Re: Gary Motuz
ORB File No: 6767
Hearing held on: Monday, August 18, 2025
Place of hearing: Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care
Pursuant to: Sections 672.81(1) and 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. J. Weinstein
Members: Dr. S. Simpson
Dr. J. Cheston
Ms. K. Tomaszewski
Ms. D. Smith
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 AND DISPOSITION
(Dated September 4, 2025)
Introduction
On June 2, 2015, Gary Motuz was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (“NCR”) of Criminal Code charges of fail to comply with probation (x4) and fail to comply with an appearance notice. At the time of the hearing, Mr. Motuz was subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated August 23, 2024, detaining him at Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care – Brébeuf Program for Regional Forensics (the “Hospital” or “Waypoint”) with privileges up to living in the community in accommodation approved by the person in charge. On August 18, 2025, this panel of the Board convened in person to conduct a review of Mr. Motuz’s disposition and to review one period during which his liberty was and continues to be restricted (the “ROL”).
The Hospital and the Attorney General took the position that the restriction of Mr. Motuz’s liberty from June 28, 2025, to the date of the hearing was and remained necessary and appropriate. Both parties also submitted that Mr. Motuz continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and that a detention order on the same terms as last year remains the least onerous and least restrictive disposition that can manage his risk. Mr. Motuz disagreed. His position was that the restriction of liberty was not necessary and appropriate; he was not a significant threat to the safety of the public; and he should be granted an absolute discharge. All parties maintained their initial positions throughout the hearing.
Index Offences
On December 17, 2014, Mr. Motuz was found to be in an area of Barrie that, pursuant to two probation orders, he was prohibited from being in.
On January 12, 2015, Mr. Motuz failed to attend for fingerprints as he was required to do, pursuant to an appearance notice.
In January 2015, Mr. Motuz was discovered to have moved his residence without notifying his probation officer of the change in address as he was required to do pursuant to two probation orders.
Background
Mr. Motuz is 46 years old. The following background is taken from last year’s Board Reasons for Decision and Disposition, with some minor edits.
He had a chaotic childhood marked by dysfunction, trauma and instability. Both his parents had mental health issues of their own. He was placed in foster care when he was approximately five years old and moved between foster homes frequently until he was 16 years old, when he began to fend for himself. He did not finish high school. He began using substances, mostly marijuana.
Mr. Motuz has a significant criminal record starting from when he was 14 years old. The vast majority of his more than 50 convictions are for failing to comply with probation orders. He also has convictions for trespassing at night, causing a disturbance, drug possession, and property offences. His record for violence consists of an assault and sexual assault when he was 14 and 15 years old respectively, an assault resist arrest (2002), and assault peace officer and assault (2004).
Although no detail was available, Mr. Motuz suffered a head injury when he was 19 years old.
Mr. Motuz had his first psychiatric hospitalization in 1998, when he was 20 years old. From 2000 onward, Mr. Motuz had frequent hospitalizations, often precipitated by his involvement with the police. He responded to treatment in hospital but upon discharge, would not adhere to medications and would immediately resume use of substances. For a period of eight years, he was followed by the Barrie Assertive Community Treatment team but even with their interventions and Community Treatment Orders, he did not comply with medications. In later years, his admissions were often to forensic hospitals for assessments of his fitness or criminal responsibility.
When unwell, Mr. Motuz was paranoid, agitated and irritable. He was physically assaultive and engaged in environmental aggression. His thoughts were disorganized and his speech (once described as “neologistic drivel”) was hard to understand.
Once under the jurisdiction of the Board, Mr. Motuz’s mental state greatly improved with consistent treatment and abstinence from substances although he continued to exhibit some thought disorder and was heard talking to himself. Mr. Motuz is frequently cooperative and pleasant although hard to understand. Episodically, he becomes agitated, angry, aggressive towards his environment, and even harder to understand.
