Re: Joshua Tesarsky, 2026 CanLII 2103

Ontario Review Board

Re: Joshua Tesarsky

ORB File No: 6729

Hearing held on: Monday, December 8, 2025

Place of hearing: Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre

Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code

Before:

Alternate Chairperson: Mr. J. Goldenberg

Members: Dr. A. Chaimowitz

Dr. G. Eayrs

Hon. E. Kruzick

Mr. S. Duffy

Parties Appearing:

Accused: Joshua Tesarsky

Counsel: Mr. G. Iwasiw

The Person in charge of Hospital: Representative: Dr. P. Schubert

Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. A. Bell

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated January 7, 2026)

Introduction

1. On November 26, 2014, Joshua Tesarsky was found not criminally responsible (“NCR”) on account of mental disorder for assaulting a peace officer and uttering a threat to cause death or bodily harm, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (“Criminal Code”). On August 24, 2015, Mr. Tesarsky was found NCR on a further charge of failing to comply with a condition of judicial release, contrary to the Criminal Code. Since that time, Mr. Tesarsky has remained under the jurisdiction of the Ontario Review Board (“Board” or “ORB”). He is subject to the most recent ORB Disposition dated December 17, 2024, whereby he is detained subject to conditions. Mr. Tesarsky resides in the community of Thunder Bay.

2. On December 8, 2025, a panel of the ORB convened a hearing at the Thunder Bay Regional Health Science Centre (“TBRHSC”) pursuant to s. 672. 81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Tesarsky attended in person and was represented by his counsel, Mr. Iwasiw, who attended the hearing virtually.

Position of the Parties

3. At the outset of the hearing, the parties were asked to indicate their positions without prejudice. On behalf of the hospital, Dr. Schubert indicated that Mr. Tesarsky remains a significant threat and recommended that there be no changes to the current disposition. Ms. Bell, on behalf of the Attorney General, agreed with the position of the hospital. On behalf of Mr. Tesarsky, Mr. Iwasiw expressed that his client was seeking an Absolute Discharge. If the Board found that Mr. Tesarsky was significant threat to the safety of the public, Mr. Iwasiw was content that the current Conditional Discharge Disposition continue.

Issues for the Hearing

4. The issues for the Board are whether Mr. Tesarsky poses a significant threat to the safety of the public, and if so, the necessary and appropriate disposition in the circumstances.

Findings

5. For reasons that follow, the Board found that Mr. Tesarsky remains a significant threat to the safety of the public and that there be no changes to the current Conditional Discharge Disposition.

Index Offence

6. The allegations giving rise to the index offences are fully set out in the Hospital Report, dated November 24, 2025, and made an exhibit at this hearing.

7. The initial index offences occurred on July 4, 2013, when the police were called to a bank in Rainy River. Mr. Tesarsky’s behavior was concerning to an employee. Mr. Tesarsky was known to the police as having a history of mental health issues relating to his delusions of having inherited money.

8. When the police arrived at the bank, they spoke with an employee who described an encounter where Mr. Tesarsky, a few days prior, demanded access to the money he inherited. When Mr. Tesarsky was escorted out of the bank. Mr. Tesarsky told the employee he would shoot him.

9. Based on this information, the police searched for Mr. Tesarsky. He was found in the vicinity of the bank. Mr. Tesarsky was described as being agitated and did not wish to speak to the police. He told the police he was a millionaire and could do what he wanted.

10. When the police asked to speak to his mother, Mr. Tesarsky insisted they could not do so and stated that he would slit the officer's throat if he did. When the police attempted to arrest Mr. Tesarsky, a struggle ensued. Mr. Tesarsky struck one of the officers in the head. Mr. Tesarsky was arrested on charges of uttering threats and assaulting a peacekeeping officer.

Legal Information

11. Shortly after Mr. Tesarsky’s arrest, he was found unfit to stand trial in respect of the initial index offences. A 60-day treatment order was ultimately unsuccessful as Mr. Tesarsky remained delusional and disorganized. In November 2013, he came under the jurisdiction of the ORB as an unfit person and was ordered detained at the Secure Forensic Unit of the TBRHSC.

12. While in the hospital, antipsychotic medication was administered under the substitute consent of Mr. Tesarsky’s mother, his substituted decision maker (“SDM”). It resulted in a slow improvement in Mr. Tesarsky’s mental health status. There was minimal improvement of insight into his mental illness or the benefits of medication.

13. By the spring of 2014, Mr. Tesarsky improved to the point where his attending psychiatrist, Dr. Schubert, viewed him as fit to stand trial. In July 2014, Mr. Tesarsky was returned to the court, found fit to stand trial, and released into the community on an undertaking with conditions, including that he engage with the Canadian Mental Health Association (“CMHA”) for mental health services.

