Ontario Review Board
Re: Sandor Balazsity
ORB File No: 8810
Hearing held on: Tuesday, September 23, 2025
Place of hearing: Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care 401 Sunset Drive, St. Thomas
Pursuant to: Sections 672.47(1) and 672.48(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. G. Beasley
Members: Dr. T. Verny Dr. R. Chandrasena Ms. K. Tomaszewski Mr. A. Mete
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Sandor Balazsity Counsel: Mr. C.P. Dobson
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. J. Zamprogna
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. D. Rows
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated November 20, 2025)
Introduction
[1]. On May 27, 2025, the accused, Sandor Balazsity, was found unfit to stand trial on two sets of charges, pursuant to the Criminal Code of Canada. Justice Pollock, of the Ontario Court of Justice, declined to make a disposition and remanded Mr. Balazsity to the Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care (“Southwest Centre”) St. Thomas, Ontario, for the purpose of an initial hearing, pursuant to ss. 672.47(1) and 672.48(1) of the Criminal Code. The Ontario Review Board (“ORB”) convened a hearing at the Southwest Centre on September 23, 2025. Initially, Mr. Balazsity attended from his unit by video conference accompanied by Dr. Mokhber, and was represented by counsel, Mr. Dobson. Counsel for the hospital was Ms. Julie Zamprogna and counsel for the Attorney General of Ontario, Mr. Rows.
Alleged Index Offences
[2]. The circumstances of the alleged offences are as follows:
November 6, 2024
Count 1: CC 349(1) Unlawfully in a Dwelling House
On 2024-11-06 at approximately 1806 hrs the accused attended the residence residence of Ainslie DEBOER. The accused entered through the unlocked front door and locked the door behind him. DEBOER was home with her two small children ages five and two. DEBOER managed to call 911 and left the phone line open while she kept the accused calm and removed her children to a more secure room. DEBOER was also able to unlock the front door for police to enter on arrival. The accused physical size (6’5, 190 lbs) vastly outmatches DEBOER at (5’4”) and she would be unable to effectively defend herself against the accused in a physical altercation.
The accused advised he was going to live at 8693 Cundle Line now and sat in the living room. The residence has an open floor plan, and the living room is adjacent to the open kitchen and hallway with bedrooms. The children were in their bedrooms. PC LITTLEWOOD arrived first at approximately 1816 hrs and entered the house. The accused identified himself as “Bob” and stated he lived at this location. PC MONIZ and PC BRIGLEY arrived shortly thereafter.
St. Francis Advocates were contacted as officers believed the accused was a client of theirs. The accused was coaxed outside of the residence by officers without incident.
Count 2: CC 270(1)(a) Assault a Peace Officer
Count 3: CC 270(1)(a) Assault a Peace Officer
The accused was advised we would wait outside for St. Francis Advocates staff to attend and help explain the situation. The accused became more agitated and advised he lives at 8693 Cundle Line and attempted to push past PC MONIZ to re-enter the residence. PC MONIZ used an open hand on the accused’s chest to prevent this and the accused responded by swinging a closed fist at PC MONIZ’s head. PC MONIZ blocked the strike, and PC LITTLEWOOD grabbed the accused into an escort position and attempted to remove him from the entryway of the residence.
The accused did not cease his assaultive behavior, and both the accused and PC LITTLEWOOD fell from the entryway to a gravel driveway. PC LITTLEWOOD and PC MONIZ immediately attempted to handcuff the accused and the accused began kicking, punching, and attempting to bite both officers. PC BRIGLEY attended at this time and the accused was handcuffed and put into a prone position. PC LITTLEWOOD suffered a minor injury to his forehead. PC MONIZ had no visible injuries.
The accused advised that if he returned to his group home this evening he would kill the staff members and return to 8693 Cundle Line and reiterated multiple times that he resided there now. The accused was held pending a bail hearing per public safety and to prevent the commission of another indictable offence.
November 15, 2024 - Synopsis
On November 7, 2024, the accused was released on a Form 11 with the following conditions:
“After a GPS monitoring device is applied to your person, remain inside your residence 21220 Charing Cross Road, Raleigh, Ontario, at all times...”
and from the attached Schedule “A.” GPS Monitoring Rules and Protocols
“I will wear the monitoring device and will not attempt to remove, tamper with, or otherwise interfere with the operation of the device, or any related equipment.”
