Ontario Review Board

Re: Ryan Pyziak

ORB File No: 8756

Hearing held on: Wednesday, June 25, 2025

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

Pursuant to: Section 672.47(1) of the Criminal Code

Before:

Alternate Chairperson: Mr. J. Weinstein

Members: Dr. L.E. Cappe Dr. L.O. Lightfoot Ms. M. den Haan Mr. A. Mete

Parties Appearing:

Accused: Ryan Pyziak Counsel: Mr. T. Whillier

The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Mr. K. Dow

Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. V. Culp

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated August 19, 2025)

Introduction

1. On March 17, 2025, Ryan Paul Pyziak was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, on a charge of aggravated assault, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (“Criminal Code”). That finding was based on an assessment, and related report, of Dr. Levin, dated January 26, 2025.

2. The Court did not make a Disposition and ordered, pursuant to s. 672.47(1) of the Criminal Code, that Mr. Pyziak be detained at the Toronto South Detention Centre, until there is a bed available at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (“CAMH”), pending a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the “Board”).

3. On June 25, 2025, the Board convened a hearing at CAMH to make an initial Disposition.

4. Mr. Pyziak was present at the hearing and was represented by his counsel, Mr. Thomas Whillier. Mr. Pyziak’s father was also in attendance.

5. An initial Hospital Report, dated June 5, 2025 (the "Hospital Report"), was entered as Exhibit 1.

6. The issue at this hearing is whether Mr. Pyziak is a significant threat to public safety, as defined in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code. If so, the necessary and appropriate Disposition in the circumstances must be determined, bearing in mind the factors enunciated in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.

7. By letter dated June 11, 2025, counsel for Mr. Pyziak submitted a Rule 13 request for a transfer to Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences (“Ontario Shores”).

8. By letter dated June 18, 2025, Ontario Shores responded to the Rule 13 request by Mr. Pyziak, which was marked Exhibit 2. They were not in support of a transfer to their hospital.

9. For the reasons set out below and based on the expert evidence and opinions before it, the Board concluded that Mr. Pyziak represents a significant threat to the safety of the public. The Board further concluded that his risk can be properly managed with a Detention Order at CAMH, on the terms set out in our formal Disposition. The Board allowed that the highest level of privileges accorded to Mr. Pyziak shall be to enter the community of the Greater Toronto Area, indirectly supervised. The Board deemed that the above is the necessary and appropriate Disposition in the circumstances. The Board further found that it was not appropriate to transfer Mr. Pyziak to Ontario Shores at this time.

Current Psychiatric Diagnoses

10. Schizophrenia

Substance Use Disorder, sustained remission within a controlled environment

Cluster B (Antisocial) Personality Traits

Index Offences

11. The circumstances giving rise to the Index Offences are extracted from the Hospital Report:

“The following information was excerpted from the Agreed Statement of Facts included in the pre-hearing conference package.

Not long after midnight on November 11, 2023, the victim Do Young BYUN, along with four of his friends, left a bar in the area of Holmes Avenue and Yonge Street in the City of Toronto. The group of friends started to walk eastbound on Holmes Ave. The group gathered in front of 1 Holmes Ave. where they continued their conversation. The accused, Mr. Ryan PYZIAK, was living in the second-floor unit at the time. Mr. PYZIAK stuck his head outside of his window and began yelling at the group, stating words to the effect of, "You all think you’re a bunch of Korean gangsters." The group of friends ignored this and continued talking amongst themselves.

Approximately one minute later, Mr. PYZIAK came out of 1 Holmes Ave, approached the victim, and without provocation, stabbed him two times in his abdomen. Mr. PYZIAK then went back into his residence. There was no conversation during this portion of the incident. One of the victim’s friends observed the accused holding a knife, describing it as having a black handle and silver blade, approximately 4-5” in length. Police and ambulance were called.

During the transport, Mr. PYZIAK made a number of utterances. He accused police of trying to turn him into a “lifer on pills,” and of threatening him with forced medication. He also told police he was a member of the street gang, the Bloods.

Mr. PYZIAK was cooperative during the arrest process. While at the police station, information came to light that the accused was at that time subject to a Criminal Code section 110 weapons Prohibition.

The following information was excerpted from the Reasons for Decision dated March 19, 2025.

With respect to the index offence, Mr. Pyziak reported he had not taken antipsychotic medication for some 3-5 months prior. This point was confirmed by the medical records and by his father. He expressed the belief to Dr. Levin that the victim and his friends intended to kill, kidnap or sexually assault him. He asserted the belief he was going to be harmed imminently and reacted accordingly.

