C. Nelson

Mr. J. Cyr

Parties Appearing:

Accused: Vitali Volhovski

Counsel: Mr. A. Stastny (via Zoom)

The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. M. Warner

Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. D. Brandes

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated April 15, 2026)

Introduction:

1. On May 27, 2008, Mr. Vitali Volhovski was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, on one charge each of assault, failure to attend court, and fail to comply with a condition of undertaking or recognizance, all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (“Criminal Code”).

2. Mr. Volhovski is subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the “Board”), dated January 15, 2025, which ordered that he be detained at the General Forensic Unit of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto (“CAMH” or “the hospital”).

3. On March 31, 2026, the Board convened a hearing at CAMH to conduct the review of the current Disposition.

4. Mr. Volhovski was present at the hearing and was represented by his counsel, Mr. A. Stastny, who appeared by Zoom.

5. A Hospital Report, dated March 19, 2026 (the "Hospital Report"), was entered as Exhibit 1.

6. The issues at this hearing were whether Mr. Volhovski is a significant threat to public safety, as defined in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code, and, if so, what is the necessary and appropriate Disposition in the circumstances, bearing in mind the factors enunciated in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.

7. For the reasons set out below and based on the expert evidence and opinions before us, the Board concluded that Mr. Volhovski continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public. The Board found that the necessary and appropriate Disposition in the circumstances is a continuation of the existing Detention Order.

Current Psychiatric Diagnoses:

8. Schizoaffective Disorder;

Substance Use Disorders.

Index Offences, Personal and Psychiatric Background:

9. Mr. Volhovski’s Index Offences, personal and psychiatric background are outlined in the Hospital Report, and they are accurately summarized in last year’s Reasons:

“Index Offences

On March 23, 2008, the victim and her handicapped boyfriend were passengers on an Ontario GO Train traveling from Toronto to Whitby, Ontario. Mr. Volhovski approached her and assaulted her by pushing her shoulders. Mr. Volhovski then moved to the second seating level but returned to the victim and threw a piece of newspaper while shouting incoherent statements about electricity and erections. After the train arrived at Whitby Station, Mr. Volhovski left but was apprehended by police nearby and arrested.

Personal Background

Mr. Volhovski is 43 years old, born in Crimea, Ukraine. His family immigrated to Canada when he was 9 years old, and moved to Toronto, where he lived until age 18, after which he attended university in Ottawa for about four years. He traveled within Canada between the ages of 24 and 25 and returned to Toronto in 2007. His mother passed away in 2003. Mr. Volhovski reported limited contact with his father due to a history of abuse.

It was reported that he had a fragmented educational experience, achieving above average grades, but facing significant disciplinary issues, including nineteen suspensions and eventually an expulsion from a music program. He attended an art school from Grade 7 to 13 and claimed he was placed in a class for dyslexia despite not having the condition. He completed three years of a political science degree at the University of Ottawa but then shifted his focus to music composition.

Mr. Volhovski reported that he has never been formally employed, although his music was occasionally played in clubs. His relationship history is sparse, with a brief three-month relationship with a woman. In 2010, he experienced issues with a roommate who found his behaviour concerning, as he was singing and whistling for extended periods. He attempted to connect with women online between 2010 and 2011, expressing a desire to sponsor them for immigration, but did not maintain substantial contact or meet any in person.

He denied any history of alcohol abuse, stating that he last consumed a bottle of wine in 2001 and did not experience any negative consequences from alcohol use. He began using crystal methamphetamine when he was 16 years old, and described it as enhancing his cognitive abilities, allowing him to compose music more efficiently. He reported last using it in 2008, recounting an incident where he ended up outside naked as a result of his use. He typically used 30 mg to 40 mg only when studying, noting an increase in usage as he delved into learning about circuits and electricity. Although he denied use of other illicit drugs, during a hospital admission in 2007, he reported using cannabis and cocaine for about ten years.

