Re Martin Jambrits, 2026 CanLII 26872

Re: Martin Jambrits

ORB File No: 6722

Hearing held on: Thursday, January 8, 2026

Place of hearing: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health

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

Before: Alternate Chairperson: Mr. J. Weinstein Members: Dr. K. Hand Dr. G. Kerry Hon. N. Kozloff Mr. S. Duffy

Parties Appearing: Accused: Martin Jambrits Amicus: Mr. T. Whillier The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Mr. D. Blumenkrans Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. V. Culp

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated March 24, 2026)

Introduction

1. On March 26, 2015, Mr. Martin Jambrits was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, on two counts of sexual assault, both contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (“Criminal Code”).

2. Mr. Jambrits is subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the “Board”) dated January 15, 2025, which ordered that he be detained at the Forensic Service of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto (“CAMH”).

3. On January 8, 2026, the Board convened a hearing at CAMH to conduct the annual review of the current Disposition.

4. Mr. Jambrits was present at the hearing and advised that he wished to represent himself. He was agreeable to have Mr. T. Whillier appointed as Amicus in this matter.

5. A Hospital Report, dated December 17, 2025 (the "Hospital Report"), was entered as Exhibit 1.

6. The issues at this hearing were whether Mr. Jambrits is a significant threat to public safety, as defined in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code, and, if so, what is the necessary and appropriate Disposition in the circumstances, bearing in mind the factors enunciated in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code?

7. For the reasons set out below and based on the expert evidence and opinions before it, the Board concluded that Mr. Jambrits continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. The Board found that the necessary and appropriate Disposition in the circumstances is the continuation of the existing Detention Order.

Current Psychiatric Diagnoses

8. Schizoaffective Disorder, bipolar type; Polysubstance Abuse Disorder.

Position of the Parties

9. Counsel for the hospital recommended a continuation of the existing Detention Order Disposition.

10. Counsel for the Attorney General joined the hospital in its recommendation.

11. Mr. Jambrits advised that he wished to have a Conditional Discharge, with the ability to live in the community, with no residence specified. He further advised that he would consent to any of the terms the Board deemed appropriate, in order to obtain a Conditional Discharge.

12. Mr. Jambrits further advised that he was asking for a Conditional, not an Absolute, Discharge and that he understood the difference. Therefore, the issue of significant threat was not in dispute.

Index Offences

13. The circumstances giving rise to the Index Offences are extracted from last year’s Board Reasons, as follows:

“The first victim in this matter, is a nanny that cares for a 5-year-old boy. On Thursday, June 5th, 2014, at approximately 8:45 am, the victim and child were walking southbound on Clinton Street, in the City of Toronto. As the victim and child approached Harbord Street, the accused, Martin Jambrits, walked towards the victim and proceeded to reach out and grab her breast with his hand (charge #1). The victim pushed the accused’s hand away from her chest and the accused continued to walk northbound on Clinton Street.

At approximately 9:25 am, the accused then approached the second victim as she walked on Bloor Street West near Spadina Avenue, in the City of Toronto. The accused reached out with his right hand and grabbed the victim’s breast before continuing to walk along Bloor Street West.

Police attended the area as a result of multiple 9-1-1 calls and located the accused outside of 471 Bloor Street West. The accused was placed under arrest, advised of his rights to counsel, and transported to 14 Division where he was held for a show cause hearing."

14. Mr. Jambrits’ history and background are outlined in the Hospital Report, and they are accurately summarized in last year’s Reasons:

“Mr. Jambrits is 58 years of age. He has current diagnoses of schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type, and polysubstance abuse disorder. He is treatment incapable for psychiatric decisions and his brother, Peter Jambrits (who attended the hearing) is his substitute decision maker. Mr. Jambrits is capable to manage his financial affairs. He has been under the Board’s jurisdiction (for the third time) for close to 10 years.

By his own account, he was an average student in high school. After obtaining his high school diploma, he attended an audio-visual program at Seneca College. He attended for two years and was four credits shy of graduating, being unable to graduate because of “drinking and drugs.” In 1989 to 1991, he attended the University of Guelph in a horticulture course but did not finish the two-year program. He claims he entered a stage of depression at that time and was “kicked out of classes” as the program required that he learn how to weld, and this he could not do.

Throughout his 20s, Mr. Jambrits worked on and off for his father’s landscaping company and had a variety of low-level labouring jobs, most lasting about six months with the longest being four or five years.