During his interviews with Dr. Levin in July and August 2024, Mr. Pyziak endorsed numerous delusions involving his own clairvoyance and divinity, and the notion that 5G technology was affecting his mind. He continued to believe he had faced acute danger at the time of the offence.

Ultimately, I am prepared to find that Mr. Pyziak was labouring under the delusion that Mr. Byun was intent on harming him and that his actions were responsive to this perceived threat."

Background Information

12. Mr. Pyziak’s education, conduct disorder, employment, housing, and substance use histories are set out in the Hospital Report. They do not have to be repeated here in detail, but following passages are relevant:

“Education and Conduct Disorder History

Mr. Pyziak attended high school at Cardinal Carter Catholic School at Bathurst and Yonge in Toronto. He was described as a leader who had a lot of friends. Prior to attending this high school Mr. Pyziak won various English awards as he was a “good writer, a good story teller.” However at Cardinal Carter Catholic School his father noted some changes in Mr. Pyziak’s behaviour. Beverley took Mr. Pyziak to the doctor and he was diagnosed with anxiety and depression and was prescribed Prozac. He appeared to become “worse” on medication and dropped out in grade 10. He told his dad that he could “sit there but didn’t want to be there.” In 2020 while living with his father, Mr. Pyziak went back to school and finished his diploma.

Employment and Housing History

Mr. Pyziak did not have a long-standing job according to his father’s recollection. Mr. Pyziak sold cocaine in his 20s which led him to be charged and incarcerated. He worked with his father in renovations in his mid 30s and then as a UPS driver for several months.

Substance Use History

The following substance use history was obtained from Dr. Levin’s Psychiatric Report dated January 26, 2025.

Mr. Pyziak’s pattern of alcohol use was occasional in his adolescence; when playing video games with his friends. His alcohol consumption increased from age 18 onwards; initially on weekends and subsequently progressing to weekday consumption. Months before the index offence, he consumed approximately six beers daily. There was no history of blackouts or delirium tremens.

Mr. Pyziak used cannabis daily in his youth. Around the time of the index offences, he mostly consumed the substance daily; though unable to recall whether he consumed cannabis in the days before the index offence.

Mr. Pyziak consumed cocaine during his youth and reportedly stopped consuming the substance for years. However, months prior to the index offence, he began using the substance.

Mr. Pyziak denied opioid or amphetamine use.”

Psychiatric History

13. Mr. Pyziak’s psychiatric history is accurately summarized in the Reasons for Decision dated March 19, 2024, and are part of the Record. The following passages are relevant:

“[7] Mr. Pyziak has a long and well-documented history of mental disorder and treatment spanning more than a decade. He was diagnosed with schizophrenia in his 30s. He was later diagnosed with ADHD and social anxiety disorder. Other diagnoses have been considered over the years, including: bi-polar disorder, cannabis use disorder, and substance-induced psychosis. Mr. Pyziak has received treatment for many years, which has included the use of injectable antipsychotic medications.

8In August 2014, Mr. Pyziak was before the Court facing criminal charges and his fitness to stand trial was in doubt. He was subject to a treatment order and, following that treatment, he was found fit to stand trial.

9Mr. Pyziak was admitted to North York General Hospital on June 9, 2020, having discontinued his antipsychotic medication. Medical records indicate paranoid delusions and disordered thought.

10There were multiple Form 1 admissions to hospital throughout 2021 and 2022. Records indicate Mr. Pyziak was delusional, nonsensical, and exhibiting highly disorganized thought at various points. In August 2021 he presented to hospital and was deemed incapable of consenting to treatment.

11On May 5, 2023, Mr. Pyziak presented at a hospital with police on a Form 1, which had been filled out by his family physician. He had discontinued his injectable medication, become delusional, and assaulted his father. Records then indicate Mr. Pyziak had two emergency room admissions in August 2023 and missed an antipsychotic injection in September 2023, about two months before the incident in question here.

12With respect to the index offence, Mr. Pyziuk reported he had not taken antipsychotic medication for some 3-5 months prior. This point was confirmed by the medical records and by his father. He expressed the belief to Dr. Levin that the victim and his friends intended to kill, kidnap or sexually assault him. He asserted the belief he was going to be harmed imminently and reacted accordingly.”

