Ontario Review Board
Re: Andre Ducic
ORB File No: 8689
Hearing held on: Tuesday, October 21, 2025
Place of Hearing: Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(2) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. P. Capelle
Members: Dr. S. Lessard
Dr. G. Boulais
Ms. J. Fuller
Mr. R. Rainboth
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Andre Ducic Counsel: Ms. R. Wills
Person in charge of the hospital: Representative Dr. J. Gojer
Attorney-General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. M. Dufort
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated December 18, 2025)
Introduction
On December 13, 2024, the accused, Andre Ducic, was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on two counts of criminal harassment, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (“Criminal Code”). Mr. Ducic is currently subject to a Disposition dated April 15th, 2025, which detains him at the secure forensic unit of the hospital with privileges up to and including to live in the community, in accommodation approved by the person in charge.
On October 21, 2025, the Board convened for an early hearing pursuant to s. 672.81(2) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Ducic was in attendance and represented by his counsel, Ms. Riley Wills. Also in attendance were Mr. Ducic’s parents and his CMHA worker, Ms. Tristan McGregor.
Without Prejudice Position of the Parties
- Dr. Gojer recommended a conditional discharge with the following terms and conditions set out below:
4(a) Refrain from having in their possession any firearm, ammunition, or other offensive weapon, or being in the company of any person possessing a firearm other than a peace officer;
(b) Refrain from contact or communication, direct or indirect, by any physical, electronic, or other means, with the victim;
(c) Not to attend within 100m of where ethe victim lives, works, goes to school, or is known to be;
(d) Not to attend within 50 metres of STEM, University of Ottawa;
(e) Not to attend Little Victories coffee shop, 810 Bank Street;
(f) When living in the community, report to the person in charge of the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre or his or her designate not less than once every two weeks; and
(g) Consent to treatment provision per s. 672.55.
Ms. Dufort disagreed with the hospital’s recommendation for a conditional discharge and recommended a detention disposition with supervised community accommodation and address specification.
Ms. Wills was supportive of the hospital’s recommendation and further advised that the ongoing presence of significant threat was not contested.
Index Offences
- A summary of the index offences has been taken from the Hospital Report, at pp. 2-3:
The accused, Ducic, met the victim, Rachel Kozlowski (a professor at the University of Ottawa) at a coffee shop few months prior to Ducic being charged. At the time they met, they had a conversation and exchanged telephone numbers. As they kept communicating with each other, Ducic started talking about bizarre conspiracy theories, which Kozlowski did not agree with. As a result, she stopped communicating with him.
Ducic in turn became angry with Kozlowski and left negative reviews on Ratemyprof. He also stated that “he had put someone in the hospital for her and that she could be gang raped”. None of these statements were based in fact but a rather a reflection of his state of mind.”
Following this, Ducic engaged in a pattern of harassment which included him contacting the victim’s other employer at Little Victories coffee shop, demanding to speak with her, and waiting outside the building she taught at U of O.
The victim blocked all forms of communication with Ducic and changed her phone number. The accused’s harassment became so frequent that she was forced to leave her job at Little Victories coffee shop.
On September 25th, 2024, Ducic attended U of O campus and waited for Kozlowski to finish teaching her class. After finishing work, Kozlowski saw Ducic outside and demanded him to leave. “As she went inside to grab her belongings Ducic stood in the doorway to prevent her from leaving. Kozlowski had to push past Ducic to leave. She subsequently went to the campus security office to report him.”
On September 30th, Ducic was observed on the U of O campus, sitting outside of the victim’s office. Unbeknownst to DUCIC Ottawa University security had conducted safety planning, which included moving the victim from the building she taught at.
On October 2nd, Ducic was arrested on the 4th floor of the STEM building. When placed under arrest he made the inculpatory statement of "she is my head-tether, without her I have no will to live."
Current Diagnoses:
- Schizophrenia
Evidence
The Board admitted into evidence the Hospital Report dated October 16th, 2025, as Exhibit 1. This document provides a great deal of information concerning Mr. Ducic’s personal history, history of mental illness, as well as his course in hospital and in the community both prior to and subsequence to the index offences. As the Hospital Report was made an Exhibit, it is unnecessary to reproduce the information contained therein in these Reasons.