Mr. Motuz’s progress has been hampered by his attitude towards substance use, his lack of insight into both his illness and his need for medications, and his attitude towards the hospital’s oversight (including the requirement that he provide urine samples). Mr. Motuz was ready to be transitioned to the community long before the hospital first discharged him, but he was opposed to moving to a group home, declined to participate in many groups, and insisted that cannabis was medicine to him. Finally, in March 2018, Mr. Motuz was discharged to a group home, but he disturbed other residents by talking to himself in his room and by asking for money. After less than three weeks, the group home decided he was not a good fit.
Mr. Motuz remained in hospital for several years after this. He began to use cannabis (after abstaining since his admission in 2014) in July 2019 while he was being transitioned to TRHP housing. Around the same time, Mr. Motuz’s insight into his illness and need for medications worsened – he claimed he has asthma not any psychiatric illness. He was found incapable of making treatment decisions regarding antipsychotic medications.
Since August 2021, Mr. Motuz has used cannabis on a regular basis. Initially, Mr. Motuz lost his privileges when he tested positive for cannabis. Over time the hospital decided to take a different approach – they concluded that if Mr. Motuz had to remain abstinent to make progress, he would never be reintegrated to the community. They waited until his prolonged use of cannabis began to impact his mental stability before holding his privileges.
Mr. Motuz was approved for a bed in CHO housing in January 2023 but, due to his cannabis use and failure to comply with the rules of the home, his discharge to the home was delayed for more than a year.
In addition to the ROL under consideration at this hearing, Mr. Motuz was returned to the Hospital four times during the reporting period when broad-spectrum urine drug screens
yielded positive results for substance use, including cannabinoids, and on occasion, cocaine use.
- Mr. Motuz is diagnosed with schizophrenia, substance use disorder, and antisocial personality disorder.
Evidence at the Hearing
Dr. A. Jones, who has been Mr. Motuz’s attending psychiatrist since at least 2016, signed the Hospital Report, dated July 21, 2025, and testified at the hearing.
Throughout the year, Mr. Motuz continued to use cannabis, and on occasion, cocaine, and his mental state fluctuated in response.
On June 28, 2025, Mr. Motuz’s urine drug screen tested positive for cocaine and cannabis. Mr. Motuz disclosed that he had used alcohol as well. Dr. Jones testified that the notes of the doctor on duty when he was admitted recorded that he was angry. When she saw him a few days later he was irritable.
He was discharged on an LOA to his group home and two days later, on July 29, his urine again tested positive for cocaine, and he was returned to the Hospital. When Dr. Jones saw Mr. Motuz on July 31, 2025, he was quite irritable and refused to speak to her. His indirectly supervised passes were placed on hold until his urine drug screens no longer tested positive for substances. He was then discharged on an LOA to his group home.
After one day at the group home, on August 12, 2025, his urine drug screen again yielded positive results for cocaine and cannabis, and he was returned to the Hospital. He was significantly more irritable than usual, angry, and repeatedly denied using cocaine.
Dr. Jones stated that she had seen Mr. Motuz on the morning of the hearing day. He was irritable, insisted that he had not used cocaine, and insisted that he be released from the requirement that he take medications for a mental illness.
According to Dr. Jones, Mr. Motuz does not recognize that he has a mental disorder and does not believe he needs to take medication for a mental disorder. He does not recognize the symptoms of his mental disorder.
Without the oversight of the ORB, Mr. Motuz would not take medications and would become very mentally unwell. Even in the context of no substance use and with treatment, Mr. Motuz’s psychotic symptoms are only partially resolved.
Dr. Jones testified that when Mr. Motuz uses substances, he becomes more irritable. With escalating substance use, his mental status deteriorates, he risks losing his housing, and becomes increasingly agitated, threatening, and aggressive, leading to the risk of assaultive behaviours (as in the past) and police involvement.
Dr. Jones admitted that she was at a loss about how to improve the chances that Mr. Motuz will succeed in abstaining from substances.
Mr. Motuz is required to check in with the Brébeuf team daily to monitor his substance use and his mental state. The Hospital provides transportation. Despite this intensive oversight, Mr. Motuz continues to use substances.