On November 6, 2024, the accused was arrested for unlawful in a dwelling and assault peace officer x2. He was released on a Form 11 with a GPS bracelet. He was to remain on house arrest with surety at 21220 Charing Cross Road, Chatham. The accused is a client of this community living group home. He has extremely violent tendencies and very aggressive and assaultive. He is very unpredictable.
Count 1 - Fail to Comply with Release Order CC S.145(5)(a)(GPS tamper)
On November 15, 2024 at approx 2006 hrs the accused became agitated and wanted to get out of the group home. He began causing a disturbance. He grabbed a knife from the kitchen and attempted to remove the GPS bracelet from his ankle. He cut into the rubber causing damage to the bracelet. Recovery Science had contacted the group home and CKPS to advise of a tamper alert.
Count 2 - Mischief Under $5000 CC S. 430(4)
He then punched the bathroom window 3 times to attempt to escape from the residence. The window was smashed, and the screen was popped out. The window damage was approx.. $300 to repair.
Count 3 - Assault CC S.266
When the staff members attempted to defuse the situation and keep him from leaving, the accused was still agitated and punched staff Carolyn ROBERT in the mouth (no injury).
Count 4 - Assault CC S.266
Another staff member was attempting same and the accused punched staff Steve SCOTT in the head knocking off his glasses.
Count 5 - Fail to Comply with Release Order CC S.145(5)(a) (Remain in residence)
911 was called and as police attended the scene the accused climbed out of the broken bathroom window and ran down the road off the property.
He was arrested approx. 100 feet off the property.
The accused had lacerated his hand from breaking the window and was transported to PGH for stitches.
He was arrested and read his RTC.
Police contacted Patricia Brown's office and advised, and the accused was held for bail.
Current Diagnosis
[3]. The current diagnosis is taken from the Hospital Report as follows:
Intellectual Disability
Criminal History
[4]. Mr. Balazsity’s only criminal record is November 24, 2010, for break enter and commit, suspended sentence, and 12 months’ probation.
Background and Personal History
[5]. Mr. Balazsity’s personal history is comprehensively reviewed in the Hospital Report which was filed as an exhibit at the hearing. Accordingly, there will be no extensive reference to the details. Mr. Balazsity was not a dependable historian and frequently claimed that he could not remember specific details when interviewed about his social history. The psychological assessment report prepared on March 24, 2025, was able to review details from prior medical records. When interviewed in 2010, his mother reported that Mr. Balazsity did not have any difficulties throughout his early childhood apart from developmentally delayed speech. He did not start speaking until he was four years old. He did not initiate play with other children and had no close friendships. Unfortunately, Mr. Balazsity was assaulted by a school bus driver at the age of 6. At the age of 12 he was assaulted by a teacher. At the age of 19, his older brother, who he considered to be his best friend, was killed in an automobile accident. At school, Mr. Balazsity experienced numerous school suspensions due to aggressive behaviour. He was able to complete grade 12 through the Special Education Program in Chatham. Mr. Balazsity had admissions to the Child and Parent Resource Institute (CPRI) in London and the Regional Children’s Centre (RCC) in Windsor. He was diagnosed with impulse control disorder, severe ADHD, and intellectual developmental disorder. In adolescence he continued to display conduct disordered behaviours, including threatening, stealing, aggression and property destruction. He had several admissions to the psychiatric department of Chatham General Hospital and to the former St. Thomas Psychiatric Hospital. At the time of the index offenses, Mr. Balazsity was residing in a supervised group home in Chatham.
Position of the Parties
[6]. At the outset of the hearing, Ms. Zamprogna submitted that in the opinion of the hospital and the treatment team, Mr. Balazsity was unfit to stand trial. Ms. Zamprogna further submitted that the necessary and appropriate disposition was a Detention Order with privileges up to and including residing in the community in 24-hour a day supervised accommodation. Both Mr. Rows and Mr. Dobson supported the opinion and recommendations of the hospital and the treatment team.
