Ontario Review Board

Re: Bartosz Gajewski

ORB File No: 5850

Hearing held on: Friday, January 24, 2025

Place of hearing: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health 1001 Queen Street West, Toronto

Pursuant to: Section 672.82(1) of the Criminal Code

Before: Alternate Chairperson: Ms. L. Banks Members: Dr. R. Buckingham, Dr. W. Loza, Ms. M. Labrosse, Mr. W. Apted

Parties Appearing:

Accused: Bartosz Gajewski Counsel: Ms. A. Szigeti

Person in charge of the Hospital: Counsel: Ms. L. Senko

Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. M. Feindel

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated March 19, 2025)

Introduction:

1. On March 23, 2011, Bartosz Gajewski was found not criminally responsible (“NCR”) on account of mental disorder on charges of assault and attempt kidnapping, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (“Criminal Code”).

Since his NCR finding, Mr. Gajewski has been subject to Dispositions of the Ontario Review Board (“ORB” or the “Board”), most recently a Disposition of the ORB dated November 16, 2023), ordering that he be discharged subject to a number of conditions, including, without limitation that: he reside at a specified location in Toronto, report to the person in charge (“PIC”) of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (“CAMH” or the “hospital”) or his/her designate, not less than once every 45 days, or as required, consent to take treatment/medication as in accordance with s.672.55(1) of the Criminal Code, refrain from contact or communication with Katherine Newman, John Newman, or Jonathan Rosenthal, not attend within 500 metres of anywhere John Newman or Katherine Newman lives, works, worships, or is known to be, and he be permitted to travel outside of Ontario on an approved itinerary.

2. On January 24, 2025, a panel of the ORB convened an annual hearing under s.672.81(1) of Criminal Code to review Mr. Gajewski’s current Disposition. Mr. Gajewski was present at the hearing and was represented by his counsel, Ms. A. Szigeti. The hospital was represented by Ms. L. Senko. The Attorney General by Mr. M. Feindel, who participated via Zoom videoconference)

3. The issues to be decided on the hearing were whether Mr. Gajewski continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public, and if so, what was the necessary and appropriate Disposition to be made in the circumstances, bearing in mind s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.

4. For the reasons set out below, the Board concluded that Mr. Gajewski continues to pose a significant threat to public safety and that the necessary and appropriate Disposition is that he be discharged subject to his existing Conditional Discharge but for a reduction in the frequency of his reporting to every three months or as required.

5. Of note, The Board also admitted into evidence a Victim Impact Statement that had been filed with the Board. The Chairperson advised that the panel would only consider the contents of the Victim Impact Statement that complied with s. 672.5(14) of the Criminal Code, namely “…a written statement describing the harm done to, or loss suffered by, the victim arising from the commission of the offence”.

Index Offences:

6. The index offences are described in detail in the Hospital Report to the Board dated December 26, 2024 (the “Hospital Report”) and are summarized as follows:

“The complainant and the accused are known to each other, with the complainant having hired the accused in 2003 to do some home renovations. During the course of the renovation, the accused became infatuated with the complainant, and his behaviour deteriorated to the point that the accused was charged with Criminal Harassment and Threatening Bodily Harm.

These charges were eventually withdrawn in 2004 in favour of a Peace Bond, the conditions of which have long expired. The complainant has reported no subsequent contact with the accused.

In September, 2009, the complainant was in her motor vehicle in her driveway, waiting for her partner. As she waited, the vehicle door was opened. She turned to see the accused who said that he was placing her under arrest pursuant to the Code and in the name of Jehovah God. He grabbed her by the wrists, and pulled her from the vehicle, and tried to drag her down the street. The complainant, who is a frail woman, could not offer much resistance to her seizure by the accused.

The complainant’s partner, arrived and saw what was taking place. He immediately intervened and pushed and kicked the accused in an effort to free her from the grasp of the accused. The accused is a large man, managed to pull the complainant and her partner down the street when two other neighbours intervened and tried to help them.

Police were called that the accused was placed under arrest.

The complainant subsequently attended hospital and it was determined that she had sustained torn ligaments to her foot.

Subsequent to his arrest the police obtained a warrant to search the home of the accused where they located nylon ties, duct tape and an exacto blade. The accused indicated that he had prepared himself for the arrest of the complainant as he believed he had the right to make such an arrest as he believed the complainant was involved in a conspiracy to commit fraud, public mischief and theft against him and that his plan was to take the complainant, under arrest, to his apartment where he was going to bind her with the nylon ties and then contact the Attorneys General of Canada and Ontario to hand her over. He indicated that he did not trust the Toronto Police for various reasons.”