The Hospital’s approach is to bring him into the Hospital if his urine drug screen tests positive for substances and hold him until his urine drug screen is negative, which is usually when Mr. Motuz returns to his baseline. Then he is released to the group home on an LOA. Once the urine drug screens are negative for substances for seven days, Mr. Motuz is discharged to the group home.
As of the date of the hearing, Mr. Motuz had not maintained “clear” urine drug screens for seven days, and as a result remained subject to an ROL.
Dr. Jones pointed to page 12 of the Hospital Report, which describes a situation which occurred in 2011, when Mr. Motuz was subject to the Mental Health Act (“MHA”), as an example of what would very likely happen if Mr. Motuz received an absolute discharge, and was no longer subject to the oversight of the ORB:
Mr. Motuz was admitted to the Royal Victoria Hospital, Barrie from October 19 to 31, 2011 on an involuntary basis. Apparently, staff at his group home were “concerned that he might hurt somebody else…he was brought in by the police. He was aggressive in the Emergency Department, and he threw a chair at one of the staff and had to be restrained. Also, he was given a Haldol injection. He was not cooperative at all. He was belligerent and suspicious and wouldn’t give any information. It was indicated that he was aggressive towards the staff at Windermere as well.” He was placed in four point restraints yet continued to spit at staff. It was noted that “Mr. Motuz has been displaying symptoms of decompensation. He was quite paranoid, suspicious, thought disordered and when he presented to the hospital, he was quite aggressive. He told me that he has been off all his medications since 2007…The staff at Windermere House confirmed progressive decompensation in his mental state over the last couple of weeks.” It was noted that he “…was brought up through various foster homes and has had frequent trouble because of frequent fights with his brother. There is also a history of antisocial behaviour, including stealing and being expelled from school, and has never been gainfully employed, and has no social or occupational skills.”
Dr. Jones noted that in February 2019 Mr. Motuz picked up a chair and threw it at staff when he was in a state of agitated delirium due to water intoxication. Mr. Motuz again experienced water intoxication as recently as 2025, when hallucinations of wolverines and insects caused him to be fearful. Water intoxication, in addition to substance use, is an additional concern for agitated behaviour, potentially leading to a risk of violence.
Mr. Motuz has not been convicted of an assault since his index offences, which Dr. Jones attributes to his being under the supervision of the ORB.
Mr. Motuz’s mental health is impacted both by his substance use and his anti-social personality disorder.
Dr. Jones stated that the Hospital had no alternative but to admit Mr. Motuz on June 28, 2025, to avoid harm to the public. All harm reduction approaches attempted to date have been unsuccessful with Mr. Motuz. Mr. Motuz remains in a “revolving door” pattern of testing positive for substance use, returning to hospital until his urine drug screens are negative for substance use, and returning to the group home.
A detention order is necessary to bring Mr. Motuz to the hospital when he uses substances to interrupt the destabilization of Mr. Motuz’ mental status, and to prevent Mr. Motuz from decompensating to the point where he engages in aggressive and assaultive behaviour.
In response to questions about how advisable it is to continue to return Mr. Motuz to the community, Dr. Jones stated that Mr. Motuz would risk losing his placement in the group home if he was absent for an extended time, but that she was not aware that there was any current plan for him to lose his placement.
Dr. Jones expressed hope that the structure of the detention order will be more successful in providing Mr. Motuz with external motivation to abstain from substances in the upcoming year.
Analysis and Decision
Significant Threat
Ongoing significant threat to the safety of the public cannot be speculative. It must entail a real risk of serious physical or psychological harm arising from conduct that is both serious and criminal in nature.
In arriving at its determination that Mr. Motuz continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public the Board has carefully analyzed the evidence as it relates to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Winko, 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625.
