Re Jason Gregorios, 2026 CanLII 12800

Re: Jason Gregorios

ORB File No: 8531 Hearing Held On: Friday, December 5, 2025 Place of Hearing: Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Pursuant To: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code

Before: Alternate Chairperson: Ms. C. Finley Members: Dr. P. L. Darby, Dr. G. Kerry, Ms. A. La Viola, Ms. D. Smith

Parties Appearing: Accused: Jason Gregorios Counsel: Mr. K. Evans Person in charge of Hospital: Representative: Ms. T. Murdock Attorney-General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. S. Curry

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated January 28, 2026)

OVERVIEW

1Jason Gregorios was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on April 5, 2024, on two counts of assaulting a police officer and one count each of assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm, contrary to the Criminal Code. The Ontario Review Board made a Disposition dated September 17, 2025, discharging Mr. Gregorios with terms and conditions, including travel passes to the Philippines for up to 14 days, one time per year, with an approved itinerary.

2At the outset of the hearing, the Hospital, along with Counsel for the Attorney General, submitted that Mr. Gregorios continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and a continuation of the conditional discharge is necessary and appropriate, with the addition of a term that he may travel for up to 14 days within Canada, and for up to one month, one time a year to the Philippines, with an approved itinerary and an approved person.

3Counsel for Mr. Gregorios’ position was that his client no longer represents a significant threat to the safety of the public, and the Board should order an absolute discharge under the circumstances. In the alternative, Counsel requested the Board to consider travel to the Philippines for up to six weeks.

ISSUES

4On December 5, 2025, the Board convened at Waypoint for a hearing further to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code to review the disposition. The Board was asked to determine whether Mr. Gregorios continues to be a significant threat to the safety of the public at the time of the hearing, and further, what the necessary and appropriate disposition is in the circumstances for Mr. Gregorios, according to the factors set out in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.

FINDINGS

5The findings concerning Mr. Gregorios underscore substantial public safety concerns stemming from his violent past, particularly an unprovoked attack that resulted in severe injuries. His history of fluctuating mental health, particularly during stressful transitions, indicates a heightened risk of relapse and reoffending should he become non-compliant with treatment. Additionally, his insufficient engagement in recommended therapies, coupled with significant life stressors, further exacerbates the risk associated with his behaviour. On that basis, the Board found that Mr. Gregorios poses a continuing threat to public safety, and he requires ongoing support and monitoring under the current conditional discharge with an increase in travel passes as outlined in the new disposition.

PERSONAL BACKGROUND

6The Hospital Report dated October 27, 2025, was entered as an exhibit at the hearing. The following background information, including the events surrounding the index offences has been taken from the Hospital Report, summarized here as follows.

7On December 13, 2022, Mr. Gregorios assaulted the victim by striking him in the head with a hammer while the victim was servicing a furnace. Upon arrival at the residence, officers were directed to the basement, where Mr. Gregorios was being restrained by his parents. When police attempted to arrest him, Mr. Gregorios fought back, spitting at one officer and headbutting the other and kicking him in the groin multiple times. He had to be subdued using a conducted energy weapon. After being transported to the South Simcoe Police Service, Mr. Gregorios further assaulted one of the officers by headbutting him as police attempted to remove him from the vehicle.

8Mr. Gregorios is 30 years old, born in Toronto to parents from the Philippines who sought better opportunities in Canada. He reported reaching all milestones and enjoying a generally healthy childhood. Raised in a religious Catholic family, he attended church regularly until he ceased attendance as an adult. Mr. Gregorios described his father as hardworking, strict, and disciplined. His mother, who works as an executive, was portrayed as nurturing but occasionally overprotective. He has one older brother, with whom he shares a close relationship, and his brother was also diagnosed with a mental illness.

9Despite being assessed with a learning disability, he achieved average grades until Grade 10 when he was motivated to excel academically, and he graduated. He attended Wilfrid Laurier University, but he struggled, taking five years to complete his degree. His work history began with lifeguarding, followed by various positions, but he has primarily relied on parental financial support while pursuing a music career, with minimal income. He has expressed a desire for a future in marketing or business.

10Mr. Gregorios first tried alcohol at age 17, drinking heavily during school events but never daily. During his year in university, he consumed up to 15 beers weekly, which led to blackouts, impacting his grades. He has used cannabis since grade 11 but stopped after the index offence. He has expressed some ambivalence about abstaining, noting it helped him feel socially connected. He occasionally used psilocybin during university but denied using any other drugs.

