Re: Alexandru Pacurar
ORB File No: 5776
Hearing held on: Tuesday, July 8, 2025
Place of hearing: Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences 700 Gordon Street, Whitby
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. M.D. Segal
Members: Dr. B. Sheppard Dr. M. Kalia Hon. E. Kruzick Mr. A. Bouvier
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Alexandru Pacurar Counsel: Mr. A. Rai
The Person in charge of Hospital: Counsel: Ms. J. Szabo
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. N. MacDonald
REASONS FOR DECISION
(Dated August 8, 2025)
Introduction
[1]. On November 23, 2010 Alexandru Pacurar was found not criminally responsible (NCR), on a single charge of mischief, not exceeding $5000, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (Criminal Code).
[2]. As a result, Mr. Pacurar is currently under the jurisdiction of the Ontario Review Board (ORB or the Board) pursuant to a Disposition dated, September 18, 2024, whereby he is detained subject to conditions and privileges up to and including residing in the community in approved accommodation. The reasons for that Disposition are dated October 29, 2024.
[3]. Mr. Pacurar resides in the community. On June 6, 2025 Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences (Ontario Shores or hospital) gave notice to the ORB regarding Mr. Pacurar’s hospitalization on May 30, 2025. The Board responded and pursuant to s. 672.52(1) set a Restriction of Liberty (ROL) hearing.
[4]. As a result of Mr. Pacurar’s admission to the hospital on May 30, 2025, a panel of the Board was convened to review Mr. Pacurar’s ROL.
[5]. At the hearing the hospital was represented by Ms. Szabo. Ms. MacDonald appeared as counsel for the Attorney General. Mr. Pacurar did not attend the hearing. He was represented by his counsel, Mr. Rai, who indicated that his client was aware of the hearing and, on his client’s behalf, asked that an order be made that the matter proceed in Mr. Pacurar’s absence. Accordingly, the Alternate Chair made an order pursuant to s. 672.5(10)(a) permitting Mr. Pacurar to be absent and for the hearing to proceed.
Issues at the Hearing
[6]. The issues to be determined at this hearing are whether Mr. Pacurar’s liberty was significantly restricted on May 30, 2025 and, if so, whether the restriction of liberty imposed on Mr. Pacurar was necessary and appropriate at the time it was imposed and continued to be to the date of Mr. Pacurar’s discharge on June 10, 2025.
Initial Positions
[7]. At the outset of the hearing the Alternate Chair asked counsel for their positions. Ms. Szabo, counsel for the hospital, indicated that in the circumstances of this case this was not a restriction of Mr. Pacurar’s liberty. If the Board finds otherwise the position of the hospital is that the restriction of liberty was necessary and appropriate and the least onerous and least restrictive measure in the circumstances. On behalf of the Attorney General, Ms. MacDonald agreed with the position of the hospital. On behalf of Mr. Pacurar, his counsel, Mr. Rai, concurred.
Findings
[8]. For reasons that follow, on hearing the evidence and the submissions of counsel, the Board finds that, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, this was not a restriction of Mr. Pacurar’s liberty. If we are wrong, the Board finds that the restriction of liberty was necessary and appropriate and the least onerous and least restrictive measure in the circumstances.
Index Offence
[9]. The allegations giving rise to the index offence are well summarised in last year’s Reasons as follows:
In April 2010, Mr. Pacurar destroyed the apartment he shared with is mother. He carved into the walls and slashed furniture. He told the police that he wanted to see what was in the walls and he was “searching for stuff”. He later told his mother that he thought there was an assassin hiding in the apartment and he was trying to find him.
While in police custody later that same day, Mr. Pacurar attempted suicide.
Current Diagnoses
[10]. Mr. Pacurar’s current diagnoses include schizophrenia, unspecified personality disorder and cannabis use disorder in sustained remission in a controlled environment.
Evidence
[11]. Marked as exhibits at this hearing were the Hospital Reports dated July 2, 2025 and July 10, 2024. Dr. Pallandi, who co-authored the reports, testified. The Hospital Reports contain a great deal of detail regarding Mr. Pacurar’s illness and his course and therefore do not required repetition.
[12]. Dr. Pallandi testified that Mr. Pacurar is his patient. He described Mr. Pacurar as a 35-year-old male, with a pleasant disposition and who has a good relationship with him and the hospital team.
[13]. Mr. Pacurar last appeared before the Board on September 18, 2024. Significant threat to the safety of the public was conceded and the Board issued a Disposition dated October 3, 2024, pursuant to which Mr. Pacurar continues to be detained subject to a number of conditions. The reasons for that Disposition are dated October 29, 2024.
