Confidential 1 | P a g e Eastern Region CS Death Review Committee Report – Basil Borutski The Eastern Region Regional Director, Lori Potter requested Area Managers Christopher Moore and Joe Woodgate to conduct a death review on a case out of the Ottawa Valley area. The purpose of the committee is to thoroughly review the file with a view to identifying where there may have been missed opportunities to intervene, if there are any lessons to be learned and how we can share these lessons with other staff to alert them of triggers/flags and to also consider any training requirements. In addition to reviewing the file and case note contents, the Area Manager for this area was as well interviewed. The committee is not to find fault with specific officers or areas but rather to determine if ministry practices serve us well or if improvements can be identified. This report is designed to provide learning opportunities. The Case: On December 18, 2012, Mr. Borutski, appeared in an Ontario Court of Justice in Pembroke, and was sentenced to 33 days jail and two years’ probation to follow for Assault Peace Officer, Uttering Threats (x2), Mischief and Breach Peace Bond. Mr. Borutski has been involved with the Criminal Justice System since 1974, being convicted of Theft Under (1974) and Assault Bodily Harm (1977), before he was convicted of Fail to Refuse to provide Sample (2010). During that period of time, he remained in conflict with the law incurring several DV related charges against , which were withdrawn, dismissed or stayed. Thus this was his first conviction for domestic violence. In addition to the mandatory conditions, Mr. Borutski had a reporting condition; a condition to reside at a place approved of by his probation officer and not to change his place of residence without first obtaining the written permission of his probation officer; Attend and actively participate in any assessment, treatment or counseling including alcohol abuse as recommended by your probation officer; Attend and actively participate in the Partner Abuse Response Programme, or any other Programme intended for the treatment and prevention of domestic violence and abuse; Not to associate, communicate or have any contact directly or indirectly with Natalie Warmerdam, her children or immediate family except through counsel for property issues; Not to be within Bonnechere Valley Township. Regarding the circumstances around these offences, Ministry records indicate that Mr. Borutski and the victim, Ms. Warmerdam had been in a three year relationship. Ms. Warmerdam would assist Mr. Borutski with his legal matters involving his . The deterioration of the relationship coincided with the conclusion of the court proceedings with . Mr. Borutski started drinking more and started threatening Ms. Warmerdam’s son. He then started threatening to kill her animals. After his arrest, his pattern of antisocial behaviour continued towards criminal justice officials. While in custody, Mr. Borutski urinated on the cell floors and spit on a Court Guard and Police officer. On January 8, 2013, Mr. Borutski satisfied his sentence and was released from the Ottawa Carleton Detention Centre. 283 Confidential 2 | P a g e One of the challenges that presented early in the supervision of this case was that the Partner Abuse Response Program offered in the area was in the village of Eganville, located within Bonnechere Valley Township where the offender was prohibited from attending per conditions of his supervision order. A variation application was submitted and the order was amended on May 15, 2013 to allow for Mr. Borutski to be within the Bonnechere Valley Township for attending treatment or programming with the approval of his probation officer. Ms. Warmerdam was contacted early in the supervision period and had expressed concerns only if Mr. Borutski was to find himself in an intoxicated state and not be of sound judgement. Mr. Borutski was initially assessed in April 2013 as low risk and placed in the Rehabilitative Service Stream. There were no key criminogenic factors identified at that time, however, the victim had reported that alcohol was a factor in the offence. A reassessment was completed in October 2013 that placed the offender at medium risk and another reassessment in February 2015 that placed the offender at high risk to reoffend. The criminogenic targets identified included criminal history (static), family and leisure. He was in the pre-contemplative stage with respect to change in all factors. Several domestic violence risk factors were identified as well. All three victims of the domestic offences disclosed that Mr. Borutski became violent when he was under the influence of alcohol. In May 2013, Mr. Borutski had reported to his PPO that he had a new residence and will be moving to Killaloe. His file was transferred to Pembroke P&P as that office covered the area in which Mr. Borutski would be residing. Criminal Justice Partners, including Killaloe Ontario Provincial Police (KOPP), the Crown Attorney’s office and the Victim Witness Assistance Program (VWAP) in Pembroke, had expressed their concerns about Mr. Borutski relocating to the Killaloe area and being too close to the victims. On May 30, 2013, a High Risk Review Meeting was conducted in Pembroke, with Probation and Parole, the Crown Attorney’s Office, Killaloe OPP, and VWAP. The victim, Ms. Warmerdam was present later during the meeting. Concerns were expressed about Mr. Borutski living in the area. Based on the concerns raised at this meeting, the supervising PPO of