Positions of the Parties:

7. The hospital submitted that Mr. Gajewski is a significant threat to the safety of the public but that the threat posed could be managed effectively by his existing Conditional Discharge.

8. Counsel for the Attorney General was in support of the hospital’s position.

9. Counsel for Mr. Gajewski indicated that she was not arguing the issue of significant threat at this hearing. With regard to Disposition recommendations for the year ahead, Ms. Szigeti advised that her client was supportive of the hospital’s recommendation for a continuation of his existing Conditional Discharge Disposition but counsel recommended that section 1(b) thereof be amended to require reporting not less than every three months, or as required.

10. All parties maintained their respective initial positions in closing submissions; however, Mr. Feindel took no position with regard to the frequency of the minimum reporting requirement being either every 45 days or every three months.

Personal Background:

11. Mr. Gajewski’s personal history is set out in considerable detail in the Hospital Report, filed as an Exhibit at the hearing. Accordingly, it is unnecessary to repeat that information here. Briefly, we note that Mr. Gajewski is 53 years old, single, and without children.

12. Mr. Gajewski was employed by a company as a cabinet-maker and, in that capacity, he completed some work on a renovation for the victim of the index offences. In 2003, he became infatuated with her. At that time, he was charged with criminal harassment and threatening bodily harm. The charges were withdrawn in 2004, when Mr. Gajewski entered into a Peace Bond.

13. Mr. Gajewski had no further contact with the victim until the time of the index offences. At that time, Mr. Gajewski was under the delusion that the victim and her father were involved in a conspiracy to commit crimes against him. Mr. Gajewski tried to have criminal charges laid against them and numerous other people. In 2004, he wrote to the Attorney General of Ontario and the Chief of the Toronto Police Service about this. No actions were taken on his unfounded complaints.

14. Prior to the index offences, Mr. Gajewski’s family became concerned that he was becoming ill and in particular was obsessed with the complainant. They obtained a Form 2 under the Mental Health Act (“MHA”) and Mr. Gajewski was admitted to hospital for three days. This action also led to a lengthy rupture of family ties. His discharge diagnoses were Adjustment Disorder, also query Paranoid Disorder and Personality Disorder with Paranoid and Antisocial Traits. No other mental health history is known.

15. On March 24, 2011, Mr. Gajewski was found NCR and admitted to CAMH under the ORB’s jurisdiction. At that time, he demonstrated a level of partial co-operation with his care and recognized that his actions were wrong and that the treatment team would provide proper care. His mother and sister noted that he was “back to normal” and had expected him to be more resistant to psychiatric treatment. He was also amenable to rehabilitative programming.

16. Mr. Gajewski was not a management problem but he presented as guarded and somewhat isolated. He participated in programming in a limited way but, at least originally, he was resistant to medications and questioned his diagnosis. He did not understand that his delusions were an on-going risk factor.

17. In the 2012/2013 clinical year, Mr. Gajewski continued to suffer from delusions regarding the complainant. He was resistant to medication and programming. This resulted in a Detention Order on a Secure Forensic Unit. There, he was often dismissive of the treatment team and would not engage with them. He was not a management problem, but did not accept that he was mentally ill. This lack of engagement and recognition of his situation continued until in March of 2015 he was given an intra muscular injection of anti-psychotic medication. He maintained he did not have a delusional disorder or mental illness. He attempted to pursue legal remedies regarding the victim of the index offences without success.

18. Improvements began in mid-2015 when Mr. Gajewski agreed to treatment with medication. By December of 2015, he was transferred to a General Forensic unit and did well there. He was treatment compliant. He still maintained his delusions and belief he did not have a mental illness; however, he continued to progress. There were no incidents of concern and Mr. Gajewski advanced up the privilege ladder and his family remained involved in his care.

19. With continued progress over the years, and the appropriate use of 72-LOA passes to his mother’s home, Mr. Gajewski was ultimately discharged from the hospital to his mother’s home in October of 2019. He remained treatment and medication compliant, although he maintained his view that he did not need such help. Mr. Gajewski admitted to being resentful towards the victim of his index offences but he was not overly preoccupied with her or her family or perceived maltreatment. He continued to indicate that he believed he was the victim in this matter but he denied any desire to contact them. Instead, he wanted to focus on moving forward with his life. He reported that he enjoyed living in the community and spending time with his family.

