COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

CITATION: Gajewski (Re), 2015 ONCA 332

DATE: 20150511

DOCKET: C59245

Gillese, Tulloch and Lauwers JJ.A.

IN THE MATTER OF: BARTOSZ GAJEWSKI

AN APPEAL UNDER PART XX.1 OF THE CODE

Bartosz Gajewski, appearing in person

Anita Szigeti, for the appellant

Joanne Stuart, for the Crown

Michele Warner, for the Person in Charge of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health

Heard: May 6, 2015

On appeal against the disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated, July 16, 2014.

APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT

[1] Mr. Gajewski suffers from delusional disorder. He has been found not criminally responsible for the index offences of forcible confinement and assault. By disposition dated July 16, 2014, the Board ordered that Mr. Gajewski continue to be detained on the Secure Forensic Unit at CAMH.

[2] Mr. Gajewski appeals and asks that he be ordered detained on the less secure unit, that is, the General Forensic Unit at CAMH. He says he has been a model institutional citizen in the year prior to the 2014 hearing and disposition and detention on the more secure unit was largely designed to punish him for refusing to engage with his treatment team.

[3] In light of Mr. Gajewski’s continued refusal to communicate and engage with his treatment team, the Board did not act unreasonably in finding that the threshold risk to public safety remains. Because of his refusal to engage with his treatment team, the Hospital is unable to assess Mr. Gajewski’s mental state on a day-to-day basis or to manage his risk. In our view, it was not unreasonable for the Board to find that it would be impossible to increase Mr. Gajewski’s privileges without the ability to assess the risk associated with that increase.

[4] Further, detention on the more secure unit is warranted because inability to assess risk to the public safety means that Mr. Gajewski is limited to escorted passes. Because of the higher staff-to-patient ratio on the more secure unit, Mr. Gajewski will actually enjoy more passes than if he were detained on the less secure unit.

[5] Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.