Evidence
[7]. The evidence on behalf of the hospital was presented by Dr. Ardani. Dr. Ardani is the co-author of the Hospital Report. Dr. Mokhber is Mr. Balazsity’s attending psychiatrist and she was present with Mr. Balazsity on the unit. Dr. Ardani testified that since the preparation of the original Hospital Report, the treatment team had reconsidered Mr. Balazsity’s diagnosis. Once Mr. Balazsity was transferred to the treatment unit, he began to display psychotic features which ultimately led the team to conclude that his diagnosis should include unspecified schizophrenia and other psychotic disorder. Dr. Ardani stated that Mr. Balazsity’s diagnosed cognitive and intellectual disability manifests itself in behaviour. He has a low frustration tolerance and is prone to impulsive acting out. Mr. Balazsity can become labile and needs support to govern his behaviour. Dr. Ardani said Mr. Balazsity has no insight into his illness. At the present time, Mr. Balazsity's father is acting as his substitute decision maker (SDM). Mr. Balazsity receives two different antipsychotic medications. He is compliant with his medications and has partial insight into his need for prescribed antipsychotics. Dr. Ardani stated that although Mr. Balazsity does not have a history of substance use disorder, the allegations of the break and enter to the residence involve him seeking alcohol. As a result, the treatment team have included a prohibition against substances in the proposed Disposition. Dr. Ardani was asked if Mr. Balazsity has access to caffeine and chocolate in the hospital at the present time. Dr. Ardani stated that caffeine and chocolate are being used by the treatment team as part of their positive reinforcement strategy in Mr. Balazsity’s treatment plan.
[8]. Dr. Ardani stated that Mr. Balazsity has a history of violence back to the age of 6. Mr. Balazsity currently has a behaviour plan in place but requires significant external supervision. Dr. Ardani endorsed the conclusions of the HCR-20 set out in the Hospital Report which stated that Mr. Balazsity represents a moderate risk of violent reoffending in the context of a Detention Disposition while residing in the hospital. If he were to be managed on a less restrictive Disposition, his risk would increase to high. Dr. Ardani agreed that the addition of the diagnosis of a psychotic disorder increases the risk outlined in the earlier Hospital Report. In his opinion, Dr. Ardani stated that Mr. Balazsity represents a significant threat to the safety of the public. He has poor insight into his mental illness, treatment, and violence risk. He lacks insight into his behaviours and the risk they pose towards members of the public.
[9]. Mr. Balazsity does have support of his father and other friends in the community. There is a potential that his father could be an approved person, but it is uncertain if he would be able to supervise his son in the community. Mr. Balazsity will need to stabilize before any such consideration for passes could be given. Mr. Balazsity has been approved for DSO support and Passport funding. At the present time, Mr. Balazsity is not on the waiting list for housing. Any residence in the community will need to be 24 hours a day, seven days a week supervised accommodation approved by the person in charge.
[10]. Dr. Ardani stated that since Mr. Balazsity was found unfit to stand trial on May 27, 2025, the treatment team have engaged in fitness education. As set out in the update to the Hospital Report, Mr. Balazsity was last assessed for fitness to stand trial by Dr. Mokhber on September 9, 2025. Dr. Ardani testified that he concurs with Dr. Mokhber’s opinion that Mr. Balazsity is unfit to stand trial. He does not recall the specific charges and referred only to having “done bad things.” He is unaware of the possible consequences of the allegations. Although he was able to state that his lawyer was “going to help me,” he was unable to provide specific relevant instructions. He does not have a consistent understanding of the role of the Crown attorney and the judge. He could not explain the meaning of an oath. Dr. Ardani stated that Mr. Balazsity does not have a reality-based understanding of the process. Dr. Ardani testified that in his opinion it was very unlikely that Mr. Balazsity would ever be fit to stand trial.
[11]. Mr. Rows did not have any questions.
[12]. In response to questions from Mr. Dobson, Dr. Ardani stated that Mr. Balazsity’s diagnosed psychotic symptoms were earlier attributed to symptoms of his intellectual disability. Dr. Ardani stated that when Mr. Balazsity’s antipsychotic medications are optimized it will likely not change his opinion with respect to fitness to stand trial. Finally, Dr. Ardani said that the fitness training which had been undertaken by the treatment team was unsuccessful.
[13]. Neither Mr. Rows nor Mr. Dobson called evidence at the hearing.
Submissions
[14]. At the conclusion of the evidence, Ms. Zamprogna reiterated the submission made at the outset of the hearing that Mr. Balazsity is presently unfit to stand trial. She further submitted that the necessary and appropriate Disposition was a Detention Order with privileges outlined in the Hospital Report up to and including residing in the community in 24-hour a day, seven day a week supervised accommodation approved by the person in charge. Both Mr. Rows and Mr. Dobson supported the opinion and recommendations outlined by Ms. Zamprogna.