11A check of the Canadian Police Information Centre database shows that Mr. Gregorios does not have a history of criminal convictions. However, on February 8, 2022, Mr. Gregorios was charged with uttering threats, mischief under $5000 and assault on a peace officer. Of note, however, all charges were withdrawn.

PSYCHIATRIC BACKGROUND

12Mr. Gregorios’ current psychiatric diagnosis is Schizophrenia. He is capable of making decisions about his medical treatment, and he is capable of managing his finances.

13In 2018, Mr. Gregorios was admitted to the emergency department, reporting paranoia related to a fellow student. At the time, he was diagnosed with brief reactive psychosis and possible substance use disorders. He was treated with an antipsychotic, which improved his condition before discharge. He also reported ongoing cannabis and alcohol use, which ended after inpatient treatment. His diagnoses included a psychotic disorder with ongoing academic pressure contributing to depressive episodes.

14His mental health deteriorated during the COVID-19 pandemic. In January 2022, Mr. Gregorios was admitted to hospital due to aggressive behaviour and threats against his parents. After stabilizing on medication, he transitioned to outpatient treatment, showing improvement.

15After the index offences, Mr. Gregorios was hospitalized again, exhibiting bizarre behaviour and paranoid delusions connected to the index offences. He was stabilized on antipsychotic medication and was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia. He was able to maintain treatment compliance and he displayed reduced paranoia, and the ability of accepting responsibility for his actions, all contributing to a positive trajectory and mental stability.

16Following the not criminally responsible finding, Mr. Gregorios continued to reside in the community. He continued regular psychiatric care, attending biweekly appointments and adjusting his treatment plan as needed. By August 2024, he reported increased social interactions and no psychotic symptoms, indicating significant stabilization. His family observed improvements in his behaviour and thought processes, and he expressed a desire for a productive future, considering various career options such as human resources or skilled trades. Overall, he demonstrated resilience and growth in managing his mental health, reflecting a commitment to ongoing treatment and personal development.

EVIDENCE AT THE HEARING

17The Board heard oral testimony from Dr. P. Ismail, the attending psychiatrist, who provided a comprehensive overview of Mr. Gregorios’ clinical presentation and risk profile.

18Regarding Mr. Gregorios’ current mental health status, Dr. Ismail noted a commendable year free from psychotic symptoms and delusions. He emphasized Mr. Gregorios’ adherence to medication (prescribed by Dr. Ali, his community doctor), and he highlighted his appropriate engagement with the treatment team. Dr. Ismail confidently stated that Mr. Gregorios is on a positive trajectory, but he also underscored the severity of the index offences, which resulted in significant injuries to multiple individuals beyond the original victim, including the police officers.

19Dr. Ismail outlined Mr. Gregorios’ psychiatric history, pointing out a troubling three-week admission in 2018, where he largely remained unmedicated until 2022, indicating a gap in consistent treatment that might have contributed to his deteriorating mental state prior to the index offence. Mr. Gregorios experienced a five-month period of active symptoms leading up to the index offences, while unmedicated. The family move from Markham to Innisfil was mentioned as a critical period impacting his mental health. Within a week of moving, Mr. Gregorios began experiencing psychosis, which Dr. Ismail linked to environmental stressors while adjusting to a different home setting.

20While commending Mr. Gregorios for successfully managing two trips to Quebec, Dr. Ismail conveyed that he still does not consider him ready for an absolute discharge. The doctor indicated that further therapeutic engagement is essential, particularly concerning cognitive behavioural therapy for psychosis, which aims at equipping Mr. Gregorios with tools to manage potential relapses effectively. Mr. Gregorios participated in only one session of CBT, and did not wish to pursue further sessions, prioritizing his studies instead. Dr. Ismail testified that concerns remained that Mr. Gregorios would use substances if granted an absolute discharge given his lack of engagement with the recommended therapy. This, in addition to other stressors, such as a potential move to independent living, and his father’s terminal illness, all contribute to potentially destabilizing factors, without the appropriate therapeutic support with CBT.

21Regarding Mr. Gregorios’ insight into his treatment, Dr. Ismail explained that Mr. Gregorios understands the necessity of adhering to his medication regimen. However, Mr. Gregorios lacks full awareness or appreciation of the various therapeutic engagements that could reduce his chances of relapse in the future.

22Dr. Ismail discussed the proposed increases in travel passes, stating that, in his opinion, Mr. Gregorios could be granted a travel pass to visit locations within Canada for up to 14 days. Dr. Ismail articulated that the recommendation for this time frame was based on Mr. Gregorios’ successful management of his two previous trips to Quebec, where he demonstrated the ability to adhere to his treatment plan. However, the doctor clarified that the limitation to 14 days is correlated with Mr. Gregorios’ medication schedule, specifically the injectable medication he receives every two weeks.