The panel concluded that the evidence established that Mr. Motuz represents a significant threat to the safety of the public. We noted that it has been more than 20 years since Mr. Motuz was convicted of a violent offence and 6 years since he was assaultive in a hospital (throwing a chair) while suffering from water intoxication. However, as recently as April 2025, he again suffered from water intoxication and was hallucinating. Mr. Motuz has a well-established history of becoming agitated and aggressive with escalating use of substances, and Mr. Motuz continues to use substances. The evidence supports the conclusion that without the intervention of the Hospital and the supervision of the ORB, Mr. Motuz will become aggressive and assaultive, with a resulting risk of harm to the public.
Mr. Motuz’s pattern of substance use, and lack of insight firmly establishes that Mr. Motuz is virtually guaranteed to use substances and not adhere to medications if granted an absolute discharge. Without the intervention of the treatment team, he would quickly deteriorate. He would become profoundly disorganized, experience auditory hallucinations, become more irritable and agitated, and paranoid. He would then become threatening and assaultive. He would present a real risk of causing someone serious bodily harm. This conclusion was also supported by the various risk assessment tools, the oral testimony of Dr. Jones, and the summary of clinical assessment of risk at pages 81-82 of the Hospital Report.
Disposition
Flowing from the Board’s finding that Mr. Motuz continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public it must shape a Disposition for the year ahead. An absolute discharge is not available to Mr. Motuz. The Board’s paramount consideration in shaping the disposition must be the safety of the public while also considering Mr. Motuz’s needs pursuant to s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
The structure of the current detention disposition allows the Hospital to monitor Mr. Motuz on a daily basis and to return him to the Hospital if his urine tests positive for substance use, before his mental status deteriorates to the point of aggressive and assaultive behaviour. This would not be possible under the MHA. Prior to coming under the jurisdiction of the ORB, Mr. Motuz had been subject to community care under the MHA. This regime was not successful in managing Mr. Motuz’s risk to the public.
Mr. Motuz denies that he has a mental illness, that he has any symptoms, and that he requires medication to treat his mental illness. He does not appear to understand the legal prohibition on using substances. He is not internally motivated to abstain from substances or comply with treatment for his mental illness. He has a long history of breaching court orders and failing to comply with rules.
The Hospital needs to approve Mr. Motuz’s housing. The housing staff monitor his mental state and his abstinence from substances. Additionally, given his history and on-going issues at the group home, it is not appropriate to consider a conditional discharge at this time.
The panel concluded that there is no air of reality to a conditional discharge. Mr. Motuz’s risk to the public cannot be managed under the MHA with a conditional discharge.
The Hospital is doing everything possible to enable Mr. Motuz to continue living in the community. This would not be possible under a conditional discharge.
Therefore, the Board unanimously determines that the necessary and appropriate Disposition required to manage the threat Mr. Motuz poses to the safety of the public while still meeting his needs, remains a detention disposition.
In making this disposition, the Board carefully considered the positions and submissions of the parties and the evidence of Dr. Jones and is satisfied that this determination is both necessary and appropriate. The Board reviewed the provisions of s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code and carefully considered the need to protect the public from dangerous persons, Mr. Motuz’s mental condition, his reintegration into society and other needs.
Restriction of Liberty
The panel was also satisfied that the restriction of Mr. Motuz’s liberty on June 28, 2025, was necessary and appropriate and remained so on the day of the hearing. Mr. Motuz was using cannabis and cocaine in breach of his disposition, and he had become irritable and angry. In the past, this has led to aggressive and potentially assaultive behaviour. Mr. Motuz would have deteriorated further and would likely have become dangerous if the Hospital had not intervened.
The Hospital’s plan of requiring seven days of “clear” urine tests balances the protection of the public with Mr. Motuz’s liberty interests. As of the date of the hearing, Mr. Motuz had not achieved seven “clear” days, indicating continued substance use. These choices were made by Mr. Motuz, who knew that his urine was being tested frequently.
It is appropriate for Dr. Jones to wait until cannabis has cleared his system before discharging him, since his history demonstrates a clear link between cumulative cannabis use and the irritable and agitated state in which his risk to the public increased.
DATED this 4th day of September 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.
Ms. K. Tomaszewski
Legal Member
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board