20. He has continued to reside in the community since that without incident. When probed, he expressed his ongoing and fixed delusional beliefs but he did not display any significant preoccupation with them. He admits he would discontinue medication immediately, if given the opportunity. He denies any desire to harm or contact the victim and has said he would, at most, pursue a civil remedy. He has stated he will never violently re-offend again.

Current Diagnoses:

21. His major mental illness diagnosis is Delusional Disorder, Persecutory type.

Evidence at the Hearing:

22. Dr. Pearce gave evidence to supplement the documentary materials before the Board. He endorsed the contents of the Hospital Report and advised that there were no material updates thereto. He confirmed that he has been Mr. Gajewski’s forensic psychiatrist since 2019.

23. The doctor advised that Mr. Gajewski remains incapable to consent to his psychiatric treatment and his mother acts as his substitute decision maker (“SDM”). Under his SDM’s consent, Mr. Gajewski receives treatment with a long-acting injection (“LAI”) of the antipsychotic medication, Invega Trinza, every 12 weeks. Mr. Gajewski reported ongoing side effects of sedation and lethargy yet he cooperated with the administration of his injection. Dr. Pearce advised that Mr. Gajewski has repeatedly stated he would discontinue his LAI medication immediately, if given the opportunity. The doctor reiterated that Mr. Gajewski plans to stop his treatment when he is no longer under the ORB’s jurisdiction.

24. Dr. Pearce stated that Mr. Gajewski’s mental state has remained stable over the year in review and there has been no change in his presentation over recent years. His affect is quite flat and little range is evident. His thought process is goal-directed. He denies experiencing perceptual abnormalities and objectively, he is not observed responding to internally-generated stimuli. He continues to express, when asked, his ongoing and unchanged delusional beliefs although he does not independently bring the topic up. He did not attempt to contact the victim of the index offences and does not spontaneously speak of her.

25. The Hospital Report indicates that Mr. Gajewski continues to live with his mother and his sister in mid-town Toronto. He did not engage in any violent nor aggressive incidents, nor did he require re-hospitalization.

26. Mr. Gajewski is supported and monitored in the community by the hospital’s Forensic Outpatient Program (“FOP”) team. He continued to meet with his FOP case worker at least every 45 days, or more frequently if requested. He is consistently cooperative with the FOP team, and adheres to the requirements of his Disposition.

27. Mr. Gajewski attended meetings with his treatment team every 30 to 45 days, and he was cooperative with additional appointments when requested. Dr. Pearce advised that meetings with his caseworker typically occurred at Mr. Gajewski’s home, in the hospital or virtually. In addition, Dr. Pearce testified that he met with Mr. Gajewski approximately three times over the year in review. As well, Mr. Gajewski attends at the FOP clinic for his LAI injections.

28. Dr. Pearce stated in Mr. Gajewski’s case, the purpose of the check-ins is to assess his mental stability. There have been no concerns over the past reporting year about substance use and accordingly, urine drug screens are not typically conducted.

29. While living in the community, Mr. Gajewski assists his family with household chores. As well, he has stayed connected to his faith and he volunteers several days a week at his church.

30. The Hospital Report indicates that the HCR-20 v3 was re-scored in December 2024, and “Overall, the final risk judgment is that Mr. Gajewski would represent a low risk for re-offence if conditionally discharged but a moderate to high risk if absolutely discharged.” The increase in his risk profile should he receive an Absolute Discharge was driven by the fact that Mr. Gajewski has been consistent in stating that he would not remain in contact with professional services and he would discontinue his medication.

31. The Hospital Report indicates that Mr. Gajewski has limited close relationships with others outside of family members. His cognitive rigidity presents a barrier in his ability to develop close relationships with others.

32. In response to questions posed by a panel member, Dr. Pearce stated that it is a challenge for the treatment to formulate a plan to transition Mr. Gajewski to an Absolute Discharge given his commitment to stop his LAI medication as soon as he is no longer under the ORB’s jurisdiction coupled with his lack of developed insight across all relevant domains. The doctor stated that Mr. Gajewski’s continued adherence to his LAI is externally driven by his ORB Disposition.

33. With regard to Ms. Szigeti’s suggestion that Mr. Gajewski’s risk can be safely managed with a reduction in his minimum reporting requirement to not less than every three months, Dr. Pearce stated that he concurred. The doctor noted however that the FOP caseworker was not in favour of a reduction in the frequency of Mr. Gajewski’s reporting as she suggested that the more frequent the contact, the better able the FOP team would be able to detect any changes in Mr. Gajewski’s baseline presentation. Dr. Pearce also advised that Dr. Darby, the Staff Psychiatrist Forensic Service, also supported the continuation of the existing reporting requirement, without amendment.

