Re: Alexandru Pacurar
ORB File No: 5776
Hearing held on: Wednesday, September 17, 2025
Place of hearing: Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences 700 Gordon Street, Whitby
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. M.D. Segal Members: Dr. S. Nagari (by Zoom) Dr. M. Choptiany Ms. J. Greenwood Ms. C. Plyley
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Alexandru Pacurar Counsel: Mr. M. Schloss
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Mr. K. Dow
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. N. MacDonald
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated November 14, 2025)
Introduction
[1]. On November 23, 2010, Alexandru Pacurar was found not criminally responsible on a single charge of mischief not exceeding $5000, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada. As a result, Mr. Pacurar is currently under the jurisdiction of the Ontario Review Board pursuant to a Disposition dated September 18, 2024, where he was detained subject to conditions with privileges up to and including residing in the community in approved accommodation. The Reasons for that Disposition were dated October 29, 2024.
[2]. Subsequently, Mr. Pacurar had a Restriction of Liberty hearing, and the panel found no restriction of his liberty with Reasons for that decision dated August 8, 2025.
[3]. Mr. Pacurar resided in the community and in May of 2025, he had been readmitted to hospital at his request.
[4]. At the hearing, the hospital was represented by Mr. Dow; Ms. MacDonald appeared as counsel for the Attorney General and Mr. Pacurar attended the hearing and was represented by his counsel, Mr. Schloss.
Issues at the Hearing
[5]. The issue at this hearing, which was conceded by all parties, was whether Mr. Pacurar is a significant threat to the safety of the public as defined in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code, and if so, the necessary and appropriate disposition in the circumstances must be determined considering the factors outlined in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
[6]. For the reasons set out below and based on the expert evidence and opinion before the panel, the Board concluded that Mr. Pacurar continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and the Board also considered whether Mr. Pacurar should receive a conditional discharge.
[7]. The panel finds, based on the evidence and the joint submission of all parties, that a conditional discharge is the necessary and appropriate disposition in these circumstances. The Board further agrees with the parties’ joint recommendation that Mr. Pacurar be subject to a treatment clause which through his counsel, he consented to.
Current Psychiatric Diagnoses
[8]. Mr. Pacurar’s current diagnoses include schizophrenia, unspecified personality disorder and cannabis use disorder in sustained remission in a controlled environment.
Index Offence
[9]. The allegations giving rise to the index offence are well summarised in last year’s Reasons as follows:
“In April 2010, Mr. Pacurar destroyed the apartment he shared with is mother. He carved into the walls and slashed furniture. He told the police that he wanted to see what was in the walls and he was “searching for stuff”. He later told his mother that he thought there was an assassin hiding in the apartment and he was trying to find him.
While in police custody later that same day, Mr. Pacurar attempted suicide.”
Initial Positions
[10]. At the outset of the hearing, all Counsel were canvassed as to their initial positions. Mr. Dow, for the hospital, indicated that the hospital was recommending a conditional discharge with a treatment clause and weapons prohibition clause. Counsel for the Attorney General, Ms. MacDonald, supported the hospital's position and Counsel Mr. Schloss, on behalf of Mr. Pacurar, supported the position, recommending a conditional discharge and advised his client consented to a treatment clause and was not opposed to a weapons prohibition. As such, this was a joint submission, endorsed by all parties.
Evidence at the Hearing
[11]. The Hospital Report dated August 21, 2025, was marked as Exhibit 1 at the hearing and the previous Reasons for Decision and Reasons for Disposition were considered. The Hospital Report contain significant background about Mr. Pacurar’s progress over the last reporting year and prior history and need not be repeated here.
[12]. Dr. Pallandi testified at this hearing and described Mr. Pacurar as having a very positive reporting year. Dr. Pallandi gave evidence that Mr. Pacurar is a pleasant and cooperative individual who has a good relationship with both Dr. Pallandi and the treatment team.
[13]. Dr. Pallandi gave evidence which provided some context for the return to hospital in May of 2025, that ultimately led to Mr. Pacurar’s admission and Restriction of Liberty hearing. He advised that there was an abrupt fluctuation in Mr. Pacurar’s mental state, however, his risk to the safety of the community was not elevated. Dr. Pallandi was of the view that there are ongoing issues in the stability of Mr. Pacurar's mental state and that at times he has these fluctuations for reasons that the team cannot entirely discern. Dr. Pallandi went on to explain that he does not believe these fluctuations were related to any substance abuse and as confirmed by urine analysis. Dr. Pallandi’s evidence was that some of the clinicians working with Mr. Pacurar have observed these fluctuations and that he has also observed them now himself but that Mr. Pacurar seems to be back at his baseline as of the date of the hearing. Dr. Pallandi went on to explain the treatment team's reason for recommending a conditional discharge at this time. He explained that in light of the fact that Mr. Pacurar has developed good insight into his illness and during May of 2025 recognized that he needed to come to the hospital, the treatment team feels that he is very cooperative and understands the need for treatment. Overall, the team felt that he had had a very positive year, and the Hospital Report supports this.
[14]. It was Dr. Pallandi's opinion that Mr. Pacurar’s risk would be able to be managed on a conditional discharge given the level of cooperation he has with his team and his insight.