A records check of the Canadian Police Information Centre database showed that Mr. Volhovski had multiple criminal charges and convictions from 2007 and 2008, including causing another person to fear for their safety, breach of undertaking, unlawful residence, mischief, failure to comply with probation, break and enter, and uttering threats.

Psychiatric Background

Multiple psychiatric admissions to hospital before the index offences have been documented. During his first admission in 2006, Mr. Volhovski was seen at CAMH and was noted to have ‘extensive psychotic symptoms and a history of homicidal thoughts’. He was involuntarily admitted on numerous occasions at various hospitals in Ontario, including approximately one month at the Royal Columbian Hospital in Vancouver, BC, having travelled across the country unemployed and living in a shelter in 2007.”

Course Since Last Disposition:

10. Mr. Volhovski’s course since his last Disposition is set out in detail in the Hospital Report. The following extracted paragraphs are relevant to this hearing.

“Mr. Volhovski tested positive for cocaine on almost every occasion during his time in the community. He continued to present with a vast array of grandiose delusions, which had been his baseline for quite a number of years.

On August 12, 2025. Mr. Volhovski presented as significant differently from his baseline. He was quite he unsteady on his feet and was slurring his words, as well as making sexually inappropriate comments to his case manager. This was quite uncharacteristic of him.

Given the persistent positive tests for cocaine, the inability of the staff to properly monitor him and the acute decompensation, it was felt that Mr. Volhovski needed to be admitted to hospital and a Form 49 was completed.

Management at SHIP expressed considerable reservation about Mr. Volhovski's return to his housing. The housing has clinical staff available 12 hours/day, no meals are provided, and clients are expected to be able to live independently. This was the second occasion when Mr. Volhovski's apartment had been found to be in an untenable state.

Given the position of SHIP management, the Forensic Outpatient Service team and hospital had no alternative but to withdraw their approval of Mr. Volhovski's housing as approved accommodation.

On January 7, 2026, Mr. Volhovski suddenly approached a staff member with his hands clenched into a fist and started screaming and yelling at the staff asking, "Why are you talking to holographs?” (pointing to the staff social worker). The nursing staff felt quite intimidated.”

Position of the Parties:

11. At the outset of the hearing, counsel for Mr. Volhovski advised he had just been informed by his client that he was losing his ODSP and would not be able to afford his current housing. Counsel requested an adjournment to have this housing issue clarified. Counsel for the hospital and for the Attorney General opposed the adjournment, as it was their opinion that the housing situation would not affect the hospital’s recommendation of a Detention Order, as they were opposed to Mr. Volhovski returning to his current housing.

12. The panel agreed that this matter should not be adjourned, as the issues before us could be decided without Mr. Volhovski’s housing situation being resolved. At the conclusion of the hearing, counsel for the hospital, for the Attorney General and for Mr. Volhovski advised that this was a joint submission. All were adopting the hospital recommendation for a continuation of the existing Detention Order.

13. For the purposes of this hearing, counsel for Mr. Volhovski advised that significant threat was not in dispute.

Evidence at the Hearing:

14. The Board had available to it the evidence and documents forming the Record, the Exhibits, and oral evidence from Dr. Jaiswal. Dr. Jaiswal testified as follows:

a) He adopts and endorses the contents of the Hospital Report, which was authored by Dr. Darby.

b) He has been Mr. Volhovski’s treating psychiatrist since Mr. Volhovski was transferred to the Forensic General Unit B (“FGUB”) in December 2025.

c) Since Mr. Volhovski’s transfer in December, his mental state has stabilized. He has exhibited fewer psychotic episodes, improved mood engagement, and consistent participation in programming.

d) Mr. Volhovski has used his passes appropriately and has progressed from level 1 to level 4 privileges. He is expected to achieve level 5 privileges very shortly, which would include indirectly supervised privileges on hospital grounds for group programs and other rehabilitation activities.

e) Mr. Volhovski is a very likeable, cooperative patient and is increasingly engaged in working with the treatment team. There have been no positive drug screens since his admission. The treatment team attributes Mr. Volhovski’s stability to the high-support, structured environment he is subject to in hospital.