34. Dr. Pearce stated that the FOP has contact with Mr. Gajewski’s mother/SDM and he advised that she is entirely supportive of her son continuing to be maintained on his LAI. Further, the doctor testified that Mr. Gajewski continues to reside with his mother and she has “eyes on him” on a daily basis and would be expected to detect any changes in his presentation. Finally, Dr. Pearce testified that he had confidence that Mr. Gajewski’s mother would promptly report any changes in Mr. Gajewski’s presentation to the FOP team.

35. Dr. Pearce testified that if Mr. Gajewski were to miss attending for his LAI medication, the hospital’s “icare system”, which tracks patients’ compliance with scheduled medication injections, would “red flag” the missed appointment/dose to members of the FOP team and the hospital. Dr. Pearce stated that the missed injection would appear on Mr. Gajewski’s electronic medical record as an “alert”.

36. In response to a series of questions posed by Ms. Szigeti, Dr. Pearce acknowledged that for as long as Mr. Gajewski has been on his current LAI, there have been no issues with his compliance and no changes in his psychiatric presentation. He acknowledged that if Mr. Gajewski’s family members or the FOP team were to detect any changes in his mental status then they could manage any potential increase in his risk profile by, among other things, requiring increased reporting.

37. No further evidence was called by the parties.

Analysis and Conclusions:

38. The Board unanimously finds that Mr. Gajewski continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public. In coming to this conclusion, the Board notes that this issue was not in dispute at the hearing. The Board also accepts and relies on the uncontroverted evidence of Dr. Pearce that Mr. Gajewski continues to pose such a risk. The Board also relies on the Hospital Report and the evidence that Mr. Gajewski suffers from a major mental illness; namely, Schizophrenia. When probed, he continues to express fixed delusional beliefs regarding the victim of the index offences. These delusions persist despite the fact that he is well-treated with medications and has participated in many years of programming. They will not, it would appear, subside, but they have receded and appear to be not currently preoccupying Mr. Gajewski’s thoughts.

39. The Hospital Report indicates that, absent the supervision of the ORB and his FOP team, Mr. Gajewski would be a “moderate to high” risk to re-offend. The level of violence possible in a future offence can be gleaned in part from his prior conduct. His index offences involved the same complainant that was the target of his 2003/2004 criminal harassment and death threat charges. Mr. Gajewski’s actions years later, at the time of the index offences, involved assault against the same woman as well as her forcible confinement. To this day, Mr. Gajewski holds fixed beliefs about the victim and they have not been abrogated despite years of treatment. Combining the likelihood of a future criminal act, with the nature of that likely act, this Board has no doubt that Mr. Gajewski poses a serious threat of both physical and psychological to the safety of the public, particularly the female victim of the index offences.

40. In light of the Board’s finding of significant threat, it must shape a Disposition for the coming year. In doing so, its paramount consideration must be the safety of the public, but it must also take into account the needs of Mr. Gajewski pursuant to s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.

41. The panel notes that, at the present time, the barrier to further progressing Mr. Gajewski to full community reintegration and the grant of an Absolute Discharge is his consistent plan to stop his antipsychotic medication when he is no longer under the ORB’s jurisdiction. The expert evidence before the Board indicates that most important treatment to manage Mr. Gajewski’s risk is the ongoing administration of antipsychotic medication. It is precisely this medication that has helped him reduce his preoccupation with the victim and the intensity of his delusional beliefs.

42. Accordingly, the Board accepts the hospital’s recommendation and finds the most necessary and appropriate Disposition necessary to manage the risk posed to the public while still meeting Mr. Gajewski’s needs is that he be subject to his existing Conditional Discharge Disposition.

43. With regard to the frequency of Mr. Gajewski’s reporting requirement, we find that Mr. Gajewski’s risk to the public can be safely managed with a minimum reporting requirement of not less than once every three months. With this amendment to his existing Disposition, there is absolutely no barrier whatsoever to the hospital mandating more frequent contact should the FOP team deem it necessary and appropriate to safely manage his risk. In keeping with the requirement that Mr. Gajewski’s Disposition be the least restrictive and least onerous, as well as necessary and appropriate, the panel endorsees this one change.

44. In arriving at our decision, the panel has taken into account the mandatory requirements of the Criminal Code, namely, the paramount need to protect the public from dangerous persons, the mental condition of Mr. Gajewski, his reintegration into society and his other needs.

DATED this 19th day of March, 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.

Ms. L. Banks Alternate Chairperson

__________________

Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board