Re Michal Nowaczek-Said, 2026 CanLII 21134

Re: Michal Nowaczek-Said

ORB File No: 7832

Hearing held on: Friday, February 6, 2026

Place of hearing: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health

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

Before:

Alternate Chairperson: Mr. M.D. Segal

Members: Dr. G.A. Chaimowitz Dr. S. Wiseman Hon. N. Kozloff Mr. S. Duffy

Parties Appearing:

Accused: Michal Nowaczek-Said Counsel: Mr. K. Szopinski

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

Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. C. Coughlan

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated March 9, 2026)

Introduction

1Michal Nowaczek-Said, age 33, was on December 22, 2020, found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on a charge of first-degree murder, contrary to the Criminal Code.

2Mr. Nowaczek-Said is on a Detention Order. On February 6, 2026, he had his annual hearing before the Ontario Review Board (the “Board”) at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (the “hospital”).

3The Board had before it as Exhibit 1 a Hospital Report dated January 7, 2026.

4In preliminary positions the hospital, supported by the patient, advanced that a Conditional Discharge with several conditions be ordered including reporting not less than once a month. Crown counsel agreed that significant risk to the public was made out but had questions before taking a position. Ultimately, Crown counsel concluded that the current Disposition was the correct balance of public safety and rehabilitation. After hearing the evidence and submissions, the Board agreed that significant risk was made out. The Board found that a Conditional Discharge was the least onerous and least restrictive disposition and that the proposed conditions were appropriate with one exception. The Board found that reporting of not less than twice per month would better protect the public on this initial Conditional Discharge.

Current Diagnoses

5• Schizophrenia

• Cannabis Use Disorder, in sustained remission

Index Offences

6The circumstances of the index offence as taken from last year’s Reasons, are as follows:

“Charge 1: First Degree Murder, C.C. 235(1); Victim #1: Julia SOKOLOV

Charge 2: Assault Bodily Harm, C.C. 257(b); Victim #2: Katarzyna NOWACZEK History

The victim and the accused met each other one week prior to the attack, at the Canadian National Exhibition. Their relationship status at the time was of a dating relationship. The accused referred to the victim, SOKOLOV, as his girlfriend when introducing her to his mother, NOWACZEK, earlier in the day. The accused lived by himself, the location of this incident is the apartment of his mother.

In the late hours of September 9, 2017, the accused was investigated and apprehended under the Mental Health Act. He was transported to St. Joseph’s Hospital where he was placed on a Form 1 by the Doctor.

The accused has criminal convictions related to previous domestic relationships.

Synopsis:

On Sunday, September 10th. 2017, at approximately 11:00 a.m., the accused attended B[...] Rd., Unit #[...], in the City of Toronto to visit his mother. Upon arrival he spoke with his mother and advised her that the night before he had been arrested and taken to a hospital. His mother, a massage therapist, offered to give him a massage to help him relax. After receiving a massage, he told his mother that his new girlfriend would be coming over to meet her. In the early afternoon, his new girlfriend, the victim SOKOLOV arrived at the address driving her vehicle. SOKOLOV was introduced to the accused's mother, NOWACZEK. The two spoke briefly and his mother eventually enquired as to what happened the night before as she knew that SOKOLOV was with the accused. Eventually the three of them returned to the apartment together.

After being in the apartment for a little while, the accused and the victim SOKOLOV attended the bedroom in the rear of the unit to speak with each other. NOWACZEK relocated to the front office space where her computer is located. She could hear the two arguing in the back bedroom. NOWACZEK could hear the two arguing and after ignoring it for a short period went back to check on them. The accused told his mother to leave, and she returned to her office area. The arguing continued and NOWACZEK returned a second time to check on them. This time the two were engaged in a physical fight in the bedroom. NOWACZEK attempted to intervene and separate the two and while doing so, the accused punched her in the head multiple times resulting in her nose bleeding profusely. NOWACZEK left the apartment with neither of them providing her assistance and the fight continuing. NOWACZEK fled the apartment unit and sought help from a neighbouring unit requesting they call the police. She then continued down the stairs to the main floor where she was approached by another tenant looking to help, again she requested police he called before leaving the house.