f) The treatment team’s plan is to continue to assess how Mr. Volhovski manages his increased privileges under the pass ladder. The purpose of these privileges is to prepare him to live in the community. The treatment team’s goal is to ensure that he has appropriate housing, so that his transition will be durable, without requiring readmissions to the hospital, as has happened in the past.

g) The treatment team finds that Mr. Volhovski’s current Services and Housing In the Province (“SHIP”) housing, which provides only 12-hour support, is insufficient to manage his risk to public safety. Their assessment is based on several factors: Mr. Volhovski’s repeated functional decline; his substance use (there were positive cocaine screens prior to his readmission to the hospital); his inability to maintain his unit in a clean manner; and his refusal to allow staff to visit him in his residence, which interfered with the necessary monitoring of his mental state.

h) It is the clinical team’s opinion that Mr. Volhovski requires 24/7, on-site, high-support housing to maintain his stability, prevent relapse from substances and avoid his cycle of deterioration and readmission to hospital.

i) Should Mr. Volhovski be returned to SHIP housing, he would likely repeat the same pattern observed previously. There would be a functional deterioration, leading to substance use, an increase in his psychosis and readmission to hospital.

j) The treatment team is recommending no change to the current Detention Order. In their opinion, it provides the necessary oversight and the authority to approve appropriate housing, to prevent Mr. Volhovski from posing a significant threat to the safety of the public.

k) As set out on page 54 of the Hospital Report, Mr. Volhovski does not possess the skills to function in his current, semi-independent housing. He requires housing that has staff on site 24/7 and that provides a much higher level of supervision.

l) As set out on page 46 of the Hospital Report, Mr. Volhovski continues to show extremely limited insight into his illness and symptoms.

m) Mr. Volhovski tested positive for cocaine on almost every drug screen during his time in the community.

15. In response to questions from counsel for Mr. Volhovski, Dr. Jaiswal testified:

a) The treatment team sees Mr. Volhovski on a positive trajectory, with improved engagement, stability, appropriate pass use, and participation in programming. The pass ladder is used to assess readiness for discharge into the community, especially around Mr. Volhovski’s ability to remain abstinent from substances.

b) Mr. Volhovski’s lack of insight has been a long-standing challenge, particularly when he has been experiencing psychotic episodes.

c) Even if appropriate 24/7 housing were available today, the treatment team would not support a discharge into the community. Mr. Volhovski must still demonstrate that he is able to access indirectly supervised community passes safely, without returning to substances.

d) Returning to SHIP housing is not a viable option, due to Mr. Volhovski’s repeated cycle of deterioration, substance use, and inability to maintain his unit.

16. In response to questions from the panel, Dr. Jaiswal testified:

a) 24/7 supervised accommodation is required to ensure abstinence from substances, allow ongoing mental state monitoring, support daily functioning, and prevent further deterioration.

b) Monitoring of substance use and Mr. Volhovski’s mental state are essential to manage the risk to public safety.

c) The treatment team has not requested “24/7 supervised housing” because the hospital already controls, and approves, housing under a Detention Order.

d) For the upcoming reporting year, Mr. Volhovski is unlikely to need anything less than 24/7 support.

17. No other evidence was called.

Analysis and Conclusions:

18. Having heard and considered the entirety of the evidence as well as the submissions from the parties, the Board agrees with the joint submission: Mr. Volhovski remains a significant threat to the safety of the public.

19. In Winko, the Supreme Court outlined that, in coming to the conclusion on the issue of significant risk, a Review Board should closely examine a range of evidence, including: the circumstances of the original offence; the past and expected course of the accused’s treatment; the present state of the NCR accused’s medical condition; the NCR accused’s own plans for the future; the support existing for the NCR accused in the community; and most importantly, the recommendations provided by experts who examined the NCR accused. In coming to our conclusion in this matter, the Board relies on the uncontroverted expert evidence of Dr. Jaiswal, in addition to the documentary evidence before us.

