Re: Andrew Greszczyszyn, 2025 CanLII 23531

Ontario Review Board

Re: Andrew Greszczyszyn

ORB File No: 7502

Hearing held on: Wednesday, March 5, 2025

Place of hearing: Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences 700 Gordon Street, Whitby

Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code

Before: Alternate Chairperson: Mr. J. Goldenberg Members: Dr. W. Johnston Dr. S. Wiseman Ms. C. Murray Mr. S. Duffy

Parties Appearing: Accused: Andrew Greszczyszyn Amicus Curiae: Ms. C. Francis The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. J. Szabo Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. N. MacDonald

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated March 19, 2025)

Introduction

1On February 19, 2019, Andrew Greszczyszyn was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (“NCR”) on charges of repeatedly communicating directly or indirectly with person, criminal harassment (x2), and failing to comply with condition of undertaking (x2), all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (the “Criminal Code”).

2On March 5, 2025, a panel of the Ontario Review Board (“Board” or “panel”) convened to review Dr. Greszczyszyn’s current Disposition pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. At the time of the hearing, Dr. Greszczyszyn was ordered detained at the General Forensic Service of the Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences (“Ontario Shores” or “the hospital”), with privileges up to and including living in the community in accommodation approved by the person in charge.

3Dr. Greszczyszyn was present for his hearing. He was self-represented.

4Amicus curiae, Ms. Francis, assisted throughout the proceedings.

5A Hospital Report dated February 13, 2025, was entered as Exhibit 1.

6The issues to be determined are whether Dr. Greszczyszyn continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public, and if so, the necessary and appropriate Disposition to manage that risk having regard to the criteria set out in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.

7For the reasons set out below and based on the evidence and opinions before us, the Board found that Dr. Greszczyszyn continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. The Board finds that a Detention Disposition within the General Forensic Service of Ontario Shores is the necessary and appropriate Order having regard to the safety of the public, which is the paramount concern, and also having regard to Dr. Greszczyszyn’s mental health, reintegration into society, and his other needs.

Current Psychiatric Diagnoses

[8] Schizoaffective Disorder, Bipolar Type; Narcissistic Personality Disorder; and Schizotypal Personality Disorder.

Position of the Parties

9At the commencement of the hearing, the parties were canvassed for their without prejudice positions. The hospital, supported by counsel for the Attorney General, Ms. MacDonald, took the position that Dr. Greszczyszyn continues to represent a significant threat to the public and the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a continuation of the current Detention Disposition on the same terms as last year.

10Amicus curiae was unable to provide a position as Dr. Greszczyszyn would not speak with her regarding this hearing.

11Dr. Greszczyszyn requested an Absolute Discharge.

Index Offence

12The circumstances surrounding the index offences that brought Dr. Greszczyszyn under the Board’s jurisdiction occurred between January and June 2018. They were set out in last year’s Reasons, which form part of the record, as excerpted below:

“In essence, these offences consisted of ongoing, repeated, and excessive contact with family members by text, voice, and email, as well as in person. Dr. Greszczyszyn persisted in this pattern of harassment throughout, and in breach of a court undertaking. The targets of these contacts were his ex-wife, Ms. Jade Maitland, his ex-sister-in-law (Michelle Courneya), and his ex-father-in-law (Roy Maitland). Dr. Greszczyszyn had delusions that his ex-sister-in-law was communicating her "sexual energies" telepathically with him, and that his ex-father-in-law was, among other things, a pedophile. These offences took place during a period when Dr. Greszczyszyn was noncompliant with medication or inconsistently treated and had a number of admissions to hospital."

Background and History

13The Hospital Report contains extensive information regarding Dr. Greszczyszyn’s background and history, the entirety of which need not be repeated here in detail. However, the following particulars are noteworthy.

14At the time of the hearing, Dr. Greszczyszyn was a 47-year-old man. He was born in Toronto and raised in Brampton. He has a Bachelor of Science in kinesiology. He has a Doctor of Chiropractic degree from the National University of Health Sciences in Illinois.

15Dr. Greszczyszyn worked as a chiropractor when he completed his degree in 2005 until January 2018, after which he resigned his license.