Pembroke P&P did not accept the transfer of the file from Renfrew P&P, until Mr. Borutski had applied for a variation requesting to re-locate to Killaloe and it being approved. The Renfrew P&P office, after consultation with management decided to seek direction from the court before instructing Mr. Borutski to change his address immediately. Mr. Borutski continued to reside in Killaloe in the interim. In October 2013, a response from the sentencing judge was received and the subject was not required to relocate from his address in Killaloe. In November 2013, a referral was made to the PAR program. Mr. Borutski was expected to begin after January 2014, when he was expected to be driving again. His file was transferred to Pembroke P&P. On January 17, 2014, Mr. Borutski had reported to his PPO at Pembroke P&P and on January 24, 2014 he was admitted into custody on new DV charges against a new victim, Anastasia Kuzyk. He remained in custody at the Ottawa Carleton Detention Centre until he was released in December 2014. 284 Confidential 3 | P a g e On September 12, 2014, Mr. Borutski appeared before the Ontario Court of Justice in Renfrew and was sentenced to 160 days jail and two years’ probation for Choking. He was also convicted of Choking, Assault, FTC Probation (x2), Motor Vehicle Theft, Drive While Prohibited, and Possession of a Weapon Contrary to Order, which he received straight jail sentences. In addition to the mandatory and reporting conditions, Mr. Borutski was to attend for counselling as directed by his probation officer, non-association with Anastasia Kuzyk and/or , attend counselling/treatment as recommended by his PO and reside at an address approved by his PO. Ministry records indicate that the victim, Anastasia Kuzyk, had known Mr. Borutski for approximately 15 years. At the time of the incident in January 2014, they had been in an intimate relationship for a short period of time. She noticed a change in him in December 2013, when he started drinking. There was an incident on December 30th, when he started being physically abusive towards her which started at 9pm and ended in the early hours of the morning. In October 2014, another High Risk meeting was held in Pembroke and a case plan was developed. Probation and Parole, along with key criminal justice partners were present. The victims were not in attendance at this meeting. Consideration was to be given to a follow-up meeting prior to Mr. Borutski’s release from custody, however, this did not occur. The PPO had been in contact with Ms. Kuzyk prior to the meeting in September 2014. Several attempts were made to contact Ms. Wamerdan and contact was established in December 2014 and her concerns addressed at that time prior to Mr. Borutski’s release from custody. On December 27, 2014, Mr. Borutski was released from Ottawa Carleton Detention Centre after satisfying his sentence. . The case was supervised temporarily by another PPO from November 2014 until the end of January 2015. An ODARA assessment was completed on Mr. Borutski, in which he scored very high. In January 2015, another referral was made to the PAR program. In February, when he had reported back to his previous PPO, he indicated that he was not aware that he had to contact the PAR program. He reported at that time he had contacted the Community Mental Health Crisis team and that he was being assigned a worker. On February 13, 2015, an LSI-OR re-assessment was completed and he was deemed a High Risk to reoffend. In March, Mr. Borutski had not followed up with contacting the PAR program and related that he did not remember that he had to contact the program. He indicated that he needs someone to call for him as he gets confused. On March 18, 2015, the PPO contacted the PAR program and confirmed that the next groups were starting on March 19th in Eganville and March 23 in Pembroke. PPO contacted the residence of Mr. Borutski and left a message with his to have him contact the program to set-up an appointment. 285 Confidential 4 | P a g e When Mr. Borutski had reported on March 27, 2015, he reported that he received the message and had contacted the PAR program and was informed that the next group in Pembroke would start on April 13, 2015. Mr. Borutski reported to his PPO on April 13, 2015, and related that he had been in contact with the PAR program in Eganville and was confused with the dates he was given. It was unknown at the time when the next group would be running out of Eganville and an intake appointment was given for May 25th for the group in Pembroke. In May 2015, a referral package sent to the PAR program. An intake appointment was set-up for June 11th. On June 4, 2015, Mr. Borutski reported that he did not know if he would be able to attend his intake appointment in Eganville. He did not show up for his intake assessment on June 11, 2015 and had not called to cancel or reschedule. In July 2015, Mr. Borutski reported to his PPO and had inquired about having to attend the PAR program, relating that because of his anxiety he did not think he would benefit from the program. He was advised by his PPO to go through the intake process and the agency would decide if he would be suitable for the program. He last reported on September 4, 2015. He was to reconnect with his mental health worker. He was scheduled to report back on September 25, 2015. On September 22, 2015, Mr. Borutski was arrested and charged with three counts of Murder. The victims were Natalie Warmerdam-48, Anastasia Kuzyk-36 and Carol Culleton-66. Victim contact was established during the