Mr. Jambrits has a history of drinking alcohol from the age of 17. He claims he became addicted to crack cocaine in 2012 and used it regularly until the time of his arrest for the index offences in 2014.

In 1992 he was treated for depression by his family doctor. He claimed this depression was because of a declining relationship with his girlfriend at the time. In 1997 he was assessed at Penetanguishene Mental Health Centre as he had been caught by police “driving without a licence” and “ripping things up and making collages”. He had apparently stolen his father’s vehicle. He was diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder and treated with medication. He was found NCR for his offences and was under the auspices of the Board from 1997 to 2004 and again between December 2006 and 2011 when he was found NCR for dangerous operation of a vehicle, weapons dangerous, mischief under $5,000 and flight from police and failure to comply.

On each NCR occasion, he spent five to seven years under the Board during which he was supervised by forensic hospitals. Unfortunately, the circumstances that brought about his current index offences, being substances, non-adherence to medication, and falling off treatment, seem to be a repeat of the circumstances surrounding his earlier index offences.

After receiving his absolute discharge in 2011, Mr. Jambrits was maintained on his medication, and he was overseen by an Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) team and a community psychiatrist, but after an increased frequency of missed appointments, he ultimately stopped seeing the ACT team months before the current index offences.

On February 8, 2022, Mr. Jambrits was discharged to live at Regeneration House, a home managed by the Expanded Forensic Outpatient Service (EFOPS). Several readmissions to hospital were necessary in the following year because of non-adherence to medication, breaching of conditions, ingesting cocaine and an unauthorized leave of absence.

Mr. Jambrits was readmitted to the hospital from May 31 to July 3, 2024, after absconding from his residence on May 30, missing his antipsychotic medications, and using crack cocaine. Following discharge from hospital on July 3, 2024, Mr. Jambrits was seen in the outpatient clinic and did not report any substance use cravings or mental health difficulties. In the following days, the EFOPS team received information from housing staff and Mr. Jambrits’ brother that he was exhibiting behavioural instability in the community.

Mr. Jambrits was brought to CAMH emergency department by police on a Form 49 on July 10, 2024, and he has remained an inpatient at the hospital since that date. On admission he was exhibiting agitation, paranoia and hostility and chemical restraint was required. He was markedly unwell.”

Course Since Last Disposition

15. Mr. Jambrits’ course since his last Disposition is set out in detail in the Hospital Report. The following extracted paragraphs are relevant to this hearing:

“During this period, Mr. Jambrits remained on unit FGUC, under the care of Dr. S. Woodside. Overall, Mr. Jambrits had a challenging year, punctuated by thoughts of going AWOL and periods of more prominent psychotic symptoms.

While Mr. Jambrits was typically quick to deny any overt psychotic symptoms or non-adherence to medication, staff noted ongoing concerns in this regard over the year including:

• Requesting to use his own water when taking medication
• Leaving staff observation rapidly after taking medication despite being asked to remain for 15-20 post-dose
• Intermittently refusing to do bloodwork (for the purpose of determining adherence to medication)
• Indicating that the transcriptionist in his ORB hearing wanted to kill him (January 23, 2025)
• Accusing Dr. Woodside of having “lasered” him at the Clarke site previously and shouting, “you fucking asshole, why is everyone trying to kill me?” (January 24, 2025)
• Intermittently refusing to provide UDS samples”

Evidence at the Hearing

16. The Board had available to it the evidence and documents forming the Record, the Exhibits, and oral evidence from Dr. Woodside and from Mr. Jambrits.

Testimony of Dr. Woodside

17. Dr. Woodside testified as follows:

a) Mr. Jambrits has now been approved for Level 5 privileges, which allow him indirectly supervised passes to attend programming on hospital and grounds.

b) Mr. Jambrits is currently detained on the General Forensic Unit at CAMH, not in the community. For as long as he has known and treated him, Mr. Jambrits has been deemed not capable of consenting to treatment of his psychotic disorder. Mr. Jambrits’ brother is his Substitute Decision Maker (“SDM”).

c) If Mr. Jambrits were on a Conditional Discharge, and living independently in the community, he would not likely continue with his medication regimen.

d) Should Mr. Jambrits consume cocaine while in the community, he would experience a decompensation in his mental state. In such a state, he would not return to hospital voluntarily, as he has a history of going AWOL.

e) There are real concerns that Mr. Jambrits would not remain adherent to his medication regimen if he were to live in unsupervised housing. His compliance with his medication regimen is only reliable when it is administered in a supervised setting. When Mr. Jambrits was on a pill form of his medication, he was able to avoid ingesting it. Consequently, his medication was not at the appropriate therapeutic levels and were consistent with him being nonadherent to his medication. When the treatment team switched to a suspension form of his medication, blood tests returned to therapeutic level and there was improvement in his mental state.