Dr. Gojer testified on behalf of the hospital.
Mr, Ducic was found NCR a year prior to this hearing and was subsequently detained in the Ottawa-Carleton Detention Centre (“OCDC”). There, he was violently assaulted.
A bed was found for him at the ROMHC subsequent to a successful habeas corpus application. On admission to hospital Mr. Ducic exhibited no evidence of psychosis. Given that this patient had no active symptoms and that his existing oral medications had benefited him, he was allowed to remain on oral medication.
Dr. Gojer advised that Tristan McGregor from CMHA established a relationship with Mr. Ducic about a month prior to this hearing and it is anticipated they will meet weekly going forward.
Mr. Ducic’s parents are very supportive. Dr. Gojer maintains good communication with them. Mr. Ducic is attending an impulse control group. He is a high-functioning individual with a Schizophrenia diagnosis who has responded well to treatment.
Dr. Gojer opined that to place Mr. Ducic in supervised accommodation would be a backward step. Mr. Ducic consents to live with his parents and to take medication.
Dr. Gojer added that follow-up not less than once every two weeks is sufficient to identify if Mr. Ducic stops his prescribed medications and prevent mental decompensation. Reporting can also be done by phone.
Dr. Gojer is not recommending an absolute discharge because there remain subtle negative symptoms and perhaps some apathy on the part of Mr. Ducic. There are no ongoing delusions regarding the victim of the index offence. The HCR-20-v3 findings indicate Mr. Ducic represents a low risk with low needs.
Responding to questions from Ms. Dufort, Dr. Gojer advised that his patient is maintained on oral medications, does not complain of side effects and sees the psychotropic medication as effective. Mr. Ducic began to show improvement in his mental state when he was started on Invega a few weeks prior to his late May 2025 admission to the hospital from the OCDC.
There were previous admissions to the Ottawa Hospital in 2021 and 2024 surrounding issues of self-esteem which did not relate to risk to public safety. When Mr. Ducic was admitted to that hospital in 2024 he was subsequently discharged against medical advice and fell away from his prescribed medication. Mr. Ducic is not a multi-factrorial risk. The aforementioned issues are psychologically driven rather than indicative of psychosis.
Dr. Gojer opined that if Mr. Ducic consents to treatment per. s. 672.55 under a conditional discharge it constitutes an appropriate disposition. Dr. Gojer anticipates that the family will remain involved and cooperative.
Dr. Gojer opined that Mr. Ducic’s risk is of a nature that it can be managed under a conditional discharge. If he does not show up for requested appointments, the hospital will find him in breach of his disposition.
Mr. Ducic is not currently on the waiting list for the Lebreton group home although staff from there met with him on the date of this hearing and found him suitable. This remains an option although the best course is for him to return home.
At the time of the index offence Mr. Ducic was not thinking clearly. He misinterpreted other people’s actions as indicative that those persons were somehow interested in him.
Dr. Gojer recommends that Mr. Ducic not return to university until 2026. If he resides at Lebreton, he will receive psychoeducation and school could be put off for another year. The earliest Dr. Gojer would want to see his patient return to school is September of 2026. It was also discussed that he might attend another school rather than the University of Ottawa where the index offences occurred.
Dr. Gojer and the treatment team have discussed with Mr. Ducic the need to limit his internet access and the playing video games to increase his social interaction.
Questioned by Mr. Wills, Dr. Gojer confirmed that his patient visits with his parents several times per week. There have been no issues reported by them or hospital staff.
Responding to a question from a panellist, Dr. Gojer advised that there has been no follow-up from the victim of the index offence by way of a victim impact statement. There have been no attempts or interest expressed to contact that individual. An accidental encounter is unlikely to destabilize Mr. Ducic. He has stated that he would turn and walk away if he saw the victim. Even with a change of treatment or initiation of psychotherapy Mr. Ducic is unlikely to pursue the same victim. This concern is on the lower end of the risk spectrum.
In response to another question from the panel, Dr. Gojer confirmed that antipsychotics will be needed for several years because of Mr. Ducic’s history of decompensation and on-going recovery.