14. Upon his release, Mr. Tesarsky returned to live with his mother in Rainy River, Ontario. In November 2014, he was found NCR in respect to the index offences. Mr. Tesarsky became non-compliant with his prescribed medications and refused medical follow-up. Mr. Tesarsky’s mental health deteriorated. He engaged in self-harming behaviour and was observed pummeling the air around him with his fists. The CMHA worker who had been involved with his care in Rainy River terminated CMHA’s involvement due to Mr. Tesarsky’s lack of cooperation and treatment non-compliance.

15. In the spring of 2015, the Ontario Provincial Police (“OPP”) began receiving complaints from Mr. Tesarsky’s neighbors in Rainy River about his behaviour. Contemporaneously, during a tele-psychiatric conference with Dr. Schubert, Mr. Tesarsky was described as presenting as being mentally unwell. Mr. Tesarsky’s mother confirmed that since Mr. Tesarsky’s discharge from the hospital, in July 2014, he had not been medication compliant. He was also not attending appointments with the CMHA. As a result, Mr. Tesarsky was charged with failing to comply with his undertaking associated with the index offences.

16. Because of observed decompensation in Mr. Tesarsky's mental state, he was admitted to hospital in early June 2015 for an assessment of his fitness to stand trial on the new charges. On his admission to the hospital, Mr. Tesarsky presented as more ill than had previously been noted. His behavior was bizarre and his thought process disorganized. He punched the walls to the point where his hand became swollen. He was also observed punching the air, stepping on invisible objects and throwing coffee on the walls and the floor of his room. There was, however, no evidence of aggressive behavior toward others during the assessment.

17. On June 29, 2015, Mr. Tesarsky was found unfit to stand trial on the charge of failing to comply with his undertaking. A 60-day treatment order was made in respect of that charge. Treatment commenced with anti-psychotic medication. While compliant, Mr. Tesarsky was verbally aggressive to staff. He threatened to smash his doctor in the mouth when the doctor spoke of medication. Mr. Tesarsky's fitness improved with treatment. He was found fit to stand trial. On August 24, 2015, he was ultimately found NCR on the failing to comply charge.

18. Subsequent to Mr. Tesarsky’s second NCR finding, a warrant of committal issued on August 29, 2015, pending Mr. Tesarsky's initial ORB hearing.

Personal Background Information

19. Mr. Tesarsky was born and raised in Rainy River, Ontario. His mother, Julie Tesarsky, was a single mother who raised him on her own.

20. His mother reported that her son experienced no developmental delays. His mother reported that Joshua progressed through school without any academic delays or behavioural difficulties, stating he went on to graduate grade 12 from Rainy River High School.

21. Mr. Tesarsky’s mother, who was his SDM, died. On the passing of his mother, Mr. Tesarsky moved from Rainy River to Thunder Bay to reside with his maternal aunt, Veronica Bodnar. His aunt is close to Mr. Tesarsky and reported that he struggled academically from his early days. She suspects that he has learning difficulties which posed a barrier to Mr. Tesarsky in terms of learning to read and write. Ms. Bodnar is now the SDM for Mr. Tesarsky. At the date of this hearing, Mr. Tesarsky continues to reside with his aunt and her husband.

22. Collateral information suggests there has not been a long-term, stable, and functional family environment for Mr. Tesarsky. Mr. Tesarsky’s father resides in British Columbia. His father has occasionally contacted with Mr. Tesarsky by telephone, letters, and occasional visits.

23. Mr. Tesarsky’s childhood is described as being impoverished. It is reported that his father left the family when Mr. Tesarsky was a young child, and his mother struggled to maintain them. There was support from Mr. Tesarsky’s maternal grandparents until their passing some years ago, and additional support from the aunt with whom Mr. Tesarsky now resides.

24. Information suggests that Mr. Tesarsky was raised in a home environment which experienced emotional, social, and financial deprivation. Issues with respect to alcohol abuse in the house had been documented. Others described Mr. Tesarsky and his mother’s relationship as having been “enmeshed.”

25. Mr. Tesarsky worked in 2009 with Auto One as a lot attendant for a brief period. He then found employment at Confederation College serving in the cafeteria. However, he got into conflict with another employee and was dismissed. Thereafter he remained unemployed and is currently on Ontario Disability Support Pension (“ODSP”).

26. Mr. Tesarsky has a history of cannabis and alcohol abuse. Mr. Tesarsky is not in any romantic relationship nor has had any long-term relationships. He has no dependents.

Psychiatric History

27. Mr. Tesarsky has a documented psychiatric history from 2009. The history is fully reviewed in the Hospital Report, dated, November 24. 2025, made an exhibit at this hearing and therefore is not repeated.