Analysis and Disposition
[15]. The threshold issue for the Board is whether or not Mr. Balazsity is fit to stand trial. For many years, the assessment of an accused to stand trial has utilized what became known as the Taylor Test, often summarized as the “limited cognitive capacity test.” The test was essentially a series of questions about the role of the parties to the trial, the meaning of an oath and the potential consequences. In 2023 the Ontario Court of Appeal released a decision of a five justice panel in R. v. Bharwani 2023 ONCA 203. The decision expanded the factors to be considered in assessing fitness and found that an accused must have a reality based understanding of the trial process. This decision was in turn appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada which released its judgment in R. v. Bharwani, 2025 SCC 26 on July 25, 2025. In upholding the decision of the OCA, Justice O’Bonsawin, writing for the majority in a 6:3 decision stated:
[6] I disagree. As I will explain, an accused is fit to stand trial when they are able to make and communicate reality-based decisions in the conduct of their defence or instruct counsel to do so. Conducting a defence includes making decisions that an accused must always make personally and those which relate to the exercise of their right to full answer and defence, such as decisions about pleas, the mode of trial, selection of counsel, whether to testify, whether to call or cross-examine witnesses, and closing submissions, among others. The capacity required to make those decisions is a reality-based understanding of the nature or object of the proceedings and their possible consequences, an ability to understand the available options and their consequences, and an ability to select between those options when making decisions. Fitness to stand trial does not require an accused to make decisions in their best interests. Rather, it requires making decisions based on an understanding of reality that is not overwhelmed by delusions, hallucinations, or other symptoms of their mental disorder. Transient mental health symptoms do not necessarily compromise an accused’s ability to conduct a defence. The focus is always on assessing the extent to which an accused’s mental disorder impairs their understanding of reality when making and communicating decisions in their defence
And in summary:
[77] To conclude, the text, statutory context, and purpose of the definition of “unfit to stand trial “support an interpretation of the capacity threshold that requires an accused to be able to make reality-based decisions in the conduct of their defence and intelligibly communicate these decisions to counsel or the court. This necessitates a reality-based understanding of the nature or object and possible consequences of the proceedings, as well as an ability to understand the available options and their consequences, and to select between those options when making decisions. The accused is not required to make decisions in their best interests, but cannot be overwhelmed by delusions, hallucinations, or other symptoms of their mental disorder when making and communicating these decisions.
[16]. The Board is unanimous in accepting the opinion of Dr. Ardani and Dr. Mokhber as supported by all counsel that Mr. Balazsity is presently unfit to stand trial. The Board accepts the uncontradicted summary of the doctors’ opinions as set out in the following paragraph from the Hospital Report:
“In summary, Mr. Balazsity’s current clinical picture reflects a combination of baseline cognitive limitations and active psychotic symptoms characterized by auditory and visual hallucinations with religious and persecutory themes, poor insight, and markedly disorganized thought process. These factors impair comprehension, appreciation, and communication capacities relevant to both treatment decisions and legal proceedings. It is the opinion that the Mr. Balazsity remains Unfit to Stand Trial. He is unable to understand the nature or object of legal proceedings and the potential consequences in a reliable and sustained manner, and he is unable to communicate rationally with counsel due to severe thought disorganization, impaired attention, and active psychotic symptoms on the background of a neurodevelopmental disorder.”
[17]. Given the finding above that Mr. Balazsity is unfit to stand trial, the issue of significant threat must be considered in the context of drafting the necessary and appropriate disposition. In his evidence, Dr. Ardani specifically adopted the conclusion of the HCR-20 assessment that Mr. Balazsity represents a moderate risk for re-offense within the supervision and structure of the hospital and that this would rise to a high risk to the safety of the public in a less secure environment. There is no air of reality to a Conditional Discharge Disposition. Dr. Ardani also gave the opinion to the diagnosis of an unspecified psychosis enhances the risk that Mr. Balazsity represents to the safety of the public. The factors leading to the assessment of significant threat are set out above and need not be repeated. Suffice to say that a combination of Mr. Balazsity’s intellectual disability and unspecified psychotic disorder clearly represent a real risk of serious physical or psychological violence. The Board accepts the disposition proposed by the hospital and treatment team as necessary and appropriate to fulfill the criteria of s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code of which the safety of the public is the paramount concern. The proposed Disposition also works to provide Mr. Balazsity with a route to reintegration into the community and his other needs.
DATED this 20th day of November 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.
Mr. G. Beasley Alternate Chairperson
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board