Re: Jeremiah Gryciuk
ORB File No: 7765
Hearing held on: Tuesday, March 31, 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. S. Lessard Dr. M. Green Hon. C. Nelson Mr. J. Cyr (via Zoom)
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Jeremiah Gryciuk Counsel: Mr. D. Medd
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. M. Warner
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. D. Brandes
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated May 11, 2026)
Introduction
On August 10, 2020, Mr. Jeremiah Gryciuk was found not criminally responsible (“NCR”) on Criminal Code charges of theft under $5,000, possession of property obtained by crime, robbery, and uttering threats. Mr. Gryciuk is currently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (“ORB”) detaining him at the Forensic Service of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (“CAMH”) in Toronto with a number of privileges up to and including living in accommodation approved by the person in charge.
On March 31, 2026, a panel convened in person and a hearing was held at CAMH. The purpose of the hearing was to determine if Mr. Gryciuk represents a significant threat to the safety of the public as defined in the Criminal Code of Canada, and if so, the necessary and appropriate Disposition.
For the reasons set out below, the Board unanimously finds that Mr. Gryciuk continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate Disposition to manage that risk, while meeting his needs, is that he continue to be detained in the hospital on terms as set out in his current Disposition, but with the removal of paragraph 4(a) (abstain/substances) and the change in the reporting paragraph to not less than once every four weeks.
Current Psychiatric Diagnoses
- Schizoaffective Disorder, Bipolar Type;
Substance Use Disorders (alcohol, cannabis, cocaine);
Personality Disorder (Cluster B traits).
Index Offences
- The details of the index offences are extracted from the Hospital Report dated March 7, 2026, which are as follows:
“Charges: Theft Under, Utter Threat & Possession of Property Obtained by Crime (14 November 2018)
On Wednesday, November 14, 2018, at approximately 3:45 pm the accused, Jeremiah GRYCIUK entered the Tim Horton's restaurant, bought a donut and left the store. The accused then approached the victim, who was working behind the counter. The accused indicated that he was armed with a weapon and made a demand for money. The victim fearing for her safety handed over $125.00 to the accused who then fled the store.
The accused was located a short distance away by police and was arrested without incident. Prior to the search incident to arrest the accused advised the arresting officers that the money he obtained was in his left jacket pocket. The $125.00 was located and seized from the accused.
The accused was transported to 31 Division and was held pending a show cause hearing.
Arrest Report from Peel Regional Police Service
Charges: Robbery (20 November 2018)
At 8:31 pm on November 20, 2018, the accused entered the JH convenience store at 585 Lakeshore Road East in Mississauga and confronted the victim while armed with a knife. The accused made a demand for money. The victim complied and surrendered approximately $400.00 in cash from the register. The accused fled the store and the victim immediately contacted police. The victim sustained no injuries.
On November 21, 2018, the accused returned to JH convenience with his mother to give back the stolen money and turn himself in to police. The victim called police and at 1:53pm the accused was arrested for robbery, read his rights to counsel and caution which he indicated he understood. The accused was transported to 12 division where he was held pending a bail hearing.
The accused's brown leather jacket and silver knife was seized.
The accused provided a taped confession to police.
The money was recovered and returned to the victim.”
Without Prejudice Position of the Parties
At the commencement of the hearing, the parties were canvassed for their initial positions.
Counsel for the Hospital took the position that the necessary and appropriate Disposition was a continuation of the existing Detention Order with the removal of paragraph 4(a) (abstention from non-medical use of alcohol or drugs or any other intoxicants) with a reduction in the reporting conditions to not less than once every four weeks.
Counsel for the Attorney General supported the Hospital’s position.
Counsel for the accused took the position that Mr. Gryciuk does not meet the test for significant threat to the safety of the public, as per Winko1, and, therefore, submitted that Mr. Gryciuk was entitled to an Absolute Discharge.
Evidence at the Hearing
The Board heard evidence from Dr. D. Jaiswal, who has been Mr. Gryciuk’s treating physician since August 24, 2024. The Board also had before it a Hospital Report prepared by Dr. Jaiswal on March 7, 2026 (entered as Exhibit 1).
Dr. Jaiswal stated that there were no significant updates to the Hospital Report. Mr. Gryciuk is on track to complete his personal support worker certification by the end of April 2026 and will then be seeking employment, likely at a long-term care facility.
With respect to medication management, the plan is to reduce his clozapine dosage to determine if a lower dose will still be effective to manage his mental illness.