Legal History

14. Mr. Pyziak’s Toronto Police Services criminal record, dated November 11, 2023, noted the following conviction dates and outcomes:

Date and Location	Charge	Outcome
2002-02-11 Newmarket, Ontario	(1) Possession of Property Obtained by Crime Under $5000 (2) Assault	(1) $200 (2) susp sent, probation 18 mos
2012-02-14 Newmarket, Ontario	(1) Mischief Under $5000 (2) Forcible Entry (3) Fail to Comply with Recognizance (4) Fail to Appear (5) Poss of a Schedule I Substance	(1) 30 days (2) 30 days consec & 37 days presentence (3) 30 days (4-5) 30 days on each chg consec & consec probation 3 yrs
2013-12-13 Toronto, Ontario	Assault Assault	Suspended sentence Probation 2 yrs (9 days presentence custody) Discretionary prohibition sec 110 for 10 yrs
2014-02-20 Newmarket, Ontario	Assault with Intent to Resist Arrest	Suspended sentence Probation 2 yrs (67 days presentence custody) Discretionary prohibition sec 110 for 5 yrs
2014-10-24 Newmarket, Ontario	(1) Assault (2) Forcible Confinement (3) Fail to Comply with Probation Order	(1) Suspended sentence & probation 36 mos & discretionary prohibition sec 110 for 10 yrs (2) Suspended sentence & probation 36 mos (3) Suspended sentence & probation 36 mos

Course Since NCR Finding

15. Mr. Pyziak’s course since the NCR finding are set out in detail in the Hospital Report. The following passages are relevant:

“Mr. Pyziak was admitted to the ATU (Unit 3-5), a secure forensic unit on May 1, 2025.

Though Mr. Pyziak reported doing well from a mental health standpoint, he was observed by staff to occasionally be internally preoccupied. Additionally, he evidenced a disordered thought form with bizarre religiously based content.”

Position of the Parties

16. Counsels for the hospital and for the Attorney General submitted that Mr. Pyziak represents a significant threat to the safety of the public; however, his risk could be managed with a Detention Order on the Forensic Service of CAMH, upon the terms set out on page 14 of the Hospital Report, with the highest level of privilege being indirectly supervised privileges into the community of the Greater Toronto Area. Neither Counsel took any position with respect to the Rule 13 request for a transfer to Ontario Shores.

17. Counsel for Mr. Pyziak advised that his client does not meet the threshold to be deemed a significant threat to the safety of the public; therefore, he was asking for an Absolute Discharge. In the alternative, should this Board find that Mr. Pyziak was a significant threat to public safety, he requested that his client’s care be transferred to Ontario Shores.

Evidence at the Hearing

18. The Board had available to it the evidence and documents forming the Record, the Exhibits, and oral evidence from Dr. Jaiswal and Mr. Ryan Pyziak.

A. Evidence of Dr. Jaiswal:

19. Dr. Jaiswal co-authored the Hospital Report. He testified as follows:

a) He has been Mr. Pyziak’s attending psychiatrist on the Assessment Triage Unit since May 1, 2025. He has reviewed the Hospital Report and adopts its contents.

b) On June 11, 2025, there was code white called, involving Mr. Pyziak, who was observed responding to internal stimuli. He was also noted to be presenting with delusional, and ruminating, thought patterns.

c) Mr. Pyziak became increasingly agitated, and he engaged in environmental aggression, including strongly punching his door a few times.

d) During the code white, Mr. Pyziak was described as being threatening, agitated and posturing. Mr. Pyziak need to be placed in seclusion overnight, until he settled down the following morning.

e) Since this code white, while Mr. Pyziak’s mental status has fluctuated, it has not risen to a level that required him to be placed in seclusion again.

f) Over the course of Mr. Pyziak’s hospitalization, he has been experiencing residual symptoms of psychosis, possibly because his medication regimen has not yet been optimized.

g) Mr. Pyziak agreed to have his long-acting, injectable medication increased in frequency, from once every four weeks to once every three weeks. He also agreed to the addition of olanzapine, on June 12.

h) It is still early for the treatment team to determine if Mr. Pyziak is now optimally treated. There still may be room for further optimization of his oral antipsychotic medication. To Mr. Pyziak’s credit, he had been participating in some programming.

i) Mr. Pyziak’s residual symptoms include him responding to internal stimuli and experiencing thought form disorganization. The changes to his medication regimen have helped with his auditory hallucinations and allowed him to present more calmly.

