Re: Gheorghe Condruz
ORB File No: 1622
Hearing held on: November 19, 2025
Place of hearing: Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. P. Capelle
Members: Dr. R. Sheppard Dr. T. Stirpe Mr. D. D’Intino Mr. J. Cyr
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Gheorghe Condruz (not present) Counsel: Ms. C. Francis
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. T. Murdoch
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. S. Curry
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated December 22, 2025)
Introduction
On May 19, 1993, Mr. Gheorghe Condruz was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, on charges of assault with a weapon, uttering a death threat, choking and forcible confinement, all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (“Criminal Code”).
Mr. Condruz is subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the “Board”), dated November 26, 2024, which orders that he be detained at the Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care – High Secure Provincial Forensic Programs, Penetanguishene (“Waypoint”).
On November 19, 2025, a panel of the Ontario Review Board (“ORB”) convened in person and a hearing was held at Waypoint. The purpose of the hearing was to determine if Mr. Condruz continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public as defined in the Criminal Code of Canada, and if so, the necessary and appropriate Disposition.
For the reasons set out below, the Board unanimously finds that Mr. Condruz meets the threshold for significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a continuation of his current Detention Order Disposition with no changes to its terms and conditions.
Mr. Condruz was not in attendance at the hearing due to a scheduling oversight on the part of Ms. Francis. In spite of that, Ms. Francis told the Board that historically Mr. Condruz has not wanted to participate in hearings and that obtaining instructions from him has always been challenging. That being said, Ms. Francis was confident that she knew what Mr. Condruz’s wishes were and that she was comfortable proceeding in his absence.
None of the parties had any objections to proceeding in the absence of the patient, and thus the Alternate Chair excused Mr. Condruz from attending the hearing, pursuant to s. 672.5(10) of the Criminal Code.
Current Psychiatric Diagnoses:
- Schizophrenia; Mixed Personality Disorder with Narcissistic and Antisocial Traits
Index Offences:
- The facts giving rise to the index offences were set out in last year’s Reasons for Disposition and are summarized as follows:
“On Wednesday, February 24, 1993, the accused, Gheorghe Condruz, was hiding in an alcove on the third floor of H[…] Street in the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto. At this time, the victim, a 64-year old female [who was his neighbour at the time] was returning to her apartment after a false fire alarm was set off in the building. As she was unlocking the door, the accused came up quickly behind her and put a large 12-inch kitchen knife to her throat and then forced her into the apartment where he closed the door behind her. The accused demanded the victim give him some milk, which she did. The accused told her that if she didn't give him some more milk he would die, and that if he died, she would also. He dragged her into the bedroom of her apartment and wrapped a stereo cord around her neck. He stuffed Kleenex into her mouth to prevent her from shouting; however, she was able to cry out and the police arrived shortly after.”
Without Prejudice Positions of the Parties:
At the commencement of the hearing, the parties were canvassed for their initial positions.
The Hospital took the position that Mr. Condruz meets the threshold for significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate Disposition was a continuation of the existing Detention Order with no changes to its terms and conditions.
Counsel for the Attorney General supported the Hospital’s position.
Counsel for the accused joined the other two parties in agreement and thus the Panel was presented with a joint recommendation.
Evidence at the Hearing:
The Board had available to it the evidence and documents forming the Record, the Exhibits, and oral evidence from Dr. Bunker, who is Mr. Condruz’s attending psychiatrist.
Dr. Bunker testified by way of update to the Hospital Report that despite being treated with antipsychotic medication, Mr. Condruz remains residually psychotic. Dr. Bunker is unsure the extent of this residual psychosis because Mr. Condruz refuses to engage with her or with any physician at all.
As a result of his unwillingness to engage with the treatment team, as well as Dr. Bunker’s opinion that he remains psychotic, Dr. Bunker concluded that Mr. Condruz continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public.
Dr. Bunker continued her testimony by explaining that Mr. Condruz continues to lack insight into his illness and what occurs when his mental status decompensates. If he were to experience decompensation in his mental health, Dr. Bunker opined that Mr. Condruz would cause both physical and psychological harm to members of the public.
When asked why Mr. Condruz does not engage with his physicians, Dr. Bunker adopted Ms. Francis’ theory that he may have disdain for the forensic system or perhaps he does not want the team to realize he has gotten mentally healthier because that could lead to him being transferred to another facility, which Mr. Condruz does not want.
Dr. Bunker pointed out that Mr. Condruz is capable of communicating with other patients and she thought that perhaps it was a case of Mr. Condruz simply choosing not to engage with the treatment team for the reasons outlined above.