20. Regarding the threshold issue of significant threat, this standard is an onerous one that is not met simply by virtue of a person's struggles with major mental illness. It requires the existence of a real likelihood that, absent a Disposition, the individual would commit serious criminal offences, causing serious physical, or psychological, harm to members of the public. There must be a link between the individual's major mental illness and the threat identified. That threat must be significant both as to likelihood of occurrence and level of harm that would flow from the commission of serious criminal offences. A high likelihood of criminally offensive conduct associated with a low likelihood of serious harm, or a low likelihood of criminally offensive conduct associated with a high likelihood of serious harm, would be insufficient to establish threshold. Both the attended criminal conduct and its consequences must be "significant" for the threshold to be attained.

21. Mr. Volhovski’s main current clinical risk factor is his limited insight, as he has limited insight into the nature of his symptoms or the role of medications. He exhibits persistent symptoms of his major mental disorder. He has required hospital readmission this year and requires ongoing close supervision and support.

22. Mr. Volhovski requires high-support housing. He has a limited support network other than care providers who are provided to him under the auspices of the Board.

23. Mr. Volhovski testified positive for cocaine on many occasions while in the community in early 2025. These positive results required a readmission to the hospital.

24. In particular, the Board relies on the following paragraphs extracted from the Hospital Report:

“Non-Compliance with Treatment

Mr. Volhovski has a longstanding history of mental illness resulting in several hospitalizations in different cities. On a number of occasions, he has discharged himself against medical advice, and without a discharge plan or prescription medications. His non-compliance with medication use, and subsequent deterioration of mental status, has been documented on various occasions in the past. If he were to stop his medications, he would suffer a further deterioration in his mental status. He requires support in his residence and frequent contact with his out-patient team in order to ensure compliance and guard against de-compensation.

Re-offence Scenario

If Mr. Volhovski is to re-offend, this will likely transpire in the following way: He will likely discontinue his medications and begin to use substances, both of which would highly likely precipitate significant psychotic symptoms. When delusional, he tends to become intrusive and hostile, which has led to him engaging in threatening and violent behavior.

Composite Assessment of Risk

Mr. Volhovski continues to be a significant threat to the safety of the public absent the oversight of the ORB. His risk flows primarily from psychosis and substance use. Absent supervision, structure, and support, he would likely stop his medication and use substances as he has in the past and then become highly psychotic with associated aggression.”

25. In light of the Board's finding of significant threat, it is charged with shaping a Disposition for the coming year. It is clear from the Hospital Report and Dr. Jaiswal’s oral evidence that a Conditional Discharge is not adequate to manage the risk that Mr. Volhovski poses. A high level of supervision is required to maintain him in the community.

26. The hospital needs to retain the authority to approve Mr. Volhoskis’ housing, as it is essential to monitor his medication adherence and to ensure his continued abstinence from substances, to protect public safety. Mr. Volhovski does not possess the skills or level of stability to enable him to function in accommodation that provides any less than a high level of supervision. The Mental Health Act would not be sufficient to protect public safety, as it would not allow the hospital treatment team to respond quickly enough, should Mr. Volhovski return to using substances.

27. The doctor testified that it was highly unlikely that Mr. Volhovski would require anything less than 24/7 supervised accommodation in the coming reporting year. Nonetheless, the hospital maintained that it was not necessary to change the Disposition, as they would only place Mr. Volhovski in 24/7 supervised accommodation, given his needs. As this was a joint submission, the Board agreed that it was not necessary to change the type of accommodation from “accommodation approved” to “24/7 approved accommodation.”

28. In consideration of all the evidence, submissions of the parties and criteria set forth in s. 672.54, the paramount consideration being the safety of the public, in addition to the mental condition of Mr. Volhovski, his reintegration into society and his other needs, the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a continuation of the existing Detention Order.

DATED this 15^th day of April, 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.

Mr. J. Weinstein

Alternate Chairperson

Office of the Registrar

Ontario Review Board