Police arrived on scene and received confirmation that the accused was inside the unit and armed with a knife. Officers cautiously entered the apartment repeatedly calling out and identifying themselves. After multiple attempts to make contact with the male, he identified himself and advised he would exit the apartment. The accused exited the apartment with no shirt on and covered in blood. The accused was directed by police to lie on the ground and handcuffed and placed under arrest. One officer remained with the accused and the other continued to the apartment. Once inside the apartment, officers located the victim SOKOLOV, lying on the ground in the kitchen. The apartment in particular the kitchen, was covered in blood. The victim was suffering from multiple stab wounds. A kitchen knife was on the floor inside the living room adjacent to the kitchen. The victim had 11multiple stab wounds to her abdomen, a significant stab wound to the neck and several defensive wounds. The victim was conscious and kept saying she couldn't breathe. The Initial officer asked the victim who did this and she replied, "Michael did it''. The victim then went unconscious and the officer realized that she had no pulse. The officer called out for EMS and began CPR. The victim had no vital signs and was transported to St. Michael's Hospital via an emergency run. The victim was rushed into the trauma unit and then to the operating room. The victim remained in critical but stable condition but succumbed to her injuries on September 19, 2017.

Injuries:

Victim #1: SOKOLOV: Multiple stab wounds to abdomen and neck area, along with defensive wounds.

Victim #2: NOWACZEK: Possible broken nose, scratch under right eye, cuts to fingers, and bump to head.

Accused: multiple scratches to his back.”

Criminal Record

7In 2012, Mr. Nowaczek-Said was charged with assault for an incident involving his girlfriend. He was then charged with failing to comply with a recognizance related to the initial assault charge. In March 2014, Mr. Nowaczek-Said was sentenced to serve a three- and-one-half-year sentence for forcible confinement, failing to comply with a recognizance, assault, uttering threat to cause death or harm, and several firearms related offences. All these offences related to his former girlfriend. He was released on parole in June 2015.

Background

8Mr. Nowaczek-Said’s background and personal history are set out in the Hospital Report which was filed as an exhibit at the hearing. With the benefit of the summary in last year’s reasons, we know that Mr. Nowaczek-Said was born and raised in Toronto with his younger brother. His parents were of different religious backgrounds and there were significant difficulties in their relationship. They separated and reconciled multiple times throughout his childhood. At the age of eight, he and his brother were both apprehended by the Children's Aid Society and placed into foster care. After six months, they were returned to the custody of his mother. Although he reported being a good student and a fast learner, Mr. Nowaczek-Said had significant difficulties throughout his school years. He was expelled or suspended on several occasions for assaultive behaviour, bullying and theft. Mr. Nowaczek-Said ultimately dropped out of school after grade 11 due to the pregnancy of his girlfriend but completed his secondary school diploma while incarcerated in a federal penitentiary. Mr. Nowaczek-Said started his own property maintenance company at the age of 18 and operated it until his incarceration in 2013. After his release from prison, he re-started the company which he managed until the index offences. That business is still in operation.

9Mr. Nowaczek-Said has had several relationships. He has a 12-year-old daughter as a result of one of those relationships. His prison sentence in 2013 was a result of incidents involving his then girlfriend and mother of his daughter. His then wife was at some point tied to a chair and threatened with firearms which resulted in his three-and one-half year sentence in 2013. He no longer has any contact with his ex-wife or with his daughter. He met his current girlfriend prior to the commission of the index offences. She has continued the relationship and is now involved in managing his property maintenance business.

10Mr. Nowaczek-Said did not have any prior admission to hospital for mental health treatment before the commission of the index offences. He reports experiencing paranoia in 2017 which he attempted to manage by increasing his cannabis use. Mr. Nowaczek-Said stated that he would attempt to calm his paranoid delusions by increasing his intake of cannabis. Two days before the commission of the index offences, he experienced a significant paranoid and delusional event which resulted in his overnight admission to hospital. He stated that he was released from hospital the following morning without being assessed by a physician. Hospital records indicate that although he was admitted to hospital in an agitated, violent, and noncompliant state with several police officers required to manage him, he was discharged less than eight hours after admission on a Form 1.

11Mr. Nowaczek-Said is engaged. He owns his own property management business. He supports himself. He has been living in the community since November of 2023. He resides with his father.