supervision period. The last contact with Anastasia Kuzyk was on December 29, 2014, at which time she had reported no safety concerns. The supervision order expires on December 26, 2016. On December 1, 2014, the supervising PPO had been in contact with Natalie Warmerdam and informed her that the supervision order was expiring on January 15, 2015. Ms. Warmerdam reported that Mr. Borutski had not been in contact with her, however, she was still fearful and wanted more protection. She was directed to contact VWAP for assistance on how to proceed with an 810 order. Ms. Warmerdam was contacted on January 12, 2015 and on February 10, 2015, and informed that the supervision order in which she was named expired January 15, 2015. was named as a non-associate on the same order. The Client: Basil Borutski, age 58, was born on October 17, 1957 in Round Lake, Ontario. According to Ministry records, he is the third of nine children. He reported that his mother was abusive towards him and some of his siblings growing up. Mr. Borutski disclosed having a better relationship with his father. His parents are now deceased. He remained in contact with at least one of his siblings, a brother. Mr. Borutski reported leaving home at the age of 15 relocating to Kitchener. He worked at a box factory for four years, before working at a tool and die repair centre. Through night courses 286 Confidential 5 | P a g e over several years, he completed his secondary school diploma and by the age of 25, had completed a college program as a mechanist. 287 Confidential 6 | P a g e According to Ministry records, Mr. Borutski and Natalie Warmerdam had entered into a common-law relationship in 2010. They resided in Bonnechere Valley Township. Ms. Warmerdam who assisted Mr. Borutski with his legal matters involving his noticed that their relationship began to deteriorate when the court proceedings ended in June 2012. Mr. Borutski started drinking more and was verbally abusive towards Ms. Warmerdam and her son. On August 18, 2012, Ms. Warmerdam had left the residence fearing for her and her son’s safety. She contacted the police on August 20th and reported the incidents including threats towards her son and to kill her animals. After a police investigation, he was charged with two counts of uttering threats. On September 5, 2012, while in custody at the courthouse in the Killaloe Hagarty Richards Township, Mr. Borutski urinated on the cell floors and had spit on a guard, as well as a police officer, which lead to more charges including Mischief Under $5000, Assault and Assault Peace Officer. On December 16, 2012, he was convicted of Assault Peace Officer, Utter Threats (x2), Mischief and Breach of Peace bond. He received 33 days and two- years’ probation. Mr. Borutski related that the relationship with Ms. Warmerdam was good up until the final weeks leading to his arrest. He reported that it was Ms. Warmerdam’s son, who was the problem and described him as undisciplined, disrespectful and provoking. Ministry records indicate that Mr. Borutski had gone to great efforts to transfer his property in Ms. Warmerdam’s name, to insure that . However, when Mr. Borutski and Ms. Warmerdam separated, she refused to return his belongings as they were in her name and he had to prove otherwise. Ministry records indicate that after his relationship with Ms. Warmerdam, Mr. Borutski and Anastasia Kuzyk, who had been friends for approximately 15 years before became more intimate. Ms. Kuzyk described it as an on and off again relationship. While under community supervision, Mr. Borutski had moved in with Ms. Kuzyk, in part to protect her from an ex￾partner who had been stalking her. Mr. Borutski was supposed to be living at the Mask Road address in Killaloe, which was the address he had reported to P&P. They would both attend the Mask Rd. address to make it look like he was living there. On January 23, 2014, Ms. Kuzyk contacted the police and reported that he had kicked in the door and taken her mother’s car. She later provided a video statement, disclosing that Mr. Borutski claimed he was having dreams of choking and drowning his former partners. He started drinking as well and on December 30th, he became physically abusive towards her from 9pm until early morning. She had two black eyes, a swollen and bruised lip and bruises on her arms. He was arrested and charged accordingly. On September 14, 2014, he was convicted of Choke Render Incapacitated, Assault, Mischief Property, FTC Probation (x2), Motor Vehicle Theft, Drive While Prohibited, and Possession of a Weapon which he received straight sentences. He was also convicted of Choking and received 160 days jail and two years’ probation. When Mr. Borutski was released from custody in December 2014, he moved in with his , . His had reported that she did not want him staying with her, however, feared telling him that he had to leave. He was not in contact with most of his family members, with the exception of his one brother who lived in Arnprior. 