[14]. On February 5, 2024, Mr. Pacurar was discharged from the Forensic Psychiatric Rehabilitation Unit (FPRU) to reside at the Scott residence; a 24-hour supervised home within the Durham Mental Health Services (DMHS) complex care program.
[15]. Mr. Pacurar’s follow-up was assumed by Dr. Pallandi and the Forensic Outpatient Service (FOS). Dr. Pallandi stated that Mr. Pacurar’s transition to the community was uneventful. Mr. Pacurar is mindful of the home’s rules and is cooperative in meeting the expectations of living in the community.
[16]. Dr. Pallandi testified that Mr. Pacurar’s urine drug screens were all negative. Aside from a transient period of drop in concentration of his clozapine level in April 2024, which ultimately was ascribed to Mr. Pacurar being partially noncompliant with the treatment, he engaged in no problematic, aggressive or otherwise objectionable conduct during that period.
[17]. In late May 2025, Mr. Pacurar began to exhibit some changes in his mental state that were not suggestive of violence or aggression. Of his own accord, Mr. Pacurar presented himself to the hospital. Given Mr. Pacurar’s concerns, willingness and interest in receiving extra support and help he was admitted to hospital for stabilization.
[18]. At the time of his admission into the hospital, Mr. Pacurar reported a number of concerns. Firstly, Mr. Pacurar reported the recurrence of auditory hallucinations, non-command and derogatory in nature. The second was the evolution of the possibility of self-injurious or suicidal ideation. The third was a change in sleep pattern. The fourth was a perceptible (subjective and objective) overall change in his mental state.
[19]. Dr. Pallandi testified that while there were some incidents of concerns during Mr. Pacurar’s hospitalization, they were successfully addressed. Throughout the period of Mr. Pacurar’s hospitalization, he was granted full privileges and did not engage in any problematic behaviour. During Mr. Pacurar’s stay in the hospital, he progressively stabilized over several days. Nevertheless, concerns remained about his inability to contract against self-harm so that this extended the admission by several days. Eventually, Mr. Pacurar’s auditory hallucinations subsided, and he was able to contract against self-harm.
[20]. Dr. Pallandi’s evidence was that, on June 10, 2025, Mr. Pacurar was subjectively ready to be discharged, and he returned to living in the community.
[21]. Since Mr. Pacurar’s discharge to the community, Dr. Pallandi testified that Mr. Pacurar has stabilized and improved. Auditory hallucinations have not recurred. He has not kept medications in his room. There has been no concern for appetite dysregulation or self-injurious behaviour. Mr. Pacurar has been fully cooperative with follow-up, compliance with medications and house rules in general.
[22]. No other evidence was called.
Submissions
[23]. At the conclusion of the hearing of Dr. Pallandi’s testimony, counsel for all the parties maintained their positions as expressed at the outset of the hearing. As a result, this was a joint submission that this was not a ROL and, if it was, that it was necessary and appropriate and the least onerous and least restrictive step in the circumstances
Analysis and Conclusion
[24]. On hearing the evidence of Dr. Pallandi, which the panel accepts, and, bearing in mind the submissions of counsel, the Board unanimously finds that, on the facts and, in the circumstances of this case, this was not a restriction of Mr. Pacurar’s liberty. In coming to this conclusion, we rely on the fact that Mr. Pacurar presented himself to the hospital given the deterioration of his mental health. The hospitalization was brief.
[25]. While Mr. Pacurar was admitted to the hospital, we accept Dr. Pallandi’s evidence that if Mr. Pacurar wished to leave or be discharged at any time, that would have happened. We also accept the evidence that while Mr. Pacurar was in the hospital he was allowed all privileges and was in no way restricted.
[26]. If we are wrong, in our finding that this was not a ROL, the Board finds that the restriction of liberty was necessary and appropriate and the least onerous and least restrictive measure given Mr. Pacurar’s own concerns about the deterioration of his health.
[27]. We accept the evidence that Mr. Pacurar was entirely cooperative and willing to be readmitted for psychiatric stabilization/observation. Further, he remained in hospital voluntarily and cooperatively until such time as his stabilization occurred.
[28]. In summary, we unanimously find that this was not a ROL that necessitate this hearing. If we are wrong, we rely on, and accept, the evidence of Dr. Pallandi that Mr. Pacurar’s admission was entirely warranted and appropriate under the circumstances. The panel accepts that Mr. Pacurar has been compliant with his medication and has successfully reintegrated into the community.
[29]. The Board finds that there should be no change to Mr. Pacurar’s current Disposition.
[30]. The panel commends Mr. Pacurar on having the insight into his need for help when he felt it was required. The Board recognize the good progress he has made and wish him all the best in the remainder of this reporting year.
DATED this 8th day of August 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Hon. E. Kruzick Legal Member
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board