f) If Mr. Jambrits were not supervised in taking his medication, he would discontinue his medication and decompensate rapidly, especially given his history of substance use (notably cocaine). Supervision of his medication, and his ability to remain abstinent from substances, are deemed essential to ensure that his psychosis does not return and that he does not become a significant threat to public safety.

g) The risk to the safety of the public is considered high if Mr. Jambrits were discharged conditionally.

h) The treatment team is exploring supervised housing options, such as the Pipe and Slipper facility in Keswick, which has been successful for other clients with substance use issues. However, Mr. Jambrits is not yet at the privilege level required for such a placement, and it may take several months for him to reach that point.

i) Discharge to unsupervised housing is not considered safe or realistic at this time. The hospital requires the authority to specify housing, to ensure ongoing supervision.

j) Mr. Jambrits’ insight into his mental health and substance use could be considered as partial and superficial. While he can verbalize a desire to avoid cocaine and recognizes that substance use is problematic, this awareness does not translate into consistent, genuine insight nor an internal motivation to maintain abstinence. The evidence suggests that Mr. Jambrits knows what is expected to be said in clinical settings but struggles to demonstrate sustained behavioural change.

k) Mr. Jambrits’ understanding of his need for medication is limited. He often claims to have no symptoms, and his adherence to medication is only reliable under direct supervision. When unsupervised, Mr. Jambrits has a history of non-adherence, which leads to a worsening of his psychotic symptoms.

l) Mr. Jambrits would decompensate quite rapidly if he were to discontinue his medication regimen. In the past, the treatment team has observed that Mr. Jambrits’ psychosis became much more obvious when the therapeutic levels of his medication were below optimal. His psychosis has also been exacerbated when he has used cocaine.

18. In response to questions from the Attorney General, Dr. Woodside testified:

a) If Mr. Jambrits were given a Conditional Discharge with no residence specified, he doubts that Mr. Jambrits would seek out accommodations that would offer any degree of mental health support or supervision.

b) Living anywhere without the necessary supports and supervision would be a recipe for Mr. Jambrits to decompensate and use drugs, both of which would increase his risk to the safety of the public.

c) His attention was drawn to the following paragraphs from last year’s Reasons for Disposition:

“[49] The Board notes that in the past reporting year Mr. Jambrits has had four readmissions to the hospital. Mr. Jambrits engaged in behaviour in the community that elevated his risk for mental decompensation, including noncompliance with treatment and substance use (cocaine). Mr. Jambrits’ tendency is to minimize his concerning behaviour. When readmitted to the hospital it takes a long time to restabilize his mental status. This troubling recent spate of readmissions is highly concerning to the Board and informs our finding of significant threat to the safety of the public.

50A conditional discharge disposition is not appropriate as the hospital requires the authority to specify housing for Mr. Jambrits which will be supervised. See Runnalls (Re) 2012 ONCA 295 at paragraph 12.

51The Board is also satisfied on the evidence of Dr. Benassi that there is a real risk of rapid decompensation in the event of missed medication and substance use and the Board agrees that the provisions of the Mental Health Act would be insufficient to act promptly and with certainty to secure readmission for stabilization and treatment of Mr. Jambrits in such a decompensated state.”

He agreed that the reasons why the Board found last year that a Conditional Discharge was inappropriate still applies today. In particular he agrees that there is a real risk of rapid decompensation in the event of missed medication and substance use as set out in paragraph 51 of last year’s Reasons.

d) As set out in the Hospital Report, when Mr. Jambrits misses any of his medications, it takes him quite some time to return to his baseline.

e) Currently, there is no place that Mr. Jambrits can return to in the community; however, he does have enough funds to get accommodations on his own, should he get a Conditional Discharge.

f) Mr. Jambrits has not reached the stage that the hospital would designate him as Alternative Level of Care. Mr. Jambrits still needs to be able to exercise indirectly supervised passes into the community before the hospital would consider any discharge.