288 Confidential 7 | P a g e He was last reassessed in February 2015 as high risk. Key risk/need areas identified included Criminal History (static), family, leisure, domestic violence related risk factors and criminogenic potentials (problem with compliance, anger, intimidating and controlling). Mr. Borutski either denied minimized or projected blame towards the victims for his conflicts with the law. Several referrals were made to domestic violence programs, however, Mr. Borutski never attended an intake and/or group sessions. He was instructed to contact the agency on more than one occasion during the supervision period and would come back relating that he was unaware and/or confused by the instructions. He was referred and assigned to a mental health worker; however, that was not consistent to address any issues related to mental health. The Office and Catchment Area: The two offices involved in this matter are Pembroke P & P and Renfrew P & P and both are part of the Ottawa West P & P Cost Centre. These Satellite P & P Offices cover a very large rural area with various remote locations in their respective catchment areas. Pembroke P & P has a complement of five PPO’s who are fully trained. Renfrew P & P has a complement of three PPO’s who are similarly fully trained and staffed with experienced PPO’s. Supervision of this offender commenced in Renfrew on January 3, 2013 when he was released from custody and his Order came into effect. The offender was residing in a fairly remote area but on a property with his brother and was able to report to the office without incident. He had expressed his desire to move closer to the Wilno area where he grew up and had previously resided. This was eventually approved with court clarification provided which confirmed the ability of the client to reside in Killaloe which resulted in supervision of the case being transferred to Pembroke P & P in January, 2014 where it continued. The offender had requested that he be able to report to the Barry’s Bay Reporting Centre given the proximity of this location to his residence in Killaloe. However given the offender’s recent conviction for Assaulting a Police Officer and Peace Officer (Court Guard) this request was declined and he was properly directed to report to the Pembroke Satellite Office even though this was approximately 1 ½ hours away. The area serviced by both the Pembroke and Renfrew Satellite offices is as noted very rural and quite vast in area. Services are limited and there are transportation challenges throughout the area. Similarly employment opportunities are limited as well. The PAR program that the offender was mandated to attend was located in Eganville and is a considerable distance from both of the residences occupied by the offender during this period of review. What Went Well: The supervising PPO in Pembroke was very diligent in ensuring the offender continued to report to the Pembroke Satellite Office as opposed to the Barry’s Bay Reporting Centre per his request as it was closer to his residence. Given the recent convictions for assaulting a Police Officer and Peace Officer (Court Guard) and his reported disdain for the criminal justice system and general assessed high risk, the decision to have him continue to report in an environment with heightened safety control measures was appropriate. Similarly her 289 Confidential 8 | P a g e insistence that he continue to report twice monthly (even though he was residing an hour and a half from the office) and that he not be able to report via telephone (as he requested) was very appropriate and the right decision was made. Very good follow through with ILO to ensure the offender was given strict reporting instructions as well as clear directive that his proposed address upon release would not be supported and that enforcement would be proceeded with if he was to reside at a place that was not approved by PPO. Assessments by both supervising PPO’s were extremely well done. Good attention to DV Risk Factors noted and ODARA completed on both occasions. The supervising PPO in Renfrew did a nice job in contacting the offender’s Family Physician and was able to speak with him directly in an attempt to gain insight into potential substance abuse issues as well as the mental health of the offender. The Doctor was very helpful in providing his perspective into both matters. Similarly, good effort to contact the offender’s brother to corroborate information provided by the offender and to gauge how he was managing. Excellent work was done while the offender was supervised in Renfrew and then when he moved to Killaloe in terms of contacting both of the victims identified on the Probation Orders as well as the offender’s given the potential risk she continued to be in and the ongoing history of reported abuse she had experienced. Very good work was done providing support to them and ensuring their involvement with VWAP, safety planning and understanding of the details of the Probation Order as well as being utilized for purposes of completing the ODARA and obtaining background information. Similarly, the use of local High Risk Review Meetings (similar to HART Meetings) involving Crown and VWAP regarding the offenders heightened risk and potential to the victims was very helpful with solid plans in place for all parties to follow. The supervising PPO from Renfrew P & P very appropriately consulted with Management when there was backlash from the local Police, Crown, VWAP and victims that the offender was allowed to move to Killaloe even though this was not within the prohibited area for him to be. The PPO properly followed up with the sentencing Justice for clarification/direction in terms of the residence condition and the Judge was very clear in his direction which confirmed the offender was within his rights to reside at this new residence and the PPO was not legally allowed to require him to relocate, despite the protest of the other parties noted. The supervising PPO in Pembroke engaged in thoughtful and strategic motivational interviewing regarding problem solving related to pressing logistical issues such as transportation, finances health problems, residence and attendance for various services. More specific focus on relationships and his role as a partner in such relationships along with his minimization of his actions was applied. 