Re Maciej Terebka, 2026 CanLII 4241

Ontario Review Board

Re: Maciej Terebka

ORB File No: 4197

Hearing held on: Wednesday, December 17, 2025

Place of hearing: Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences 700 Gordon Street, Whitby

Pursuant to: Sections 672.48(1) and 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code

Before:

Alternate Chairperson: Mr. J. Goldenberg Members: Dr. K. Hand Dr. M. Kalia Mr. C. MacIntyre, KC Mr. R. Rainboth

Parties Appearing:

Accused: Maciej Terebka Counsel: Mr. D. Garrick

The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. A. Marshall

Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. N. MacDonald

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated January 20, 2026)

1. Maciej Terebka was found unfit to stand trial on May 16, 2005, on charges of assault,sexual assault, assault with a weapon (x2) and assault with intent to resist arrest.

2. Mr. Terebka is currently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated September 26, 2024, by which he was found to remain unfit to stand trial and was directed to be detained within the Forensic Program of Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences” (“Ontario Shores”).

3. On Wednesday, December 17, 2025, the Ontario Review Board convened a hearing at Ontario Shores and conducted the annual review of Mr. Terebka’s Disposition.

Position of the Parties

4. At the outset of the hearing, the Alternate Chair noted that Mr. Terebka was not in attendance. Mr. Garrick, who advised that he has been counsel to Mr. Terebka for many years, advised that his client is in a long-term care facility, has little or no ability to speak and is clearly unfit to stand trial and Mr. Garrick accepts from earlier hearings, that his client is permanently unfit to stand trial and would have no understanding if he were brought to this hearing room. Under those circumstances, the Board exercised its discretion under s. 672.5(10)(a) and allowed Mr. Terebka to be absent for the entire hearing.

5. Ms. Marshall appeared for Ontario Shores. She advised of the hospital position that Mr. Terebka is unfit, permanently unfit, and still remains as a significant threat to public safety.

6. Ms. MacDonald appeared for the Attorney General. She first advised the Board that the Crown made out a prima facie case yesterday. Ms. MacDonald agrees that the patient is unfit, permanently unfit, and remains a significant threat to public safety.

7. Mr. Garrick then also agreed that his client is unfit, permanently unfit, and a significant threat to public safety.

Outstanding Charges:

8. "Assault

The victim was in her office at the health care facility where she works in Toronto. At approximately 7:30 p.m. the victim heard a disturbance coming from the area of her secretary’s desk. She exited her office to find the accused acting in a hostile manner towards her secretary. As she approached the accused in an effort to calm him down, the accused became enraged and grabbed her by the right wrist, so hard that it left a red mark, and pushed her back. The victim then attempted to phone the police and as she made a motion for the phone, the accused grabbed her by her collar with his right hand and with his left hand he forcibly removed the victim’s glasses at the same time striking her on the right cheek. The accused continued to act in a violent way until police arrived on scene, at which point he was arrested and transported to 53 Division for further investigation.

Sexual Assault, Assault with a Weapon x 2

The accused in this matter is a resident of [the facility] located in the City of Toronto. The victim a nurse who is employed at the facility. At approximately 7:20 p.m. the accused approached the victim near the smoking area of the building. The accused without provocation reached out and grabbed the victim by the breast. The victim told the accused that this action was an assault and to stop. The accused told the victim that he wanted to have sex with her and ran up to her again and grabbed her in the crotch area (Charge 1). The victim was able to break away from the accused and notify her supervisor. Attempts were made to calm the accused, however, he proceeded to pick up a metal file container and hit the same victim with it. The container fell out of the accused’s hand at which time he picked up a binder and struck the victim in the upper arm (Charges 2 and 3). The accused proceeded to act out and Police were called and took the accused into custody.

Assault with Intent to Resist Arrest x2

On the 10th day of May 2005, at 19:25 p.m., officers from 53 Division responded to a 911 radio call for a male gone berserk at [the facility]. When officers arrived on scene, they observed the accused before the court acting in an irrational manner. The other residents and staff of the facility were hiding in fear from the accused. When the officers attempted to take the accused into custody he forcibly attempted to fight and struggle with the officers, PC Jones #8599 and PC Bowery #8846. The officers got the accused subdued when he continued to turn his head towards the officers and attempted to spit on them. The accused was transported to 53 division without any physical harm to the arresting officers.”

Evidence at Hearing:

9. Ms. Marshall called Dr. Pallandi as the hospital witness. There are no updates. Mr. Terebka remains in a long-term care facility. He is on a unit that is locked. Dr. Pallandi noted that the patient receives “around the clock nursing help”. Dr. Pallandi advised of his understanding that generally there are 10 incidents of inappropriate conduct every month. Dr. Pallandi noted that Mr. Terebka is not mobile.

10. In response to a question from Ms. Marshall, Dr. Pallandi testified that as a result of Mr. Terebka’s immobility he could be managed in a General Forensic Unit. Dr. Pallandi repeated, however, his expectation that Mr. Terebka will continue to stay at his current community residence. In response to a question, Dr. Pallandi stated his understanding that Mr. Terebka has remained in his current residence for approximately three years.

11. In response to questions from Ms. MacDonald, Dr. Pallandi repeated his opinion that the patient is permanently unfit but is in relatively good physical condition. Dr. Pallandi stated his opinion that his client remains a significant threat and that there is no basis on which the panel could make a recommendation to the court for the court to consider granting a stay of the outstanding charges.

12. We also note that the Board admitted into evidence the Hospital Report dated November 19, 2025. We simply note the stated diagnoses, namely:

Personality Change, due to medical condition (Neurocognitive Disorder due to multiple etiologies)

Alcohol Use Disorder, severe in sustained remission in a controlled environment.

Findings of the Board

13. The Board accepts Dr. Pallandi’s evidence and the evidence contained in the Hospital Report. We accept Dr. Pallandi’s evidence that his patient is unfit and is permanently unfit and also remains a significant threat to public safety. We also accept Dr. Pallandi’s evidence that given his lack of mobility he could be managed in a General Forensic Unit if for any reason he was returned to hospital. Accordingly, the panel will issue a Disposition directing detention at the General Forensic Service of Ontario Shores with all other terms as set out in last year's Disposition.

14. In reaching our Disposition, the Board has taken into consideration public safety, Mr. Terebka’s mental condition and his other needs, and Mr. Terebka’s reintegration into society.

DATED this 20th day of January 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.

Mr. J. Goldenberg Alternate Chairperson Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board