19. In response to questions from Mr. Jambrits, Dr. Woodside testified:

a) He does not believe that Mr. Jambrits would comply with a clause in his Disposition requiring him to return for assessment to the hospital at the request of the treatment team; such a clause would not be enough to ensure the safety of the public.

b) He doubts that Mr. Jambrits would voluntarily return, or stay, in the hospital if he were to decompensate, whether as a result of discontinuing his medication or of using substances.

c) He agreed that Mr. Jambrits has been meeting with a substance relapse prevention counsellor and that he has agreed to attend Narcotics Anonymous meetings. Both are positive signs. However, the treatment team would need to see a much more prolonged period of abstinence from cocaine before they could say that Mr. Jambrits’ insight has improved and that he is internally motivated.

d) Mr. Jambrits has not had any independent indirectly supervised access to the community. He needs to be assessed on these privileges to determine whether he is internally motivated to remain abstinent from substances.

20. In response to questions from the panel, Dr. Woodside testified:

a) Level 5 privileges allow Mr. Jambrits to attend rehabilitation activities on hospital grounds, such as Narcotics Anonymous and Alcoholics Anonymous meetings. Mr. Jambrits has expressed a willingness to attend NA, his first planned attendance is upcoming. It is difficult to estimate the impact of the program on him until he has attended a few sessions.

b) Mr. Jambrits is currently on a liquid suspension form of clozapine. He has previously requested a return to the pill form, but his brother, as his SDM, strongly prefers the liquid form because of better adherence.

c) There has been no evidence that Mr. Jambrits has resumed smoking cigarettes this year.

d) The Pipe and Slipper is in a rural setting, in Keswick. It would be appropriate accommodation for Mr. Jambrits, as the staff have successfully managed individuals with significant histories of substance use.

e) Mr. Jambrits is deferential towards authority figures, but only when he is medication adherent and substance abstinent. When he is at his baseline, he is cooperative with staff.

f) The two main risk factors for Mr. Jambrits are medication non-adherence and substance abuse. Either would be enough to cause a decompensation in his mental state, causing him to become a threat to the public safety.

g) Although Mr. Jambrits is deemed incapable to consent to treatment, and Box B criteria is available under the Mental Health Act, it would not be sufficient to protect public safety. There is a significant likelihood that Mr. Jambrits would not agree to return to hospital or to stay there.

h) Mr. Jambrits’ insight regarding substance use is slightly improved, but it is only partial; he cannot be described as internally motivated to abstain from substances.

i) Even if Mr. Jambrits were certifiable under the Box B criteria of the Mental Health Act, he would need to be brought back in on a daily basis; the treatment team would need to see him regularly to monitor his use of substances and his medication adherence.

j) If the treatment team had to wait for the police to bring Mr. Jambrits back to hospital under the Mental Health Act, or for breach of conditions, he could not be returned quickly enough to protect the safety of the public.

k) The following paragraphs from last year’s Reasons for Disposition are still true today:

“[25] The doctor said that the detention order is necessary to adequately manage Mr. Jambrits’ risk. If he was not under the jurisdiction of the Board, he would exhibit a similar pattern as he has done in the past when he was granted two absolute discharges by the Board for separate findings of NCR. The last was in 2011. In the past year Mr. Jambrits has exhibited a similar pattern of behaviour, and if granted an absolute discharge he would likely fall away from treatment, return to substance use, all leading to mental status decompensation. In emphasizing this pattern and its likely return, the doctor noted the two readmissions in the past year and the significant decompensation that was observed.

30Dr. Benassi described Mr. Jambrits’ limited insight regarding his substance use and his mental illness. He has a superficial appreciation of his illness, and the doctor suggested that his fragility of symptoms, even while optimally medicated, informs his risk profile.

34The doctor, in response to a panel question, indicated a conditional discharge is not realistic for two reasons. The hospital needs the ability to intervene rapidly in the event of decompensation, which would occur if Mr. Jambrits was not taking his medication and was using substances. The hospital would need to act quickly to prevent any undue risk to the public. The hospital also requires the authority to approve his housing as he needs a high level of supervision to manage his risk. Mr. Jambrits has no realistic plan for housing, and he would require more financial earnings to afford market rent in the city. His housing currently is paid by ODSP benefits.”

l) The following conditions Dr. Benassi listed in paragraph 24 of last year’s Reasons for Disposition have not yet been met:

“[24] Dr. Benassi would like to see consistent engagement with substance relapse programming for Mr. Jambrits in the coming year and to progress to the point where he can have indirect access to the community and in that setting, he could volunteer or even seek paid work.”

m) If Mr. Jambrits were to be discharged today, the only housing that would be recommended would be supervised housing. Mr. Jambrits needs supervised housing to monitor his adherence to medication and his abstinence from substances. It is not realistic to have him discharged to any independent accommodation in the community.