Dr. Jaiswal stated in his opinion that, should Mr. Gryciuk be granted an Absolute Discharge, he would likely stop taking his medication. It is more prudent to taper his medication to identify either the lowest effective dosage or to see if he can go without medication. In this way, it is better to manage his risk to the public through a Detention Order even allowing for the fact that Mr. Gryciuk has not shown signs of decompensation this past year.
It is also the team’s plan to have further discussions with Mr. Gryciuk’s mother, with whom he resides, about medication reduction, so that a safety plan can be developed in the event of signs of early decompensation. Mr. Gryciuk’s mother will have to learn to notice these signs and alert the team if she does. It is also important that Mr. Gryciuk continue to meet with his case manager on a weekly basis or more, and with his individual therapist virtually. Dr. Jaiswal will continue to see Mr. Gryciuk once every four weeks and possibly more often during the period of time that his medication is being reduced.
Dr. Jaiswal will be looking to see if there is a decline in Mr. Gryciuk’s functioning during this change. The team will also be checking for signs around adherence to personal hygiene and activities of daily living in addition to monitoring for auditory hallucinations and behaviours that might flow from that.
Dr. Jaiswal testified that Mr. Gryciuk will continue to be subject to urine drug screens to ensure that he has not returned to substance use. Should there be a problem, the clozapine dosage would likely be increased. If Mr. Gryciuk refuses to be screened, the team would consider hospital admission.
Dr. Jaiswal stated that if Mr. Gryciuk is sub-optimally treated, his symptoms would be likely to re-emerge. Therefore, monitoring is very important. Dr. Jaiswal stated that he is of the opinion that he lacks confidence that Mr. Gryciuk would attend at the hospital if he begins to decompensate and points to historical instances where both Mr. Gryciuk and his mother have minimized concerns around instability. Limited insight remains an issue. During a discussion Dr. Jaiswal had with Mr. Gryciuk’s mother in June 2025, she mentioned that the hospital had “kidnapped” her son and that the hospital thought that she was the “black sheep”. She discontinued the call.
If there were no Board oversight at this point in time, and no concrete plan for psychiatric follow-up with a non-forensic team in the community, Mr. Gryciuk would stop taking his medication and fall away from treatment. He would then experience psychotic symptoms, and, given his past expressions of violent ideation, he would be at risk to harm someone, including himself, especially if his symptoms were untreated. A Detention Order remains the cornerstone of his treatment.
The removal of the abstention prohibition is recommended as Mr. Gryciuk has been free of substance use for two years and the team can, therefore, determine whether he is internally motivated. Substance testing will remain in effect. In addition, reporting could then be reduced to not less than once every four weeks.
The Mental Health Act would not be sufficient to manage Mr. Gryciuk’s risk especially with the inability on Mr. Gryciuk’s part and that of his mother to recognize the early signs of decompensation. Dr. Jaiswal points out that there was a hospital admission about three weeks before the index offences which did not mitigate the risk to public safety. It is also noted that he stopped all his medications after discharge, and went to a walk-in clinic for a prescription for Abilify and used stimulants.
Dr. Jaiswal testified that it is important to work together with Mr. Gryciuk to gradually reduce his medication and to work on psychoeducation with him and his mother in order to develop a safety plan or crisis plan in the event of decompensation. The hospital wants to support Mr. Gryciuk in seeking employment and dealing with possible stressors of employment.
In answer to a question from Mr. Brandes, Dr. Jaiswal indicated that the removal of the abstinence condition will create a situation where a bit more confidence can be built up in Mr. Gryciuk’s ability to maintain abstinence, especially given the fact that he does not believe he suffers from a mental disorder.
In answer to questions from Mr. Medd about the positive things that Mr. Gryciuk has accomplished over the last year, Dr. Jaiswal noted a number of groups that Mr. Gryciuk participated in this year and gave a brief description of the positive feature of each of the groups. Dr. Jaiswal also pointed out that, since Mr. Gryciuk started school, he has not been attending the groups he once attended because of the lack of time. Mr. Gryciuk has, however, continued to follow-up with individual therapy on a weekly basis and, in addition, still meets weekly with his case manager.
Mr. Gryciuk is treatment capable. He attends at Shoppers Drug Mart to take his oral medication daily. As there is no long-acting injection for clozapine, the Shoppers Drug Mart daily regimen is seen as a measure to reduce risk.