j) To Mr. Pyziak’s credit, he was able to recognize that his long-acting injectable medication might have been wearing off after three weeks; he noticed he was starting to become more irritable and over analyzing situations.

k) Mr. Pyziak’s insight into effect of using substances is limited at this point.

l) Mr. Pyziak currently suffers from a major mental illness, and there are risk factors associated with it when his symptoms are active. He has a history of non-adherence to his medication regimen, substance use, and violence. All these factors remain present, and they support the conclusion that Mr. Pyziak is a significant threat to public safety, and therefore, an Absolute Discharge is definitely not supportable.

m) A Conditional Discharge is also not recommended, as the Mental Health Act was insufficient to keep Mr. Pyziak in hospital in the past once he was deemed no longer certifiable under it. In particular, the Hospital Report describes three times when Mr. Pyziak was brought to North York General Hospital by police, and subsequently discharged because he was deemed “no longer certifiable”. These occurred from June 9 to 12, 2020, from September 10 to 13, 2021, and from May 5 to May 8, 2023. Based on Mr. Pyziak’s history, he required periodic hospitalization, to ensure that he remained no risk to public safety, even though he was not detainable under the Mental Health Act.

n) Going forward, the treatment team hopes to have Mr. Pyziak engage in appropriate programming, to help him develop insight across all domains, particularly into his major mental illness and the impact of substance use on his mental state. The plan is to transfer Mr. Pyziak to a Secure Forensic Rehabilitative Unit at CAMH, where he would have access to a higher level of programming.

o) Mr. Pyziak’s progress through the pass ladder system will be assessed on a continuous basis.

p) The treatment team intends to make a referral for Mr. Pyziak to their psychological service, for further testing.

20. In response to questions from counsel for the Attorney General, Dr. Jaiswal testified:

a) The treatment team has diagnosed Mr. Pyziak with Cluster B (antisocial) Personality Traits. This diagnosis is based on Mr. Pyziak’s history of multiple convictions, the absence of consistent employment, impulsivity, and the abuse of substances. However, further monitoring is warranted, to determine whether such traits persist in the absence of substance use and with the optimization of his medication regimen.

b) The team would recommend indirectly supervised passes into the community because they felt it could serve as a positive motivation for Mr. Pyziak, to engage in appropriate programming and to work with the team. It will likely take months, if not up to the end of the reporting year before he would be able to access these passes.

c) Mr. Pyziak’s progress through the pass ladder system will have to be assessed on an ongoing basis. He has a problematic history when residing with his father, so the treatment team would not approve discharging him to his father’s residence, at this time. After the appropriate occupational therapy assessment, the team would assess what would be appropriate accommodation for Mr. Pyziak. Therefore, any housing would need to be approved.

21. In response to questions from counsel for Mr. Pyziak, Dr. Jaiswal testified:

a) He does not know Mr. Pyziak’s plans, should he be granted an Absolute Discharge, but he would most likely return to his father’s residence.

b) Mr. Pyziak has a history of conflict with his father, which required him to be readmitted to various hospitals. Mr. Pyziak also used substances while living with his father.

c) Mr. Pyziak may have had some surface level improvement into his need to abstain from substances; however, Mr. Pyziak’s insight is still limited and is externally motivated.

d) Mr. Pyziak’s insight into the need to abstain from substances still has to be assessed. The use of privileges, such as access to hospital and grounds and indirectly supervised passes into the community, will allow the team to fully ascertain his ability to abstain from substances.

e) There are still concerns that Mr. Pyziak’s antisocial personality traits could result in impulsivity and cause him to use illicit substances again.

f) Mr. Pyziak’s father could not likely provide sufficient supervision to justify allowing Mr. Pyziak to reside with him at this time.

g) Mr. Pyziak does acknowledge that he has experienced symptoms of schizophrenia, such as auditory hallucinations, but he does not necessarily agree with his diagnosis of having the illness. However, he does have some level of appreciation of the impact his medication regimen has on his symptoms.

h) Based on Mr. Pyziak’s history, there are concerns that he would not remain medication adherent, should he be granted an Absolute Discharge.

i) A Community Treatment Order (“CTO”) is not appropriate at this time, as Mr. Pyziak is capable of consenting to treatment and could discontinue the CTO at any time. Furthermore, there is no psychiatrist in the community to supervise a CTO.

j) There are concerns about Mr. Pyziak’s ability to manage his impulses and cravings for substances once he has access to the community.

k) Mr. Pyziak is to be credited for his agreement to optimize his medication regimen. However, an important piece of the puzzle remains: Mr. Pyziak’s consistent engagement in therapeutic programming, to help him develop coping skills and to address his substance use. Mr. Pyziak would likely resume using substances if he were granted an Absolute Discharge.

l) He has no objection to the Board ordering a transfer to Ontario Shores at this time.

