Ontario Review Board
Re: Gary Motuz
ORB File No: 6767
Hearing held on: Thursday, April 24, 2025
Place of hearing: Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care (Via Zoom Video Conference)
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. J. Goldenberg Members: Dr. P. Prendergast Dr. L.O. Lightfoot Ms. M.L. Bridger Mr. A. Bouvier
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Gary Motuz Counsel: Mr. D. Northcott
The person in charge of hospital: Representative: Ms. T. Newman
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. S. Curry
REASONS FOR DECISION
(Dated May 22, 2025)
On June 2, 2015, Gary Motuz was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on four charges of failure to comply with probation order and one charge of fail to appear or to comply with appearance notice.
That Disposition permitted Mr. Motuz to live in the community within the catchment area of Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care (“Waypoint”) in approved accommodation.
The Board understands that Mr. Motuz had been discharged to a group home in Penetanguishene approximately one year ago.
The Board further understands that there were three returns to hospital in 2024. Those returns to hospital all resulted in Restriction of Liberty hearings.
By letter dated April 9, 2025, Ms. Borneman, Director Brébeuf Program, wrote to the Ontario Review Board as follows:
“On April 1, 2025, the above named accused was, on the authority vested in the Person in Charge by your Board’s disposition, returned to detention in hospital from living in approved accommodation in the community.”
- As a result of that letter, the Ontario Review Board convened a hearing on Thursday, April 24. The hearing was conducted using Zoom audio/visual technology.
Position of the Parties
At the outset of the hearing, the parties were canvassed as to their recommendations to the Board.
Ms. Newman appeared for Waypoint. She advised of the hospital position that the return to hospital was warranted and that Mr. Motuz’s ongoing stay in hospital was the least onerous and least restrictive decision available to the hospital.
In response to a question from the Alternate Chair, Ms. Newman advised that Mr. Motuz was still residing in hospital but in fact, sometime this evening, Mr. Motuz would be returned to his community residence on a leave of absence (LOA) for seven days.
Ms. Curry appeared for the Attorney General. She agreed with the hospital’s position.
Mr. Northcott represented Mr. Motuz at this hearing. We note for the record that Mr. Motuz attended virtually for this entire hearing. Mr. Northcott advised that he is instructed by his client that the restriction of liberty was not warranted and Mr. Motuz’s stay in hospital was equally not warranted and is not the least onerous and least restrictive decision available to the hospital.
Evidence at Hearing:
The Board admitted into evidence the previous Decision and Disposition from August 23, 2024 and another Decision dated December 30, 2024. In addition, the Board admitted into evidence the Waypoint letter referred to above and a Waypoint Restriction of Liberty Report. In addition to the documentary evidence, the Board heard Dr. Jones.
Dr. Jones confirmed that the clinical team had a meeting with Mr. Motuz on April 1. They were concerned about him because of his presentation, which was not at his baseline. When asked, Mr. Motuz provided a urine sample. There are two types of tests that were conducted: one was a so called “quick test”. That test was positive for cannabis and cocaine. In addition, Mr. Motuz advised that he had also been using alcohol. That led to the decision to detain Mr. Motuz in hospital. Subsequently, the more complete test results were obtained from urine samples collected that day that also found cannabis and cocaine in his urine. Mr. Motuz expressed some surprise and stated he believed he had been using ecstasy and not cocaine.
Mr. Motuz remains in hospital. He was given access to the Brébeuf yard, which is an enclosed yard, and subsequently he was provided with accompanied hospital and ground passes. In the passage of time, Mr. Motuz seemed to settle. There was a sample taken approximately April 16. Those results recently obtained disclosed a minimum amount of substances. That in turn led to the decision to give Mr. Motuz a leave of absence so that he could return to the residence where he had been living for approximately the last year.
In response to a question from a panel member, Dr. Jones stated, “I’d be surprised” if he stopped using substances. She went on to say, “I hope so”. Generally, the use of substances results in increased irritability and sometimes also leads to threatening behaviour. Again, in response to questions from a panel member, Dr. Jones noted a history of significant deterioration after Mr. Motuz uses cannabis. Dr. Jones referred to the necessity of bringing him back to hospital on three different occasions in 2024, all of which were triggered by the use of substances.
Again, in response to questions from a panel member, Dr. Jones stated that Mr. Motuz simply lacks insight. He is incapable of making treatment decisions and has very little understanding of his illness and indeed his need for medication and the impact of cannabis on his mental stability. On the other hand, he has been compliant with medication. The Board understands he has been treated with injectable medication.
The doctor noted that there are a number of addiction groups available for this gentleman but he has always declined to participate. Dr. Jones reported that there was simply no other solution to managing his risk, than returning Mr. Motuz to hospital on April 1. Currently, Dr. Jones believes that Mr. Motuz’s mental status has returned to his baseline.
Dr. Jones stated that a Detention Order is absolutely necessary to manage Mr. Motuz’s risk to public safety.
Again, in response to a question from a panel member, Dr. Jones simply noted that she does not know if Mr. Motuz fully understands that his board disposition prohibits his use of substances. He exhibits significant cognitive difficulties consistent with his chronic illness, including disorganization.
No other evidence was heard at this hearing.
Final Submissions:
- Mr. Northcott simply noted that his client takes the position he ought not to have been brought back to hospital. On the other hand, Ms. Newman and Ms. Curry submitted the Board should accept Dr. Jones’ evidence and find that it was absolutely necessary to return this gentleman to hospital on April 1 in order to manage his risk related to his use of prohibited substances.
Findings of the Board:
The Board accepts the evidence of Dr. Jones and the evidence contained in the Hospital Report. We accept that the return to hospital was absolutely warranted. Once again, the use of substances caused a significant deterioration in Mr. Motuz’s stability and appropriate risk management required Mr. Motuz to be returned to hospital.
We also accept that Mr. Motuz’s ongoing stay in hospital was the least onerous and least restrictive decision available to the hospital considering all of the evidence. We understand that Mr. Motuz will be returning to his prior residence pursuant to a seven-day leave of absence.
In reaching our Decision the Board has taken into consideration public safety, Mr. Motuz’s mental condition and his other needs, and Mr. Motuz’s reintegration into society.
DATED this 22nd day of May 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Mr. J. Goldenberg Alternate Chairperson
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board