Dr. Jaiswal reiterated that, while Mr. Gryciuk’s mother might recognize signs of decompensation, in the past, she has reached that point “too late” with respect to risk management. Mr. Gryciuk’s mother shows concern for him but, when talking about risk to public safety, especially in someone expressing violent ideation, this could be a real problem.
While it is true that Mr. Gryciuk did call EMS on an occasion in the past when he was experiencing violent ideation, there have also been times that he has exercised poor judgment before taking any steps to deal with the issue. In summary, Dr. Jaiswal lacked confidence that Mr. Gryciuk would contact the hospital or attend at the hospital if he begins to experience violent ideation. In answer to a question from a panel member, Dr. Jaiswal stated that should Mr. Gryciuk discontinue his medication, he would experience a decline in his mental state and would re-experience psychotic symptoms, particularly if he abruptly stopped taking clozapine. The risk of rapid “rebound” psychosis would cause Mr. Gryciuk to be a risk to public safety. The risk is real and foreseeable. The risk is based on his history; is a risk that would likely involve him in serious physical or psychological harm in the community. Dr. Jaiswal went on to say that Mr. Gryciuk suffers from a personality disorder and that he has concerns about Cluster B personality traits, mainly around his history of duplicity about medication adherence, use of substances, and misuse of prescribed medications.
In further answer to a panel member’s question, Dr. Jaiswal emphasized that the process of reducing Mr. Gryciuk’s clozapine dosage needs to be monitored, as the team is not sure at what point or even if there will be a tipping point. This is best accomplished while Mr. Gryciuk is under a Detention Order so that a Warrant of Committal could provide a measure of protection and mitigate decompensation risks. The same thing applies to Mr. Gryciuk’s substance use disorder. The team needs to determine whether Mr. Gryciuk’s abstinence from substance is internally motivated, especially as Mr. Gryciuk does not have any connection to a non-forensic team. Dr. Jaiswal observed that even when he was connected with Trillium Health Partners in the past, the index offences still occurred. This points to the need for a forensic level of service. Once a team finds the lowest effective dose of clozapine and internal motivation, it can start to pull back with respect to daily observed treatment. The team needs to see clinical stability maintained for a period of 12 to 24 months before recommending an Absolute Discharge. After that period of stability, the Mental Health Act would be sufficient to mitigate risk.
In further answer to a panel member’s questions about whether Mr. Gryciuk’s mother is a positive or negative influence on him, Dr. Jaiswal stated that she loves and cares for her son, but she has not always been prompt in reporting concerning symptoms. She did play a protective role when she encouraged Mr. Gryciuk to return funds he had stolen at the time of the index offences. She is also trained as a personal support worker and is helping Mr. Gryciuk with that. She has also been a positive influence around measures in reducing Mr. Gryciuk’s clozapine dosage levels.
Dr. Jaiswal went on to state that he still believes, as he did last year, that Mr. Gryciuk will unlikely present himself to hospital if he experiences psychotic symptoms. Dr. Jaiswal endorsed the evidence he gave at last year’s hearing that Mr. Gryciuk has made statements in the past that he did not believe that he would suffer mental illness issues if he ceased taking medication because his psychotic episodes were the result of substance abuse and lack of sleep only.
In answer to another panel member’s question, Dr. Jaiswal stated that, as was the case last year, the team remains concerned about Mr. Gryciuk’s understanding of the impact of stressors on his mental health and the over-estimation of his coping skills. To his credit, however, there has been a shift in willingness to engage with the team over the past reporting year.
In answer to another panel member’s question, Dr. Jaiswal confirmed that the diagnosis for Mr. Gryciuk is as follows:
(i) Schizophrenic Disorder, Bipolar Type;
(ii) Substance Use Disorders (alcohol, cannabis, cocaine); and
(iii) Unspecified Personality Disorder (Cluster B traits).
In answer to another panel member’s question about issues over Mr. Gryciuk’s possible employment as a PSW with vulnerable persons and access to medications, Dr. Jaiswal said he would have concerns about this if Mr. Gryciuk were to be absolutely discharged. Dr. Jaiswal stated that, as a result of practicum placement during his training, Mr. Gryciuk would likely have had a vulnerable sector check, but he had not seen it.
There was no further evidence called.
