Ontario Review Board
Re: Bartosz Rys
ORB File No: 8237
Hearing held on: Wednesday, August 13, 2025
Place of hearing: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health 1001 Queen Street West, Toronto
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before: Alternate Chairperson: Mr. J. Goldenberg Members: Dr. P.E. Cook Dr. A. Park Mr. P. Capelle Ms. B. Little
Parties Appearing: Accused: Bartosz Rys Counsel: Mr. G.P. Jones The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Mr. K. Dow Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. M. Feindel
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated September 19, 2025)
[1]. On February 14, 2023, Bartoz Rys was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on charges of assault with a weapon (x6), weapons dangerous, assault, and utter threat.
[2]. Mr. Rys is currently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated August 28, 2024. That Disposition directed that Mr. Rys be detained at the Forensic Service at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto (“CAMH”) with privileges up to and including living in the community in approved accommodation and with a number of prohibitions.
[3]. On Wednesday, August 13, 2025, the Ontario Review Board convened a hearing at CAMH and conducted the annual review of Mr. Rys’ Disposition.
Position of the Parties
[4]. At the outset of the hearing, the parties were canvassed as to their recommendations to the Board.
[5]. Mr. Dow appeared for CAMH. He advised of the hospital position that Mr. Rys remains a significant threat to public safety. The hospital is now recommending, however, that the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a Conditional Discharge containing a number of specific privileges and a number of specific prohibitions.
[6]. Mr. Feindel appeared for the Attorney General. Mr. Feindel anticipated supporting the hospital recommendation.
[7]. Mr. Jones appeared for Mr. Rys. Mr. Jones advised that he also was supporting the hospital’s recommendation. In response to a question from the Alternate Chair, Mr. Jones acknowledged that he accepts that Mr. Rys remains a significant threat to public safety as that term is used in the jurisprudence. Mr. Jones put it that the parties would appear to be making a joint recommendation.
Index Offences:
[8]. "A group of six teens, aged 14 to 18, were visiting a friend in Mr. Rys’ apartment building. They decided to sit in the hallway, and happened to sit outside Mr. Rys’ unit. They were laughing and making some noise. Mr. Rys was upset by this and left his unit, carrying a knife. He grabbed one of group, a fifteen-year-old girl, slammed her head to the floor and held a knife to her head. He made threats, and chased the group away. When one teen returned to retrieve her purse, Mr. Rys was still in the hallway, pointed the knife at her, and made threatening comments. Police arrived and took Mr. Rys into custody. He was resistant to their orders and a Taser was used to subdue him. Police found that Mr. Rys needed psychiatric medication.”
Evidence at Hearing:
[9]. The Board admitted into evidence the Hospital Report dated July 29, 2025. The Hospital Report provides a great deal of information concerning Mr. Rys, his personal history, his mental health history, and Mr. Rys’ course in hospital and in the community subsequent to the date of the original NCR finding. As the Hospital Report was made an exhibit in this hearing, it is not necessary to reproduce the information contained in the Hospital Report in these Reasons. We do note, however, the stated diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder.
[10]. In addition to the documentary evidence, the Board also heard from Dr. Benassi. Dr. Benassi has been following Mr. Rys since June 2023 and has been his primary physician for that period of time. Dr. Benassi noted that his patient has lived in his current residential unit for a number of years. There was an issue concerning the possibility that Mr. Rys would be asked to move from his current two-bedroom unit to a one-bedroom unit in the same building. The Alternate Chair asked for the municipal address given that the hospital was asking that there be a residence clause if the Board saw fit to grant a Conditional Discharge. Mr. Rys was kind enough to advise that he lives at 1190 Forestwood Drive in Mississauga.
[11]. Dr. Benassi advised that the clinical team is unanimous in its opinion that Mr. Rys’ threat to public safety can be managed with a Conditional Discharge. There is no longer a need for a Detention Order.
[12]. Dr. Benassi noted that his patient has had a very positive year. He remained medication compliant and treated with long-acting injectable medication. The doctor noted that he receives his injectable medication from the clinic at his local hospital.
[13]. The doctor noted that Mr. Rys has a very good relationship with his mother. He sees her weekly and he frequently spends weekends at his mother’s residence.