When asked how Mr. Condruz might fare at another forensic hospital, Dr. Bunker testified that Mr. Condruz wants to remain at Waypoint and that when he was at Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences, he assaulted a female staff, presumably with the goal of forcing his return to Waypoint. Dr. Bunker felt that a change of scenery would almost certainly pose problems for Mr. Condruz’s adaptation to that new environment.
In response to questions from Ms. Francis, Dr. Bunker agreed that she did not feel she and Mr. Condruz were at a treatment impasse.
In response to questions from the Panel, Dr. Bunker testified that Mr. Condruz has not verbalized any desire to access the community and that he has reached the apex of his privileges on his unit.
At the conclusion of the evidence, all parties maintained their joint recommendation.
Analysis and Conclusions
Having heard and considered the entirety of the evidence as well as the submissions from the parties, the Board finds that Mr. Condruz does meet the threshold for significant threat to the safety of the public and finds that a continuation of the existing Detention Order Disposition is the least onerous and least restrictive, necessary, and appropriate Disposition in the circumstances.
A significant threat to the safety of the public cannot be speculative. It must entail a real risk of serious physical or psychological harm arising from conduct that is both serious and criminal in nature.
In determining whether Mr. Condruz represents a significant threat to the safety of the public, the Board has carefully analyzed the evidence as it relates to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Winko, 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625 and the definition of the term in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code.
Mr. Condruz suffers from a psychotic disorder which is treated by his current medication regimen and the structure and supports of the forensic mental health system. However, as set out in the testimony of Dr. Bunker, Mr. Condruz remains residually psychotic in spite of his medication compliance and the extent of this residual psychosis is unclear because he chooses not to engage with any physicians.
Dr. Bunker was clear that Mr. Condruz is capable of linear thought and coherent conversation which he engages in with other patients when he wishes. Furthermore, despite being originally from Romania, Dr. Bunker confirmed that Mr. Condruz is surprisingly articulate in the English language and therefore his lack of engagement with the team is not a result of any language barrier.
Mr. Condruz has been under the auspices of the forensic mental health system for more than thirty years as a result of an NCR finding which flowed from a bizarre, traumatic, and violent index offence against a vulnerable victim.
The evidence of Dr. Bunker as it relates to the presence of significant threat was uncontradicted and the doctor was highly confident that for the aforementioned reasons, Mr. Condruz represents a significant threat of both physical and psychological harm to the public, even while medication compliant.
Lastly, the Panel adopts paragraphs 21-23 of the last years Reasons, which remain relevant and persuasive:
Mr. Condruz would not do well in a less secure environment, and his risk to the safety of others would increase. The structure of his current unit has made it a place of comfort and security for him, which has led to a reduction in problematic behaviours, compared to his experience in less secure facilities. A transfer to a less secure facility would not be in his best interests, nor in those of new staff or co-patients. He would enjoy less liberty than he does in his current facilities, and he would be subject to use of seclusion and restraints. His history suggests that a transfer would trigger maladaptive behaviour; he would become frustrated, treatment non-adherent, and likely violent, posing a significant threat to those around him.
Mr. Condruz does not have any personal supports outside of the hospital.
In particular, the Board relies on the following paragraphs, set out in the Hospital Report:
“Mr. Condruz continues to minimize the presence of his mental illness and personality disorder traits. He fails to understand the factors that aggravate the course of his disorder. He behaves in a manner that indicates his lack of understanding for the external factors that may aggravate the course of his disorder (refusing medication, treatment programming). He continues to resist treatment efforts aimed at improving his insight. Mr. Condruz has spent the last year keeping to himself and not exhibiting any violence or serious aggression. Mr. Condruz remains adamant in his intent to remain at Waypoint, as he believes he does much better here compared to less-secure facilities. To credit his insight, his psychiatrist and doctors agree with this assessment. Mr. Condruz’ mental stability has been attributed to the highly structured environment he is currently residing in.
Mr. Condruz has a history of Assault and Forcible Confinement when untreated and I question whether he would continue to take his antipsychotic medication if he were in the community. His refusal to have an obvious finger injury addressed within the last few years, despite regular offers of assistance from staff, suggests that he would also struggle to safely care for himself in the community. Furthermore, it is difficult to gauge his insight or the extent of his illness due to his unwillingness to interact with any clinical staff. However, he has stated on numerous occasions that he does not have a mental illness, and he has indicated that ODSP is not necessary because he does not have a disability.”
- In consideration of all the evidence, the submissions of the parties, the wishes of Mr. Condruz and the criteria set forth in s. 672.54, the paramount consideration being the safety of the public, in addition to the mental condition of Mr. Condruz, his reintegration into society and his other needs, the Panel finds that a continuation of the existing Detention Order Disposition with no changes to its terms and conditions is the necessary and appropriate Disposition.
DATED this 22nd day of December 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Mr. D. D’Intino Legal Member
__________________
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board