23Concerning travel outside Canada, particularly regarding the need for structured supervision during international travel, Dr. Ismail stated that although Mr. Gregorios is allowed to travel to the Philippines, certain processes must be in place to ensure he can receive his injections regularly. This includes confirming that someone (i.e. a healthcare professional), is available to administer the medication while he is abroad. Dr. Ismail also added that Dr. Ali’s prescription for the injectable medication does not require refrigeration, and so it could possibly be taken on the trip. However, Dr. Ismail he expressed uncertainty about whether that would require Dr. Ali to be licensed to prescribe medications in the Philippines. Dr. Ismail emphasized that it is crucial for Mr. Gregorios to have the proper arrangements made prior to traveling, highlighting that medication management is a critical component of his ongoing treatment, and that any lapse could jeopardize his mental health stability.

24In relation to the conditions proposed for travel, Dr. Ismail reiterated that these suggestions reflect Mr. Gregorios’ current mental health status and the need to remain vigilant about his treatment, while accommodating his need to travel for personal reasons. He affirmed the need for a comprehensive support system during such transitions to mitigate the risk of destabilization.

25Lastly, Dr. Ismail expressed that while Mr. Gregorios appears to be on a path toward recovery, his readiness to be discharged absolutely would hinge on further therapeutic engagement, ongoing medication compliance, and a comprehensive understanding of personal and environmental stressors that could lead to destabilization in the future. Dr. Ismail recommended that Mr. Gregorios’ supervision during travel and engagement in therapy remain prioritized to enhance his prospects of long-term stability and safety.

SUMBISSIONS

26The Hospital maintained its initial position that Mr. Gregorios’ risks can be effectively managed through a conditional discharge with the recommended terms. The Hospital emphasized that Mr. Gregorios requires additional stability over the next year to navigate significant life transitions, particularly concerning his family dynamics and potential employment opportunities. The Hospital highlighted that his recent progress, while encouraging, does not yet warrant an absolute discharge, pointing out the importance of ongoing therapeutic engagement beyond medication, including cognitive behavioural therapy for psychosis, to equip Mr. Gregorios with tools to manage the risk of potential relapse. It was reiterated that Mr. Gregorios’ psychiatric history, particularly the severe nature of his index offences, underscores the necessity for careful monitoring and adherence to treatment in managing his mental health.

27Counsel for the Attorney General reinforced that Mr. Gregorios poses a significant risk to public safety if not properly managed. She expressed concerns regarding his prior behaviour, particularly the violent nature of the index offences, which was unprovoked and left multiple individuals injured. She argued that Mr. Gregorios’ previous non-compliance with medication and lack of insight into the effects of substances, like marijuana, on his mental health further exacerbate these risks. She stressed the importance of restricting any conditions of discharge to ensure he remains compliant with treatment, and she also highlighted the potential for escalating stressors in Mr. Gregorios’ life, including family health issues, which could destabilize his mental state. She maintained that the current recommendation for a conditional discharge is vital to ensure continuous monitoring and support.

28Counsel for Mr. Gregorios argued for an absolute discharge, asserting that his client has made notable progress and demonstrated a commitment to his treatment regimen. He highlighted that Mr. Gregorios has remained symptom-free for an extended period, while adhering to prescribed medications. Counsel challenged the notion that Mr. Gregorios’ living situation with his parents poses a monitoring conflict, asserting that they are a supportive network capable of recognizing any issues. Counsel emphasized that Mr. Gregorios has been successfully managing his mental health and expressed optimism regarding his future engagements, including potential employment. Furthermore, he pointed out previous points made regarding Mr. Gregorios’ capacity to follow legal advice concerning therapeutic engagement, as well as his willingness to participate in necessary programs moving forward. Counsel urged the Board to consider the responsibility Mr. Gregorios has taken, and the awareness of his condition, arguing that he has developed sufficient insight into managing his mental health and the risks involved.

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION

(a) Significant Threat

29The Board must first determine whether Mr. Gregorios continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public as defined in Winko v. British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute), 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625. In evaluating whether he continues to pose a significant threat to public safety, the Board examined the totality of evidence presented, including the background information, the seriousness of the index offences, and the testimony provided during the hearing.