22. In response to questions from the panel, Dr. Jaiswal testified:

a) If Mr. Pyziak were granted an Absolute Discharge, he would represent a real, foreseeable, substantial and significant risk of committing a serious criminal offence, resulting in physical, or psychological, harm to the public. This risk of harm is not speculative, nor would it be considered small or trivial; it would be great. While living in the community over the last few years, Mr. Pyziak was involved in multiple incidents, and he needed to be brought to hospital under a Form 1 several times.

b) Mr. Pyziak has a history of medication non-adherence, as well as frequent admissions to hospital. It is uncertain whether Mr. Pyziak would voluntarily return to hospital, should he experience a decompensation in his mental state; there have been occasions that a Form 1 was needed to compel him to attend to hospital to deal with a decline in his mental state. Based on Mr. Pyziak’s history, it is unlikely that he would remain in hospital, should he experience a decompensation.

c) The privilege of living in the community, in accommodation approved by the person in charge, is not recommended for Mr. Pyziak; it would likely be counter therapeutic. This assertion is supported by the fact that Mr. Pyziak is currently requesting an Absolute Discharge.

d) Mr. Pyziak has not yet attended any substance use relapse prevention programming but has completed an addictions consultation.

e) Mr. Pyziak’s insight into what caused the Index Offences can be described as fluctuating. He occasionally continues to experience paranoia, perceiving staff, or people on the unit, as being false.

f) Mr. Pyziak did not need mechanical restraints to enforce the code white.

23. This concluded the evidence of Dr. Jaiswal.

B. Mr. Pyziak

24. Mr. Pyziak testified as follows:

a) If he were granted an Absolute Discharge, he would reside with his father.

b) His father advised that he would retire so that he could supervise Mr. Pyziak on an ongoing basis.

c) He has a family doctor who would administer his medication injections.

d) He did not initially understand his need to be on a long-acting, injectable anti-psychotic, but he is now confident that he would continue with his medication regimen. It would be effective in stopping him from being a risk to his father’s safety, as he had been in the past.

e) He agreed that, when he was not optimally treated, he would tend to over analyze situations, which would cause him to become non-adherent with his medication regimen.

f) He had issues with the government requiring people to be vaccinated during the COVID-19 pandemic, which was one of the reasons he stopped taking his long-acting injections. He used cocaine and marijuana to self-medicate when he was no longer on his medication regimen.

g) He would not use substances in the future, should he be given an Absolute Discharge.

h) He does not remember punching any doors during his code white, on June 11th.

i) He wants to transfer to Ontario Shores for many reasons:

i. He has been treated there in the past, and he felt that he did well there.

ii. Ontario Shores has a much better environment than CAMH’s urban locale, with more green spaces and a lake.

iii. He has been accepted to Christian Community College in Whitby.

iv. It would easier for his parents, who live in North York, to visit him at Ontario Shores than to travel downtown to CAMH.

v. There would be computer classes available to him at Ontario Shores.

vi. He enjoyed the counselling that he received while at Ontario Shores.

25. No other evidence was called.

Analysis and Conclusions

26. Having heard and considered the entirety of the evidence as well as the submissions from the parties, the Board finds that Mr. Pyziak is a significant threat to the safety of the public.

27. In Winko, the Supreme Court outlined that, in coming to the conclusion on the issue of significant threat, a Review Board should closely examine a range of evidence, including: the circumstances of the original offence; the past and expected course of the accused’s treatment; the present state of the NCR accused’s medical condition; the NCR accused’s own plans for the future; the support existing for the NCR accused in the community; and most importantly, the recommendations provided by experts who examined the NCR accused. In coming to our conclusion in this matter, the Board relies on the uncontroverted expert evidence of Dr. Jaiswal, in addition to the documentary evidence before us.

28. Mr. Pyziak has a history of non-adherence to medication and of abusing substances. The uncontroverted evidence of the doctor is as follows: there is a real and foreseeable and substantial or significant risk of serious physical or psychological harm should Mr. Pyziak be given an Absolute Discharge; this risk of harm is not small or trivial but is great. This risk of harm can be described as resulting in a serious criminal offence and is not speculative.