[14]. In response to a question from hospital counsel, Dr. Benassi advised that the clinical team is unanimous that Mr. Rys currently remains a significant threat to public safety. The clinical team, however, is unanimous in its opinion that a Conditional Discharge is both necessary and appropriate. Dr. Benassi noted that by granting a Conditional Discharge this reinforces that the patient has had a very good year. The doctor went on to note that Mr. Rys can be managed under the provisions of the Mental Health Act. The doctor noted that the index offence occurred in the building in which Mr. Rys is living. The doctor is satisfied that our Disposition should include the obligation to continue to live at that municipal address. By doing so, we do not have to name any particular unit given the evidence of a potential move of units within the building.
[15]. In response to questions from Crown counsel, Dr. Benassi repeated that this is co-op housing. There is no support team on site at that building. The doctor noted that this patient first moved into this building in 2006 and the doctor is confident that Mr. Rys will be able to remain in a unit within this building.
[16]. The doctor also noted that this patient does not seem to be as worried about people in the building talking about him. The clinical team has encouraged Mr. Rys to do daily activities. Apparently, the clinical team has convinced Mr. Rys to make a point of cleaning up parts of his apartment. We understand that he recently cleaned up the balcony of his apartment. In response to a question from a member of the panel, Dr. Benassi stated his understanding that this is permanent housing. We also understand that Mr. Rys recently purchased a bicycle which he uses.
[17]. Mr. Jones drew attention to a part of the Hospital Report that listed prior convictions. Mr. Jones noted a conviction in March of 2005 stating that his client was in possession of a controlled substance, namely heroin. Mr. Jones requested that the hospital or the Crown review that issue and if in fact the controlled substance was cannabis, that should be made clear in future Hospital Reports. Mr. Jones suggested that apart from the events of the index offence there is no history of violence. Dr. Benassi agreed. Dr. Benassi put it that Mr. Rys is “not a violent person”.
[18]. In response to questions from a panel member, Dr. Benassi stated his understanding that Mr. Rys attends at the depot clinic at the Trillium Hospital once every four weeks in order to receive his injectable medication. The doctor also agreed that Mr. Rys comes to CAMH frequently. The clinical team got Mr. Rys interested in a number of programs and Mr. Rys has availed himself of those programs at CAMH.
[19]. No other evidence was heard at this hearing.
Final Submissions:
[20]. A member of the panel noted that the Hospital Report specified a number of conditions and prohibitions that the hospital felt should be included in the Board’s Disposition. The Hospital Report did include a no-contact provision that is in the current Detention Order Disposition. The Board noted that there was a joint recommendation on most of the issues. The Board wished to hear submissions on whether or not our Disposition should contain a no-contact provision. The hospital’s position would be that they would like the prohibition to be included but would not be very concerned should the Board not continue with that named prohibition.
[21]. Mr. Feindel submitted that our Disposition should include the no-contact provision. Mr. Feindel drew the Board’s attention to s. 672.542 of the Criminal Code. Mr. Feindel stressed that the section refers to “whether it is desirable, in the interests of the safety and security of the person to include as a condition of the Disposition that the accused abstain from communicating with those named victims”.
[22]. Mr. Jones, on behalf of his client, supported the Board granting a Conditional Discharge and also supported the inclusion of the no-contact provisions with the individuals named in the Detention Order Disposition.
Findings of the Board:
[23]. The Board accepts the evidence of Dr. Benassi and the evidence contained in the Hospital Report. In particular, we accept the evidence that at the present time, Mr. Rys remains a significant threat to public safety. This issue was appropriately not disputed at this hearing and we accept the doctor’s opinion on this issue. We also accept that Mr. Rys has enjoyed a very positive year. We therefore accept that a Conditional Discharge is the least onerous and least restrictive decision given all of the circumstances.
[24]. The Board considered whether we should continue with the no-contact provision. Ultimately and given that Mr. Rys and his counsel supported the inclusion of the no-contact clause, our Disposition shall continue with that clause.
[25]. In reaching our Disposition, the Board has taken into consideration public safety, Mr. Rys’ mental condition and his other needs, and Mr. Rys’ reintegration into society.
DATED this 19th day of September, 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Mr. J. Goldenberg Alternate Chairperson
__________________ Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board