290 Confidential 9 | P a g e What Opportunities Were Missed: In the beginning of the supervision period, there was a lack of communication between criminal justice partners and victims. The supervising PPO at the time permitted Mr. Borutski to reside at his new address in Killaloe and transferred the file to Pembroke P&P. Although he was not violating any conditions on his supervision order, Justice Partners, including Killaloe OPP and the Crown’s office in Pembroke had found out of this move after the fact, through one of the victims and had expressed grave concerns to P&P about Mr. Borutski moving closer to where the victims resided, which was discussed in court prior to sentencing. If the supervising PPO was aware of these concerns and involved in the High Risk Review meeting discussions with justice partners prior to the client relocating, he would have had additional information before him to make more informed case management decisions, particularly regarding approval of change of address. Ministry records indicate that police reports and the victims had reported that Mr. Borutski is physically violent when under the influence of alcohol. The initial assessment in 2013 did not identify substance abuse, in particular alcohol, as a significant area for intervention based on offender and collateral reported information. However, in January 2014, Mr. Borutski was arrested and charged with violent offences against Ms. Kuzyk. The victim had disclosed that Mr. Borutski had started drinking leading up to these offences. After his release from custody in December 2014, the possibility that substance abuse might be a criminogenic target or at least a trigger in the offence cycle was not thoroughly explored with the offender and/or collateral sources which is evident in the LSI-OR reassessment and case notes nor were there any referrals to substance abuse programs despite counselling conditions on both supervision orders, one order which had expired in January 2015 specifically indicated alcohol abuse counselling as recommended by the probation officer. Mr. Borutski had also reported that where he resided , drank every day. In retrospect it appears that the client was struggling with substance abuse, had deeply entrenched criminal orientation and anti-social qualities and to look very deep there are subtle indications of deviance that may have been made more clear with additional collateral information from personal sources and police. It would also appear that a fairly clear picture of an offence cycle could be identified with additional monitoring and use of these collateral contacts. A challenge with multiple stressors greatly increased the probability of violent acting out by this offender. It is difficult to identify specific stressors that were building in the client’s life as numerous factors existed. As more information became known about the offender and when everything is considered in its entirety such as the extreme number of withdrawn or stayed charges for violent related offences, the escalating pattern of domestic violence, his efforts to deny any wrong doing and minimize his own responsibility along with his continued blaming of the victims and his clear disdain for the Criminal Justice System and his attempts to manipulate, it would have been reasonable to have him considered as a potential Intensive Supervision Offender. There were several referrals to the PAR program, which the client did not follow through with giving various excuses during the supervision period. Enforcement decision/rationale for non￾compliance was never documented nor was Mr. Borutski held accountable for his actions. 291 Confidential 10 | P a g e After missing a PAR intake in June 2015, Mr. Borutski had reported back to his PO in July relating that he did not think he would benefit from the PAR program due to his anxiety. While initial contact was made with the victims by the supervising PPO in Pembroke to advise of change of supervising Officers, there was no follow up at any time to gauge how they were managing. The offender noted to the PPO he happened to see one of the victims in the area and this was an excellent opportunity to follow up with the victim to see how she felt about this or if there was any noted concern. The supervising PPO in Renfrew missed numerous opportunities to engage the client in motivational and counselling discussions. He continued to blame the victims and mitigated any responsibilities. Both Supervising PPO’s could have paid more attention to review the offence cycle for violent offenders, identify that cycle as part of the ongoing risk assessment and identification of stressors, triggers and flags. After reviewing this case, there were opportunities missed that would have assisted with the overall case management, including enhancing victim and public safety, rehabilitation through intervention, while holding the offender accountable. What Have We Learned: In this case the standard models of risk assessment as well as the incorporation of ODARA would tell us, based on the information available, that the Client was at high risk of continued reoffending that may include violence and particularly of a Domestic Nature. He was a first time DV offender however there was a substantial list of withdrawn and stayed DV related and violent