29. Mr. Pyziak has a long history of assaults and involuntary readmissions to hospitals and his time living in the community has not been without incident. He also has a history of being non-adherent to his medication regimen when not under supervision.

30. Mr. Pyziak required numerous readmissions to hospital under a Form 1; it is fair to conclude that he would not voluntarily return to hospital, should he be in a state of decompensation.

31. Mr. Pyziak has chronically experienced psychotic symptoms, including bizarre and paranoid delusions, thought form disorder and functional limitations, particularly in the domains of education and employment. These symptoms were particularly exacerbated by the use of psychoactive substances.

32. Mr. Pyziak requires ongoing treatment with antipsychotic medication to prevent active symptoms of psychosis and/or mania and the risk emanating from them.

33. In particular, the Board relies on the following excerpts from the Hospital Report:

“Historical risk factors that were present and highly relevant in Mr. Pyziak’s case included a history of:

• Violence

• Other antisocial behaviour

• Relationships

• Employment

• Substance use

• Major mental disorder

• Personality disorder

• Treatment or supervision response

Clinical risk factors that were present and highly relevant included problems with:

• Insight

• Symptoms of a major mental disorder

• Treatment or supervision response

In the context of the current inpatient setting, risk factors that are present and highly relevant include future problems with:

• Treatment or supervision response

• Stress or coping

Composite Assessment of Risk

Accounting for the above noted risk and protective factors, absent ongoing forensic service involvement, Mr. Pyziak’s risk for violence is high. In the context of the current setting, admission on the ATU, his risk for violence falls in the moderate range.

Reoffence Scenario

Absent ORB involvement, the most likely re-offence scenario is one where Mr. Pyziak falls away from treatment, returns to the use of psychoactive substances, and/or is exposed to stressors. These factors, individually or in combination, are likely to lead to mental state decompensation. In this context, he is likely to incorporate individuals within his proximity into his psychotic experiences and engage in violent behaviours towards them. Thus, on balance, Mr. Pyziak is a significant threat to public safety.”

34. Given the Board’s finding of significant threat, it was charged with shaping a Disposition for the coming year. The Board agrees with the hospital recommendation, that the necessary and appropriate Disposition to manage Mr. Pyziak’s risk is a Detention Order. The hospital requires the ability to approve Mr. Pyziak’s accommodation, when living in the community becomes appropriate. The hospital is not yet recommending that Mr. Pyziak be given the privilege to reside in the community, and the panel agrees that such a privilege would be premature.

35. The Mental Health Act would not be sufficient to protect the safety of the public, as born out in the doctor’s evidence and in Mr. Pyziak’s numerous readmissions to hospital, and in discharges from hospital when he was no longer deemed to be certifiable. Because of the combination of significant static violence risk variables and ongoing dynamic risk variables, he is best managed under a Detention Order.

36. The only remaining issue before us is whether Mr. Pyziak should be transferred to Ontario Shores. The panel concluded that such a transfer would not be appropriate at this time, for the following reasons:

a) In view of the privilege levels being recommended by the hospital, with which this panel agrees, we seriously doubt that Mr. Pyziak would be able to attend his Christian Community College in the upcoming year.

b) Mr. Pyziak’s last engagement with Ontario Shores is over 10 years ago. His experience is so dated that it uncertain if the people with whom he engaged in counselling are still there.

c) He appears to be developing a rapport with the treatment team at CAMH, and they have gotten to know him. It is our experience that it will be many months before a bed would be available at Ontario Shores for Mr. Pyziak, and a transfer would only set Mr. Pyziak’s progress back. He would be required to work with a new treatment team at Ontario Shores, which would delay his progress, as a new team would need to get to know him.

d) To his credit, Mr. Pyziak has been agreeable to optimizing his medication regimen and to engaging in programming.

e) Mr. Pyziak’s testified that his goal is to live in the community, with his father in North York. This location is outside the catchment area of Ontario Shores, so a discharge there would require another transfer back to CAMH and yet another new treatment team.

f) Although it may be easier for Mr. Pyziak’s family to visit him once a week at Ontario Shores, this reason is not enough of a determining factor to agree that a transfer to there is necessary, or appropriate, at this time.

37. In consideration of all the evidence, submissions of the parties and the criteria set forth in s. 672.54, the paramount consideration being the safety of the public, in addition to the mental condition of Mr. Pyziak, his reintegration into society and his other needs, the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a Detention Order.

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

Mr. J. Weinstein Alternate Chairperson

__________________

Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board