30Firstly, the gravity of the index offences cannot be understated. Mr. Gregorios performed an unprovoked and violent attack on a maintenance worker within his home, employing a hammer as a weapon, which resulted in severe injuries, not only to the victim (his parents’ intervention likely prevented further injury to the victim), but also endangering police officers attempting to make the arrest. This incident, characterized by its randomness and severity, shows a potential for violent behaviour that raises substantial concerns regarding public safety.

31Secondly, the historical context of Mr. Gregorios’ mental health further contributes to the understanding of his current risks. His prior admissions indicate a pattern of fluctuating mental health stability, particularly during periods of high stress, such as his transition from Markham to Innisfil, noting a significant decrease in his mental health stability, correlating with environmental changes and personal stressors. Given that he has only recently achieved a symptom-free mental state with treatment, it is relevant to acknowledge that Mr. Gregorios has a documented history of non-compliance with medication, which previously contributed to the deterioration of his mental health and the onset of psychotic symptoms. This history indicates that any lapse in treatment or medication compliance could trigger a relapse, heightening his risk of reoffending. Ensuring medication compliance is critical to managing Mr. Gregorios risk to public safety.

32Finally, Mr. Gregorios’ lack of engagement with recommended therapies underscore the ongoing risk associated with his past behaviours, with his present vulnerabilities. Concerns regarding his potential substance use, particularly given his previously positive view of cannabis, align with the general consensus that substance use could adversely affect his mental status and contribute to potential for violent behaviour. Furthermore, the Board is compelled to consider the significant life stressors currently impacting Mr. Gregorios, most notably the terminal illness of a family member, which may exacerbate his mental health issues and lead to instability.

33In light of these considerations, the Board finds that Mr. Gregorios continues to present a significant threat to public safety. The seriousness of his past offences, combined with the evidence of his mental health history and the potential for future destabilizing events, and lack of engagement in suggested therapies compel the Board to conclude that he requires ongoing oversight, support and monitoring to mitigate risks effectively.

(b) Necessary and Appropriate

34The Board must next determine the disposition that is necessary and appropriate in the circumstances. The disposition must embrace the principle of ‘least onerous and least restrictive’ with due consideration given to Mr. Gregorios’ liberty interests, which must also be consistently weighed together with concerns about public safety, his mental condition, and his reintegration into society, as required by s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.

35After comprehensive review and analysis, the Board has determined that Mr. Gregorios represents a significant threat to the safety of the public, and therefore an absolute discharge is not available to him at this time. While Mr. Gregorios has achieved a symptom-free mental status and he has demonstrated compliance with his medication regimen, his past non-compliance and the potential for future relapses underline the necessity for continuing support and monitoring. The Board recognizes that episodes of psychosis and shifts in mental health stability often correlate with significant life changes and stressors, potentially compromising both his mental stability and public safety.

36Furthermore, the evidence indicates that while Mr. Gregorios has shown improvement, he still requires ongoing therapeutic engagement to solidify coping strategies for managing symptoms and stressors pertinent to his Schizophrenia. The lack of sustained participation in cognitive behavioural therapy for psychosis further supports the Board’s decision. The Board has identified several key factors that should be addressed before considering a recommendation for an absolute discharge, aligning with the finding that Mr. Gregorios is not yet entitled to such a discharge. Dr. Ismail highlighted the necessity of observing another year of stability in Mr. Gregorios’ mental health, such as Mr. Gregorios demonstrating commitment to meaningful employment, which reflects an ability to engage productively in society. Furthermore, active participation in therapeutic programming, including engaging in CBT for psychosis, is essential for ongoing support and recovery.

37Addressing these factors will be vital in assessing Mr. Gregorios’ readiness for an absolute discharge in the future. An absolute discharge at this stage would remove essential safeguards needed for Mr. Gregorios’s continued rehabilitation and risk management.

38The Board has taken into account the liberty interests of Mr. Gregorios as well. While he is currently under a conditional discharge disposition, he has been granted the necessary and appropriate liberties, including increased travel privileges within Canada and a proposed plan for travel to the Philippines, contingent upon his compliance with medication and prior approval of an itinerary by the Hospital. The additional liberties facilitates Mr. Gregorios’ reintegration into society, while ensuring that necessary supports are in place, thereby aligning with the legal framework of s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.

39In conclusion, while Mr. Gregorios has made commendable progress, under the care of the treatment team, and the constant support of his parents, the Board finds that an absolute discharge would be inappropriate at this time due to ongoing concerns surrounding his mental health, the need for continued monitoring, and the imperative to ensure public safety. The Board finds that the existing conditions of his discharge sufficiently balance his liberty interests with the critical need for oversight and support as he continues to navigate his mental health journey.