Current Diagnosis

28. As set out in the Hospital Report, Mr. Tesarsky’s current diagnosis is schizophrenia.

Evidence at the Hearing

29. The Hospital Report, dated November 24, 2025, was made an exhibit. Dr. Schubert, who co-authored the report, testified and adopted its contents. The Hospital Report will therefore only be referred to briefly. The Board also heard the oral evidence of Ms. Veronica Bodnar, Mr. Tesarsky’s aunt.

30. Dr. Schubert reported that his patient, Mr. Tesarsky, is a 37-year-old male who suffers from a major mental health illness, namely schizophrenia. Dr. Schubert testified to his patient’s ongoing bizarre behaviours, disorganized thought processing and suffering from delusions. When Mr. Tesarsky is unwell, he lacks self-care and motivation. Mr. Tesarsky’s speech is often disorganized with answers to questions being off topic and difficult to follow. Dr. Schubert stated that Mr. Tesarsky often refers to himself in the third person.

31. Mr. Tesarsky has been on a Conditional Discharge for the past eight years. Dr. Schubert opined that Mr. Tesarsky continues to have no insight into his mental illness or his need for psychotropic medication. Mr. Tesarsky holds a longstanding fixed delusion that the courts have ordered him to take medications and believes there would be legal ramifications if he did not do so. He also maintains an affixed delusional belief that he does not have schizophrenia. To Mr. Tesarsky’s credit, Dr. Schubert reported that there have been no elopements or substance abuse.

32. Dr. Schubert testified to Mr. Tesarsky’s long history of non-compliance with medication and recommended treatment. When medication non-adherent, Mr. Tesarsky becomes violent and aggressive. The non-compliance led to the first index offence which included aggressive behaviour in the community toward his late mother, and during his previous hospitalizations.

33. Despite Mr. Tesarsky’s significant mental illness, Dr. Schubert testified that he is doing well in the community. He lives in Thunder Bay with his maternal aunt and uncle. In conversations with Dr. Schubert, Mr. Tesarsky maintains that he is compliant with his medication. In Dr. Schubert’s conversation with the aunt, she reports partial compliance. When under-medicated, Mr. Tesarsky becomes aggressive due to his psychosis. Dr. Schubert reported that Mr. Tesarsky has been angry with him and generally refuses to discuss his medication. Dr. Schubert opined that Mr. Tesarsky’s violence is largely controlled because of the authority of the ORB.

34. In response to a question from Mr. Iwasiw about long-term injections, Dr. Schubert responded that Mr. Tesarsky refuses long-term medication and any requested blood sampling. When asked about Mr. Tesarsky’s urine screenings, Dr. Schubert stated Mr. Tesarsky may be working around the urine sampling dates in respect of his compliance with medication. Mr. Tesarsky submits urine samples every two to three weeks, all showing the presence of medication and full compliance with no trace of intoxicating substances.

35. When asked by the Board about Mr. Tesarsky decomposition if not taking his medication, Dr. Schubert stated it can happen quickly. He referred to Mr. Tesarsky’s long stays in hospital in 2013 and 2015 before Mr. Tesarsky was under the ORB. The re-offence scenario started with Mr. Tesarsky’s decompensation when he refused to take his medication or engage with the hospital team. Historically, Mr. Tesarsky has not sought assistance when he decompensated.

36. When asked by the Board about the hospital programs for Mr. Tesarsky, Dr. Schubert responded that Mr. Tesarsky would benefit from increased socialization, programs, and activities that are available to him. However, Mr. Tesarsky refuses to consider those as benefiting him.

37. When asked about alternative housing to that provided by his aunt, Dr. Schubert indicated that the hospital team is not looking for alternate housing at this time. When asked by the Board about housing alternatives for Mr. Tesarsky if those were required, Dr. Schubert opined that Mr. Tesarsky would need a lot of supervision and care which would include laundry, dishes, etc. He would also require supervision for medication compliance which he presently gets from his aunt.

38. Ms. Bodnar informed the Board that she was testifying reluctantly and only out of her grave concern for her nephew and her concerns for him in their family environment. She stated that she and her husband have no children of their own. After her sister’s passing, Mr. Tesarsky, whom she has always treated as a son, came to live with them.

39. Ms. Bodnar told the Board that she and her husband have their own health issues and reported that caring for Mr. Tesarsky is sometimes overwhelming for them. Her husband suffers deteriorating eyesight, and she deals with bouts of depression.

40. Ms. Bodnar expressed that their biggest concern is that Mr. Tesarsky doesn’t take his medication, which leads to his being unwell and his bad behaviour. Her attempts to ensure Mr. Tesarsky’s compliance are not always successful. He denies not taking his medication even though she finds his blister packs unopened. Ms. Bodnar stated that it is almost like having to babysit a three- or four-year-old. It was Ms. Bodnar’s view that Mr. Tesarsky would benefit from long term injection medication, which he refuses to consider.