Submissions
Ms. Warner, in her submission, complimented Mr. Gryciuk for remaining stable in the community over the past year but she cautioned that he has been clear with the treatment team that, if granted an Absolute Discharge, he would stop his medication and likely fall away from treatment. This would lead to the re-emergence of psychotic symptoms which, associated with violent ideation, would put the public at risk. For that reason, the hospital’s position is that Mr. Gryciuk remains a significant threat to the safety of the public. A Detention Order is necessary and appropriate given the very clear plan with respect to clozapine dosage reduction and especially given the diagnosis of mental illness including schizoaffective bipolar disorder. The diagnoses warrant treatment with medication. Its reduction would create a real possibility of decompensation. The team supports recalibration of medication to a dose that can manage his illness effectively. Therefore, this requires a Detention Order to effect readmission to a hospital at the earliest opportunity, if necessary.
Mr. Brandes submitted that the evidence of Dr. Jaiswal established that the level of significant threat posed by Mr. Gryciuk is still present and that the Mental Health Act would not be of sufficient use to address this concern. He also commended Mr. Gryciuk for having had a positive year and for advancing himself towards potential employment. A present concern, however, is the fact that Mr. Gryciuk might well be working in a vulnerable community and would need to be managed in terms of access to medication and otherwise. A Detention Order is still necessary and appropriate to properly manage his risk.
Mr. Medd submitted that Mr. Gryciuk’s history of violence is actually quite limited. On the last occasion, when he was having violent ideation, he called 911 to assist and, therefore, the Board should have some confidence that he would be able to recognize when he is having those thoughts and that he will act appropriately in a way that protects the public. Therefore, Mr. Medd submitted that significant threat is remote and that Mr. Gryciuk does not meet the threshold. Mr. Medd also drew the Board’s attention to the fact that Mr. Gryciuk assisted his mother with the household. He has also successfully completed his PSW certificate course at George Brown College maintaining grades above 80 percent. This was accomplished without the use of prescriptions for stimulus or ADHD related medications.
Analysis and Conclusion
Having heard and considered the evidence, as well as submissions from the parties, the Board finds that Mr. Gryciuk remains a significant threat to the safety of the public; therefore, a continuation of the existing Detention Order Disposition is both necessary and appropriate. The Board also orders the removal of the abstention clause and changes the reporting condition to one of not less than every four weeks.
Mr. Gryciuk suffers from Schizoaffective Disorder, as well as Substance Abuse Disorder. Mr. Gryciuk still refuses to accept that he has a mental illness.
Mr. Gryciuk still struggles with his insight into the index offences and while he has, in the past, seemingly acknowledged that he was psychotic at the time of the index offences, he continues to insist that this was the result of substance use and not due to an underlying mental disorder.
Mr. Gryciuk, to his credit, works with the team in expressing an interest in reducing his dosage of prescribed medication but, unfortunately, he has a past history of medication noncompliance. This was especially so in the period immediately preceding the index offences. His views on the need for medication also appears to align with those of his mother, who has expressed skepticism about the long-term use of antipsychotic medication and psychiatric care.
In addition to a lack of insight into his diagnosis and need for medication, as well as a history of medication non-compliance, Mr. Gryciuk also has a history of dishonesty. For example, it was discussed at the hearing that in 2024, Mr. Gryciuk was dishonest with the team about being on a list to receive subsidized housing. The Hospital Report further discusses the results of a psychological report from 2020 where the authors concluded that Mr. Gryciuk was attempting to appear memory impaired.
It is very clear to the Board that Mr. Gryciuk rejects his diagnoses, expresses an intention to discontinue with his medication and intends to fall away from CAMH if he is discharged absolutely.
Furthermore, it appears that Mr. Gryciuk is not adequately prepared for the disposition he is seeking. He does not have a psychiatrist in the community and, he expresses an intention to continue residing with his mother, which is problematic without the oversight of CAMH because of her views on psychiatry and medication.
As Mr. Gryciuk is assessed to be at moderate to high risk of future violence in the context of a Conditional or Absolute Discharge, these concerns remain valid.
The Board recognizes that Mr. Gryciuk has had a good year, and he is beginning to increase his engagement with the team and counselling. The Board further recognizes and commends Mr. Gryciuk for his desire to pursue higher education and return to employment.
In consideration of all the evidence, the submissions of the parties, and the criteria set forth in s. 672.54, the paramount consideration being the safety of the public, in addition to the mental condition of Mr. Gryciuk, his reintegration into society and his other needs, the necessary and appropriate Disposition is continuation of the existing Detention Order Disposition with the removal of paragraph 4(a) and the reduction of reporting to not less than every four weeks.
DATED this 11th day of May, 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Hon. C. Nelson
Legal Member
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board
Footnotes
- Winko v. British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute) 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 SCR 625