Ontario Review Board
Re: Ayse Kirbac
ORB File No: 8072
Hearing held on: Friday, November 14, 2025
Place of hearing: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health 1001 Queen Street West, Toronto
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. J. Goldenberg Members: Dr. J. Kis Dr. C. Rose Ms. S. Kert Mr. A. Mete
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Ayse Kirbac Counsel: Ms. M. Addie
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Mr. D. Blumenkrans
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. C. Coughlan
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated November 28, 2025)
On May 13, 2022, Ayse Kirbac was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, on one count of assault, two counts of assault causing bodily harm, and two counts of assaulting by choking.
Ms. Kirbac is currently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated January 13, 2025, by which she was ordered detained at the Forensic Service of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto (“CAMH”).
On Friday, November 14, 2025, the Ontario Review Board convened a hearing at CAMH and conducted the annual review of Ms. Kirbac’s Disposition.
Position of the Parties
At the outset of the hearing the parties were canvassed as to their recommendations to the Board.
Mr. Blumenkrans appeared for the hospital. He advised of the hospital position that Ms. Kirbac remains a significant threat to public safety, and if the Board so finds, the hospital is now recommending that Ms. Kirbac be discharged subject to a number of conditions.
Mr. Coughlan appeared for the Attorney General. He anticipated supporting the hospital’s recommendation.
Ms. Addie appeared for Ms. Kirbac. She also anticipated supporting the hospital’s recommendation.
The Alternate Chair noted that the Hospital Report, although recommending a Conditional Discharge, was silent as to the conditions that the hospital was recommending. As a result, counsel, the doctor and the patient had a private meeting to discuss that issue.
Subsequently, Mr. Blumenkrans advised of the conditions of the proposed Conditional Discharge included a residence clause and continuing with most of the prohibitions that had been contained in last year's Detention Order Disposition.
Mr. Coughlan then confirmed that he agreed with all of the conditions and Mr. Coughlan advised that in fact the parties were making a joint recommendation.
Ms. Addie then confirmed that the parties were making a joint recommendation. She acknowledged, on behalf of her client, that at the present time Ms. Kirbac remains a significant threat to public safety and at the present time the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a Conditional Discharge with the conditions requested by Mr. Blumenkrans.
Index Offences
- “On March 10th 2021. The Victim advised that she was jogging and she slowed to a walk and observed two females also on the east sidewalk. The females were walking southbound towards her. The accused made eye contact with her and smiled. Upon meeting each other the accused reached out in what the victim described as an attempt to hug her. The victim avoided the contact.
Simultaneously the accused then grabbed the victim by the head and smashed it into the wall of the under pass. The accused then began punching the victim about the head area. The accused was yelling at the victim and calling her a bitch. (CHARGE #1)
On March 17 2021. The victim was walking northbound on Symington Avenue on the east side sidewalk. As the victim crossed the roadway on Symington Avenue at Dupont Street the accused and a male walking southbound on Symington Avenue approached the victim. The accused then bear hugged the victim in the middle of the intersection and picked him up. A third party male bystander intervened and pulled the accused off of the victim. The accused then questioned the victim, "Do you want to die"?
On March 17, 2021. While the victim was waiting for the bus, the accused was arguing with a male who appeared to be with her. The accused walked over to the victim and got extremely close to the victim and asked if she was waiting for the bus. The victim advised she was and at this point the female took a step back and punched the victim in the face with full force. (CHARGE #3)
On March 23, 2021. The victim in the matter heard a voice say "Do you want to fight?". The victim turned toward the voice. Again, the accused now standing directly in front of her asked angrily "Do you want to fight?" while walking toward her. The victim backed away from the accused, still facing her, The accused reached out and grabbed the victim by the hair and pulled her head downward putting the victim in a choke hold. (CHARGE #4)
On March 23, 2021 The victim in the matter was waiting out front of the High Park Subway when the accused walked up to the victim and accused her of being a "stalker". The accused continued to berate the victim. The victim turned away when the accused grabbed the victim and put her in a choke hold. (CHARGE #5) The victim broke free and called police.”
Evidence at Hearing
The Board admitted into evidence the Hospital Report dated October 30, 2025. The Hospital Report provides a great deal of information concerning Ms. Kirbac, her personal history, her mental health history, details of the index offences and Ms. Kirbac’s course in the hospital subsequent to the date of the NCR finding. As the Hospital Report was made an exhibit in this hearing it is not necessary to reproduce the information contained in the Hospital Report in these Reasons.
We do note, however, the stated diagnoses of:
Schizophrenia
Alcohol and Cannabis Use Disorder in remission
In addition to the documentary evidence the Board heard from Dr. Kravtsenyuk. Dr. Kravtsenyuk first advised that Ms. Kirbac has enjoyed “a wonderful year”. The clinical team did consider the possibility of recommending an Absolute Discharge but ultimately and unanimously agreed that before that can occur, Ms. Kirbac’s clinical care should be transferred to a civil mental health service. Dr. Kravtsenyuk repeated that her patient is doing well. She is abstaining from the use of substances and she is compliant with her medication requirements. Ms. Kirbac continues to live in the same apartment that she has been in for a number of years. Ms. Kirbac has worked as an office assistant.
Dr. Kravtsenyuk noted that following the NCR verdict there were no admissions to hospital.
In response to questions from Ms. Addie, Dr. Kravtsenyuk agreed that there has been some improvement in Ms. Kirbac’s insight.
In response to questions from a panel member, Dr. Kravtsenyuk noted that her patient is willing to engage in therapy but acknowledged that Ms. Kirbac also is employed. As well, in response to further questions, Dr. Kravtsenyuk noted that this patient has stated some remorse about the events of the index offence. A member of the panel noted that the hospital’s recommendation is that the Board order Ms. Kirbac to continue to live in the apartment she has been living in for a number of years. That led to a discussion with all counsel as to the necessity of a specific community living clause. Mr. Blumenkrans indicated that the hospital was asking for a residence clause but would leave the matter up to the panel. Mr. Coughlan supported the Board including a residence clause. After some further discussion, Mr. Coughlan agreed with a suggestion by a panel member that in lieu of a residence clause, the Board could include a term that Ms. Kirbac give at least two days’ notice of any intention of changing residence and with a similar clause about advising the Board of any change of her telephone number.
Ms. Addie agreed entirely that there was no need for a residence clause and that the panel member’s suggestion that would be more than sufficient to protect the public.
No other evidence was heard at this hearing.
The parties were then questioned again as to their position. At this point all of the parties agreed that Ms. Kirbac remains a significant threat to public safety, and if the Board so finds, the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a Conditional Discharge without a residence clause but with the terms suggested by the panel member. The Board indicated that given those circumstances the Board did not need submissions from the parties.
Findings of the Board
The Board accepts the evidence of Dr. Kravtsenyuk and the evidence contained in the Hospital Report. We accept that Ms. Kirbac has enjoyed a fantastic year. We are obliged to consider Ms. Kirbac’s entire history and that brings this panel to accept the parties’ joint recommendation that Ms. Kirbac remains a significant threat to public safety.
The panel also agrees that a Detention Order is no longer necessary.
The panel agrees that the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a Conditional Discharge without a residence clause but with a number of privileges and prohibitions that will be set out more particularly in the Board’s Disposition.
In reaching our Disposition, the Board has taken into consideration public safety, Ms. Kirbac’s mental condition and her other needs, and Ms. Kirbac’s reintegration into society.
DATED this 28^th^ day of November, 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Mr. J. Goldenberg Alternate Chairperson
__________________
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board