41. When asked by counsel for Mr. Tesarsky as to how long she and her husband could continue to house their nephew, Ms. Bodnar stated that it was very difficult for them, but she does not want him out elsewhere in the community because he would stop taking his medication and would get into trouble. When asked if she and her husband had any support, she responded, that they have no support.

42. Mr. Tesarsky expressed a wish to address the Board. The Alt. Chair addressed his counsel, who indicated that Mr. Tesarsky could speak to the Board. On his own behalf, Mr. Tesarsky stated that he wanted to be out of the hospital system. He expressed his frustration that the matter has dragged on far too long and that he wants to see it end.

43. There was no other evidence.

Submissions

44. The hospital maintained its position that Mr. Tesarsky poses as significant threat to the safety of the public and that the current disposition should remain in place as being necessary and appropriate in the circumstances. Counsel for the Crown Attorney agreed with the submissions of the hospital. Counsel for Mr. Tesarsky submitted that his instructions were to seek an Absolute Discharge. In the event the Board makes a finding of significant threat, counsel for Mr. Tesarsky submitted that the current disposition should remain in place.

Analysis

45. Significant threat is a legal test. On the issue of significant threat, we accept the concerns for the safety of the public expressed in the evidence of Dr. Schubert. The Board therefore unanimously finds that Mr. Tesarsky poses a real risk of serious harm of a criminal nature as set out in the Criminal Code and defined by the Supreme Court in Winko v. British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute, 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R.625. Mr. Tesarsky suffers from a serious mental illness, namely schizophrenia, and needs to be on medication to control his illness. We accept the evidence that he is partially non-compliant with prescribed medication and that due to lack of insight and his delusion that his legal status requires him to take mediation, he would become fully non-compliant with medication if no longer subject to an ORB disposition. The evidence supports that he has a history of violence when he is unwell. We therefore find Mr. Tesarsky remains a high risk of serious threat to the safety of the public.

46. Mr. Tesarsky’s risk to the community was underlined by the compelling and powerful evidence of his aunt with whom Mr. Tesarsky resides. She clearly loves her nephew whom she considers like a son. She testified that Mr. Tesarsky does not take his medications as required and that his non-compliance impacts on his behaviour and conduct, which is concerning to her and her husband. Her evidence, which we accept, was that Mr. Tesarsky would not fare well elsewhere in the community.

47. The Board accepts Dr. Schubert’s evidence that Mr. Tesarsky lacks insight into his illness, the seriousness of the index offences, and the need to take medication for his illness.

Disposition

48. Counsel on behalf of Mr. Tesarsky informed the Board of his instructions to seek an Absolute Discharge. The Board accepts and understands Mr. Tesarsky’s frustrations which he conveyed to the Board. Mr. Tesarsky has been on a Conditional Discharge disposition for some eight years and wants to move on. He does not want to be under the ORB or be involved with the hospital.

49. Because Mr. Tesarsky remains a significant threat to the safety of the public, the panel unanimously find that, in the circumstances of this case an Absolute Discharge is not realistic in our role to ensure the safety of the public. We find that the necessary and appropriate disposition is a continuation of the existing Conditional Discharge.

50. In arriving at the appropriate and necessary disposition, we accept the evidence of Dr. Schubert and the hospital team that if Mr. Tesarsky was granted an Absolute Discharge at this time, he would in all likelihood stop taking his medications, disengage from his community supports, and develop increased psychotic thinking and behaviours leading to an increased risk to the community.

51. Mr. Tesarsky is indeed fortunate to have the love and support of his maternal aunt, Ms. Bodnar, and her husband who have provided him care, shelter and oversight for may years.

52. In Ms Bodnar’s moving testimony, she made this panel aware that given her own and her husband’s physical and mental health needs, and that they require community support which they currently do not have. The care and attention they have provided to Mr. Tesarsky is commendable and has been a benefit to the safety of the community. We therefore are of the view that the hospital team should make efforts to direct them to community support and assistance which they so desperately need. Community support will enable them to sustain the care and accommodation they presently provide Mr. Tesarsky.

Conclusion

53. The evidence clearly supports that the jurisdictional threshold of significant threat to the safety of the public is met, so that the Conditional Discharge presently in place should continue.

54. Bearing in mind the provision of s.672.54 of the Criminal Code, the disposition is necessary and appropriate on the facts of this case and is the least onerous and least restrictive while recognizing public safety as our paramount consideration.

DATED this 7th day of January 2026 at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.

Mr. E. Kruzick

Alternate Chairperson

__________________

Office of the Registrar

Ontario Review Board