Evidence at Hearing

12Dr. Mark Pearce testified. Dr. Pearce was the patient’s psychiatrist for most of 2025 while Dr. Meng was on leave. Dr. Pearce endorsed the Hospital Report. Dr. Meng is now back. Dr. Pearce met with Dr. Meng last week and reviewed her notes. There were no updates.

13Mr. Nowaczek-Said is stable. He takes medication on his own. There is no evidence of psychosis. There has been no substance use. There has been no incident since the patient entered the community. Mr. Nowaczek-Said is committed to working with the forensic team for the long term.

14At the start of the reporting year, Dr. Pearce started to think about a Conditional Discharge. The year has been excellent and incident free. There has been no evidence of psychosis for several years. The patient’s stay in hospital went well and he transitioned smoothly into the community. He is only seen monthly by a case worker and every few months by Dr. Pearce. There is no need to approve housing. Mr. Nowaczek-Said is high functioning. A Conditional Discharge can manage the risk.

15Mr. Nowaczek-Said is not likely to deteriorate. His family would likely observe and report any fluctuations. If he deteriorated, Mr. Nowaczek-Said would be certifiable under the Mental Health Act.

16There is a possible move afoot to cohabit with his fiancé. Dr. Pearce is confident that Mr. Nowaczek-Said would discuss that possibility with Dr. Meng.

17Dr. Pearce supports international travel. Recently, the couple had a successful trip to Montreal and Quebec City.

18There is no need for CBT for psychosis as there have been no residual symptoms while in the community.

19If Mr. Nowaczek-Said deteriorated it would take one to three weeks for him to become unwell. At the time of the index offence, Mr. Nowaczek-Said was paranoid and extremely unwell.

20There have been discussions between the forensic team with the patient's father about being on guard for the return of symptoms. Dr. Pearce believes that if Mr. Nowaczek-Said started to feel unwell he would raise the matter with his forensic team.

21Mr. Nowaczek-Said has successfully completed domestic abuse therapy. In last year's Reasons it was noted that Mr. Nowaczek-Said’s fiancé has a good awareness of the circumstances of the index offence. However, Dr. Pearce agreed that psychoeducation with her respecting symptoms would be prudent. Last year, Dr. Meng said that a successful period of cohabitation should precede a Conditional Discharge. That has not happened yet. Dr. Pearce was of the view that it has been a very good year and that Mr. Nowaczek-Said has been very responsive.

Analysis

22Crown counsel accurately notes the extreme seriousness of the index offence that occurred in 2017. There was also domestic trouble in 2012 when Mr. Nowaczek-Said was charged with assault. In March 2014, he received a three-and-a-half-year sentence for a violence-laden attack on a former girlfriend.

23Clearly, the issue of domestic violence is front and centre. This may account for Dr. Meng’s recommendation that the couple cohabit for a period of time before a Conditional Discharge was warranted. With the passage of another year, Dr. Pearce is now supportive of cohabitation. Certainly, the history of a serious mental health condition, the use of substances, along with the fatal index offence, supports extreme caution. Significant risk to public safety continues to be well made out.

24The Board is satisfied that Dr. Pearce is taking a cautious approach. Dr. Pearce was moved to recommend a Conditional Discharge because Mr. Nowaczek-Said has had another very good year. There has been no evidence of psychosis. The patient is high functioning. He takes his responsibility with the forensic team seriously. He is self-sufficient. He has his own business. He has his own residence with his father for the last two and a half years. He has not used any substances. He has undergone domestic-abuse therapy. He recently completed an out-of-province trip with his fiancé successfully.

25In all the circumstances, the Board is satisfied that a Conditional Discharge can safely manage the risk. There are two matters that the Board would address in relation to the upcoming year. While the Board appreciates that reporting has been once a month, since this will be the first year of a Conditional Discharge and given the possibility of a change in his living accommodation, the Board is of the view that reporting at least twice a month better protects the public. A second observation is that given the history of domestic violence prior to the index offence, and in relation to the index offence, psychoeducation of the patient’s fiancé regarding symptoms and the need to report if they emerge immediately would be a prudent course. We also recognize the diligence Mr. Nowaczek-Said has exhibited this past reporting year. Accordingly, in all the circumstances the Board supports a Conditional Discharge, and we wish Mr. Nowaczek-Said well in the upcoming year.