16He married in 2008 approximately and separated from his wife in January 2018. He has a son with his ex-wife, born 2012.

17He does not have a history of criminal charges prior to the index offences.

18He does not have a history of drug use and only occasionally drinks alcohol.

19Dr. Greszczyszyn’s first psychiatric hospitalization was at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health from January 20, 2004, to January 29, 2004. He was diagnosed with bipolar disorder and mania with psychotic features. He had two further admissions to hospital and a number of psychiatric consults prior to the start of the events that form the index offences.

Course Since Last Disposition

20Dr. Greszczyszyn was discharged to live in the community on February 5, 2024. He resides in a basement apartment and has been followed by Forensic Outpatient Services (“FOS”) at Ontario Shores two to three times per week depending on his mental state.

21Dr. Greszczyszyn is employed by Instacart and works approximately two to three days per week. He is also supported by Ontario Disability Support Program.

22Dr. Greszczyszyn has poor insight into his mental illness. He does not believe that he is properly diagnosed and believes any mental health concerns could be better dealt with through yoga, nutritional strategies, and other non-pharmacological means. He also has poor insight into his index offence.

23On May 22, 2024, Dr. Greszczyszyn entered a professional meeting at Ontario Shores uninvited and began asking about lobotomies and electrical currents. His utterances were non-sensical. He later attended at the FOS clinic in an irate state. He angrily left the hospital when approached for his appointment. While police involvement for his return to hospital was being arranged, Dr. Greszczyszyn presented at the clinic again. He was admitted to hospital without incident. He improved quickly as an inpatient and was discharged on May 29, 2024.

24During a January 7, 2025, clinic visit, Dr. Greszczyszyn was irritable and focused on his perceived mistreatment by Dr. Pallandi. Dr. Greszczyszyn’s mother contacted FOS to express her concern about his deteriorating mental state. On January 8, 2025, Dr. Greszczyszyn sent a bizarre email to Dr. Pallandi, the College of Physicians and Surgeons, and the College of Chiropractors of Ontario asking questions about castration, reading people’s minds, and channeling. He agreed to a hospital admission on January 8, 2025. He complied with re-starting his Epival. His mental state stabilized quickly, and he was discharged on January 15, 2025.

25Since his January 2025 admission, the Hospital Report notes that Dr. Greszczyszyn has been compliant with his long-acting injectable medication and oral Epival.

26Dr. Greszczyszyn maintains his relationship with his son.

Evidence at the Hearing

27The Board had available to it the evidence and documents forming the Record, the Hospital Report, and oral evidence of Dr. Pallandi who is Dr. Greszczyszyn’s psychiatrist and author of the Hospital Report. Dr. Greszczyszyn also gave oral evidence.

28Dr. Pallandi testified that the clinical team believes that Dr. Greszczyszyn remains a significant threat to the public because over the past reporting year Dr. Greszczyszyn has been non-compliant with medications, he has required two hospitalizations to stabilize his mental state, his mental state fluctuates widely, he is almost always symptomatic, insight into his illness and the need for treatment is limited, and his engagement with the treatment team is poor.

29Dr. Greszczyszyn is not compliant with medications because he believes that he is not ill. The treatment team noticed a change in his mental state this year. Dr. Greszczyszyn insisted he was taking his medication. However, it was discovered that he was not taking his Epival. On January 2, 2025, Dr. Greszczyszyn texted his FOS clinician that he stopped taking his medication to prove that he did not need it. During both incidents of non-compliance, Dr. Greszczyszyn was returned to hospital and his mental state improved quickly with medications.

30Dr. Greszczyszyn’s illness has been treatment resistant. When he is on the long-acting injectable medication, his symptoms improve significantly. This year the treatment team noted that Epival greatly stabilized the mood component of his illness.

31Dr. Greszczyszyn does not endorse western-style medicine. He does not agree with the treatment plan recommended to him.

32Dr. Greszczyszyn continues to have poor insight into the index offences. He believes that there are lies in the victim statement.

33He is employed by Instacart, which typically occupies two to three days of his time per week.