Testimony of Mr. Jambrits

21. He agreed that the Slipper and Pipe in Keswick seemed to be a good fit for him.

22. He is not addicted to substances anymore.

23. He has known Dr. Woodside for over 10 years, respects him as a psychiatrist, and appreciates working with him.

24. Dr. Woodside would agree that over the past two to three months Mr. Jambrits’ mental stability has improved; he is not losing his temper, nor has he been involved in any fights.

No other evidence was called.

Analysis and Conclusions

25. Having heard and considered the entirety of the evidence, as well as the submissions from the parties, the Board finds that Mr. Jambrits remains a significant threat to the safety of the public.

26. In Winko, the Supreme Court outlined that, in coming to the conclusion on the issue of significant risk, a Review Board should closely examine a range of evidence, including: the circumstances of the original offence; the past and expected course of the accused’s treatment; the present state of the NCR accused’s medical condition; the NCR accused’s own plans for the future; the support existing for the NCR accused in the community; and most importantly, the recommendations provided by experts who examined the NCR accused. In coming to our conclusion in this matter, the Board relies on the uncontroverted expert evidence of Dr. Woodside, in addition to the documentary evidence before us.

27. As set out in the Hospital Report, Mr. Jambrits’ assessment of risk of violent – sexual recidivism is best described as moderate, in the context of a Detention Order. His risk would be elevated with less external oversight.

28. Mr. Jambrits has several salient clinical risk factors, including a treatment refractory psychotic disorder, limited insight into his mental health, problematic substance abuse, and a pattern of impulsivity and treatment non-adherence.

29. The Board also relies on the several notable incidents set out on page 41 to 43 of the Hospital Report. These incidents indicated many troubling issues regarding adherence to his medication regimen as well as his willingness to provide UDS samples.

30. Mr. Jambrits continues to demonstrate limited insight into his illness and how symptoms of his illness affect his behaviour, including during previous incidents of offending behaviour.

31. In particular, the Board relies on the Re-offence Scenario set out in the Hospital Report:

“Mr. Jambrits’ risk of future violence arises from symptoms of his mental illness (paranoid ideation and impulsivity). He has chronic symptoms, and there is a risk of further decompensation should he become non-compliant with medication, or use drugs or alcohol. His risk is much reduced if he continues to take antipsychotic and mood stabilizing medication, abstains from using non-prescribed substances, and manages his stress. Reducing or stopping his medication, or use of non-prescribed substances are therefore the most significant risk factors for decompensation.

Should his mental state decompensate, he will experience paranoid delusional beliefs that others are trying to harm or control him, becoming threatening and confrontational with individuals he perceives as a threat to him. This will escalate to physical violence. The current index offence of sexual assault indicates that when in a manic state he becomes sexually disinhibited with intrusive, aggressive behaviours.”

32. In light of the Board's finding of significant threat, it is charged with shaping a Disposition for the coming year. The Board accepts the doctor’s uncontroverted evidence that the Mental Health Act would not be sufficient to protect the safety of the public. Mr. Jambrits does not appreciate his need for mental health care and other supports. He has not been fully compliant with his reporting requirements in the community in the past. According to the Hospital Report, Mr. Jambrits risk would be characterized as moderate-to-high, if he were granted a Conditional Discharge.

33. The doctor’s uncontroverted evidence was that Mr. Jambrits requires the structure and support of supervised housing to adequately manage his risk.

34. In particular, the doctor agreed that paragraphs 25, 30, and 34 from last year’s Reasons for Disposition are still true today.

35. The doctor also agreed that last year’s panel’s reasoning, as set out in paragraphs 49 to 51, as to why a Conditional Discharge is not appropriate still applies today. This Board also agrees with that reasoning.

36. The Board wished to conclude our Reasons by commending Mr. Jambrits for his recent participation in relapse prevention programming and for his agreement to attend Narcotics Anonymous meetings. Mr. Jambrits is on a path to attaining indirectly supervised passes into the community if he continues to develop his insight and remain abstinent from substances. Mr. Jambrits is very cooperative when adherent to his medication, and we hope that his insight will improve across all domains in the coming year, with adherence to his medication.

37. In consideration of all the evidence, submissions of the parties and criteria set forth in s. 672.54, the paramount consideration being the safety of the public, in addition to the mental condition of Mr. Jambrits, his reintegration into society and his other needs, the necessary, and appropriate, Disposition is to continue with a Detention Order.

DATED this 24^th^ day of March, 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.

Mr. J. Weinstein Alternate Chairperson

__________________

Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board