offences. Unfortunately it was discovered sometime during the period of supervision (during a High Risk Review Meeting) that an 810 Order prohibiting contact with the offender’s While the risk of further violence is high there is no indication early on in the supervision period, based on any information available that indicated he was of sufficient risk to be considered Intensive as few indications were present that he presented an imminent risk. All PPO’s in both offices were trained as ISO PPO’s and the Manager advises that diligent application of the ISO protocol had been established. In retrospect it appears that the client was struggling with substance abuse, had deeply entrenched criminal orientation and anti-social qualities and to look very deep there are subtle indications of deviance that may have been made more clear with additional collateral information from personal sources and police. It would also appear that a fairly clear picture of an offence cycle could be identified with additional monitoring and use of these collateral contacts. A challenge with multiple stressors greatly increased the probability of violent acting out by this offender. It is difficult to identify specific stressors that were building in the client’s life as numerous factors existed. As more information became known about the offender and when everything is considered in its entirety such as the extreme number of withdrawn or stayed charges for violent related offences, the escalating pattern of domestic violence, his efforts to deny any wrong doing and minimize his own responsibility along with his continued blaming of the victims and his clear disdain for the Criminal Justice System and his attempts to 292 Confidential 11 | P a g e manipulate, it would have been reasonable to have him considered as a potential Intensive Supervision Offender. This case highlights that the identification of a client’s offence cycle is very important. In this case sufficient information exists that allows us to see intervening in this cycle may be an effective way to head off future violence or at least minimize the impact. The value of utilizing personal collaterals and police compliance checks is evident. The value of adhering to existing polices regarding the service delivery framework is equally evident. We also should consider the merit of additional sources of information that is current and often insightful, such as social media to monitor triggers/flags. Recommendations:  The Ministry work with MAG to establish a strategy to ensure PAR Programs are made more readily available as well in rural and remote parts of the province.  The Ministry work to establish a transportation strategy for clients in rural and remote areas to attend required programming.  MAG undertake mandatory Judicial Training with regard to Domestic Violence Risk Factors, the importance of counselling via the PAR Program, the reality of supervision in rural/remote communities and the importance of ensuring thoughtful conditions are included in supervision orders to assist with victim safety and hold the offender accountable.  That refresher training be mandated for all PPO’s, with more than 5 years experience. This training should be high end, strategically focused and condensed to enhance the value to the staff and Ministry. The training should include: What an offence cycle is for violent offenders, how to identify that cycle as part of the on going risk assessment and identification of stressors, triggers and flags. To routinely monitor offence cycles for all violent high risk offenders and to address criminogenic targets associated with the cycle and what resources to utilize to intervene.  As well training to ensure strategic case note writing should be included so that relevant information re: meaningful conversations, decision making, enforcement decisions, etc. are thoughtfully recorded. Specifically with regard to Domestic Violence, the need to assess and pay close attention to DV Risk Factors, the need to ensure timely attendance at PAR and prompt enforcement where no reasonable excuse re: non￾compliance is evident.  Training should emphasize the crucial importance of obtaining detailed offender background information through personal collateral contacts who are relevant and knowledgeable.  Victim issues refresher training should also be part of the mandatory refresher training and should address denial/minimization as responsivity concerns and the concept of progressive enforcement especially with regard to victims of domestic violence.  This training should link the aforementioned with documentation requirements and OMP requirements to capture the work. 293 Confidential 12 | P a g e  The Ministry continues to foster and maintain working relationships with criminal justice partners with the ultimate goal of creating a seamless and collaborative approach to managing High Risk DV offenders in our community.  In conjunction with the role of the Program Delivery Officers, consistently review office gap analysis and staff training with respect to delivering core rehabilitative programs, such as CIAC-Healthy Relations, Substance Use, Anti-Criminal Thinking to create viable options, especially in more rural or remote areas where specific programming do not exist or the clients ability and/or motivation to attend these programs proves challenging due to his/her stage of change, transportation, etc... Committee Members: Christopher Moore, Area Manager Ajax/Pickering P & P Joe Woodgate, Area Manager Peterborough P & P October 28, 2015 294