34For a Conditional Discharge, Dr. Greszczyszyn would need to have a period of stability and long-term compliance with medications.

35If Dr. Greszczyszyn was to receive an Absolute Discharge, he would stop taking his medication and become even more ill than he already is. He is almost continuously symptomatic, and his mood fluctuates widely. His paranoid and intrusive behaviour will increase and rise to the level he displayed at the time of his index offences.

36Dr. Greszczyszyn asked questions of Dr. Pallandi that were primarily focused on different types of psychiatry such as orthomolecular psychology and nutrient psychiatry. He asked Dr. Pallandi if he knew that he (Dr. Greszczyszyn) has pellagra, a niacin deficiency. Dr. Pallandi said he was not aware of this.

37Dr. Greszczyszyn then gave oral evidence, much of which was tangential. He testified that he has dermatitis, low niacin levels, diarrhea, and dementia. He stated that he does not have a mental illness. He stated that he has done yoga, a 26-day water fast, and became vegan. He said he goes to bed very late and wakes up very early. Dr. Greszczyszyn said that if he has any condition, it is a calcium phosphate disorder. He stated that he disagreed with the hospital’s stated diagnosis. He stated that he does not have a narcissistic personality disorder. He believes he was diagnosed with that disorder because the doctor can’t understand his case.

38Dr. Greszczyszyn stated that he should be Absolutely Discharged because he has been wrongly diagnosed. He stated that he has been off his medicine for two and a half months.

Analysis and Conclusions

Significant Threat

39Having heard and considered the entirety of the evidence as well as the submissions from the parties, the Board finds that Dr. Greszczyszyn remains a significant threat to the safety of the public.

40Dr. Greszczyszyn’s risk to the public stems from his major mental illnesses. Dr. Greszczyszyn has recently not been compliant with medication necessitating his return to hospital to stabilize him.

41Dr. Greszczyszyn carried out the index offences while actively delusional and non-compliant with medications or inconsistently treated.

42Dr. Greszczyszyn has poor insight into his mental illness and treatment. He believes that any mental illness can be treated with yoga and non-pharmacological means. Additionally, he has be reluctant to engage in psychotherapy. If he was not under the jurisdiction of the ORB, Dr. Greszczyszyn would be non-compliant with treatment and likely experience decompensation, which would result in significant risk to the public.

43Without the supports he receives in the community from the FOS team, Dr. Greszczyszyn would likely disengage from treatment (as he has in the recent past) and have an exacerbation of symptoms, which would likely result in violence and criminal actions comparable to that which he historically displayed.

44The Board relies on the Clinical Assessment of Risk set out on pages 48 and 49 of the Hospital Report, which states that his risk continues to fall in the moderate range despite management with the current Disposition.

Necessary and Appropriate Disposition

45In light of the Board’s finding of significant risk, it is charged with shaping a Disposition for the coming year.

46Dr. Greszczyszyn required two admissions this reporting year due to non-compliance with his medications. The hospital requires a means of bringing Dr. Greszczyszyn back to hospital quickly, as evidenced by his rapidly escalating symptoms necessitating two hospitalizations this year. At times of instability, he is extremely difficult to engage.

47Dr. Greszczyszyn’s risk for violence has been manageable with his current Disposition only because of his willingness to return to hospital during times of psychiatric decline. Although Dr. Greszczyszyn agreed to return to hospital for his two admissions this year, there is little confidence that he would do so if deteriorations of his mental condition were not caught early by FOS.

48A Conditional Discharge would certainly increase the risk to the public to an unacceptable level. The risk assessment places him at a moderate range of risk despite the current Detention Disposition. He needs to exhibit a long period of medication compliance and stability in his mental status.

49Dr. Greszczyszyn does not have a plan in place if he were to receive an Absolute Discharge. He has no insight into his mental illness. He would stop taking his medication since he does not believe that he has a mental illness. He continues to have little insight into the seriousness of his index offences. He refuses to engage in psychotherapeutic treatments which may serve to improve his insight.

50The Board finds that the necessary and appropriate, least onerous and least restrictive Disposition is a Detention Disposition within the General Forensic Service at Ontario Shores, with no change to terms.