[15]. Dr. Pallandi also gave evidence that the Mental Health Act would be adequate to manage Mr. Pacurar in the community. Dr. Pallandi described that in the May 2025 admission, he had some suicidal ideation and would meet the criteria for the Mental Health Act should the team need to use that as a tool to manage him in the community on a conditional discharge.
[16]. Dr. Pallandi also provided evidence that Mr. Pacurar remains a significant threat to the safety of the public given that there are issues with his long-term mental stability. The team wants to solidify his compliance with treatment and assist him in ensuring his stability in the community. Dr. Pallandi gave evidence that Mr. Pacurar is still a significant threat as of today at the time of the hearing.
[17]. Dr. Pallandi also gave evidence about the inclusion of a residence clause in the Disposition. Dr. Pallandi’s evidence was that the team is recommending a general residence clause that Mr. Pacurar remain under the Durham Mental Health Services (“DMHS”). Remaining under DMHS support will provide the adequate control that the team needs to approve his housing but allows for the possibility that Mr. Pacurar can move to less supportive housing within the next reporting year. Currently, Mr. Pacurar resides in Scott House, which is a 24/7 supportive housing that provides meals and medication supervision. Dr. Pallandi and the treatment team hope over the next reporting year that Mr. Pacurar moves toward more independence and may move to a housing residence that is less supportive and this clause will allow for that flexibility.
[18]. With respect to treatment, the treatment team would like to see a clause in the Disposition that provides for Mr. Pacurar’s treatment to ensure that he remains compliant with the treatment team's requests. Dr. Pallandi felt that this was appropriate at this time.
[19]. Dr. Pallandi was asked questions by the Counsel for the Attorney General about the inclusion of a weapons prohibition and whether it was necessary in these circumstances. Dr. Pallandi’s evidence was that this was recommended by the team out of an abundance of caution and to ensure Mr. Pacurar had no weapons.
[20]. Dr. Pallandi was asked questions by defence counsel, Mr. Schloss, and clarified that Mr. Pacurar has not expressed any interest in weapons and that this recommendation was more as a precaution. Dr. Pallandi confirmed, in response to questions from defence counsel, that Mr. Pacurar had a very good reporting year and further, that when he had difficulties with his mental state, he came to the hospital to ask for help. Dr. Pallandi also advised that Mr. Pacurar’s level of insight is good, and he understands that he needs to continue to take medication. Mr. Schloss asked Dr. Pallandi to clarify around the residence clause and remaining under DMHS housing and Dr. Pallandi advised that while Mr. Pacurar’s housing remains stable, it is possible that he may want to move into more independent housing and the team will continue to support Mr. Pacurar should he wish to do so.
[21]. In response to questions from the Board, Dr. Pallandi gave evidence that the team currently sees Mr. Pacurar twice a week but hopes to be able to transition him into a less frequent schedule of supervision if his mental state remains stable and once he is content to have less oversight. Further, Dr. Pallandi explained that the treatment team will be referring Mr. Pacurar to individual therapy and that he may benefit from either CBT or DBT to develop better stress tolerance. Dr. Pallandi added that with the development of a better stress tolerance, he may not require further admission to hospital and that the treatment team could support him in dealing with stressors. Mr. Pacurar is currently on the list awaiting individual counseling and his treatment team will work with the Psychology Department on an appropriate plan.
[22]. Dr. Pallandi was also asked to clarify some of the evidence in the Hospital Report regarding Mr. Pacurar’s clozapine therapy. Dr. Pallandi advised that the team tests Mr. Pacurar’s clozapine levels during routine blood work. Dr. Pallandi advised that he believed if asked, Mr. Pacurar would give a blood sample, but that has not been necessary in the past.
[23]. Dr. Pallandi was also asked about Mr. Pacurar’s use of caffeine pills and whether or not those would impact his mental state. Dr. Pallandi’s evidence was that taking those types of over-the-counter medications could affect Mr. Pacurar, especially his mood, and further, this could have impacted his fluctuations in his mental state, although the team is of the view that Mr. Pacurar generally has fluctuations that are not necessarily caused by any one factor.
Positions of the Parties
[24]. All parties were in agreement, and this was a joint submission that a conditional discharge is the necessary and appropriate Disposition. The parties presented the joint submission based on the recommendation from the hospital and while a weapons prohibition was initially proposed, the parties left with the Board whether or not this would be an appropriate clause to include in the Disposition.
[25]. The issue of significant threat to the safety of the public was not contested at this hearing, and in light of the risk assessment and re-offence scenario outlined in the Hospital Report, this threshold continued to be met.
Analysis and Conclusion
[26]. Having considered all of the evidence as well as the joint submission of the parties and the submissions of counsel, the Board agrees and accepts the joint submission. The Board considered the issue of the inclusion of a treatment clause in this year's Disposition and found that in light of the fluctuations in Mr. Pacurar’s mental state and on the evidence provided in the Hospital Report, it is appropriate to include a treatment clause in the Disposition to support Mr. Pacurar’s rehabilitation.
[27]. The panel further considered the issue of the inclusion of a weapons prohibition and finds this clause is not necessary and appropriate.
[28]. The panel has carefully considered all of the evidence, the joint submission of the parties and the criteria set out in s. 672.54 of the Code with the paramount consideration being the safety of the public. Further, we have considered the mental state of Mr. Pacurar, his reintegration into society and other needs, and concluded that this is the necessary and appropriate Disposition.
DATED this 14th day of November 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.
Ms. J. Greenwood Legal Member
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board