Dr. Gojer opined that it is unnecessary to specify an address in the proposed conditional discharge because Mr. Ducic is highly likely to go home. Dr. Gojer added that he would like to see his patient’s parents more relaxed. They have been referred to a family group program run by social worker Mr. Richard Robins.
Responding to questions from Ms. Dufort, Dr. Gojer advised that there was nothing indicating that at the time of the index offence that the victim was leading Mr. Ducic on. The threat made that she could be gang-raped was a psychological one.
Closing Observations
Dr. Gojer noted that his patient was agreeable to a s. 672.55 consent to treatment provision being included in the proposed disposition and that Mr. Ducic would be breached were he not to comply.
Ms. Dufort reiterated that she had concerns. She grasps that Mr. Ducic has done well since admission and transitioned well during a change of medication in a controlled setting. She submitted that serious psychological harm, of putting someone in hospital and threatening them with gang-rape was no different than the risk of physical violence. The victim of the index offence was forced to quit her job as a result of Mr. Ducic’s behaviour. This patient has only been under the Board for a short time and has yet to reside in the community. Therefore, Ms. Dufort requested that the Board maintain a detention disposition with the inclusion of approved accommodation. In the event a conditional discharge is deemed suitable, then his parents’ address should be specified, or alternatively, that of a supervised group home.
Ms. Wills submitted that her client has been exercising the privilege of accessing his parents’ residence without issue and that his time at the ROMHC has been positive. Dr. Gojer sees Mr. Ducic returning home as the next step in his rehabilitation. Mr. Ducic is medication compliant, and the treatment plan involves augmenting his social skills. Therefore, a conditional discharge is sufficient to manage his risk to public safety and constitutes the least restrictive and onerous disposition available.
Analysis and Decision
(a) Significant Threat
Ongoing 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 a criminal offence.
In determining whether Mr. Ducic continues to represent 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.
The Board unanimously finds that Mr. Ducic continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public. In arriving at this determination, the Board considered the joint position of the parties and accepted the uncontroverted evidence of Dr. Gojer that Mr. Ducic continues to pose a significant threat of psychological harm. The panel readily accepts Ms. Dufort’s submission that a risk of serious psychological harm is no different than the risk of serious physical violence. The Board also relies on the Hospital Report and the evidence that Mr. Ducic suffers from Schizophrenia a major mental illness. The Risk Scenario at page 14 of the Hospital Report speaks to a significant risk to public safety that is both fluid and dynamic albeit very low. As a result, a period of stability in the community is needed prior to consideration of the removal of external controls.
(b) Necessary and Appropriate
Flowing from the Board’s finding that Mr. Ducic continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public it must shape a Disposition for the year ahead. Its paramount consideration in doing so must be the safety of the public while also considering Mr. Ducic’s needs pursuant to s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
The evidence of Dr. Gojer is that Mr. Ducic’(s):
HCR-20-v3 findings indicate Mr. Ducic represents a low risk with low needs.
risk is of a nature that it can be managed under a conditional discharge. If he fails to report as required, the hospital will find him in breach.
is highly likely to remain medication complaint as he sees psychotropic medication as effective, does not complain of side effects and consents to s. 672.55 consent to a treatment provision.
is highly likely to live with his parents, therefore an address specification is not required.
placement in supervised accommodation would stall rehabilitation and community reintegration.
Having weighed the above noted factors against Ms. Dufort’s concern that Mr. Ducic has only been under the Board’s jurisdiction for a short time and has yet to reside in the community the Board unanimously determines that the necessary and appropriate Disposition required to manage the threat Mr. Ducic poses to the safety of the public while still meeting his needs, is a Conditional Discharge.
In making this Disposition, the Board carefully considered the positions and submissions of the parties and the evidence of Dr. Gojer and is satisfied that this determination is both necessary and appropriate. The Board reviewed the provisions of s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code and carefully considered the need to protect the public from dangerous persons, Mr. Ducic’s mental condition and his reintegration into society and other needs.
DATED this 18th day of December 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Mr. P. Capelle
Alternate Chairperson
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board