Re Bartosz Gajewski, 2026 CanLII 48359

Re: Bartosz Gajewski

ORB File No: 5850

Hearing held on: Wednesday, April 8, 2026

Place of hearing: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health

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

Before:

Alternate Chairperson: Ms. C. Fromstein

Members: Hon. N. Kozloff

Dr. J. Kis

Dr. A. Kerry

Mr. S. Doherty

Parties Appearing:

Accused: Bartosz Gajewski

Counsel: Ms. A. Szigeti

The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. M. Warner

Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. M. Feindel

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated May 21, 2026)

Introduction

1. On March 23, 2011, Mr. Bartosz Gajewski was found not criminally responsible (“NCR”) on account of mental disorder, on charges of assault, and attempt kidnapping, both contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (“Criminal Code”).

2. Mr. Gajewski is subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (“the Board”), dated February 14, 2025, which ordered that he be discharged subject to conditions.

3. On April 8, 2026, the Board convened a hearing at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (“CAMH”) to conduct the annual review of the current Disposition.

4. Mr. Gajewski was present at the hearing and was represented by counsel, Ms. A. Szigeti, who appeared at her request and with the permission of the Board by Zoom.

5. The issues to be decided at this hearing were whether Mr. Gajewski continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public, and, if so, what the necessary and appropriate Disposition in the circumstances is, bearing in mind the factors enunciated in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.

6. For the reasons set out below, the Board concluded that Mr. Gajewski continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public, and that the necessary and appropriate Disposition in the circumstances is that he be discharged subject to the same conditions as contained in the current Disposition.

Positions of the Parties

7. At the outset of the hearing the parties were invited to provide their without prejudice positions.

8. Counsel for the hospital submitted that Mr. Gajewski continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public, and, that a continuation of the current conditional discharge on the same terms and conditions as the current disposition is the necessary and appropriate, least onerous and least restrictive disposition to protect the public in the circumstances.

9. Counsel for the Attorney General joined the hospital.

10. Counsel for Mr. Gajewski submitted that Mr. Gajewski’s reporting condition should be varied from “not less than once every three months” to “not less than once every six months.

The Evidence

11. The evidence at the hearing included the Hospital Report (Exhibit 1), the Victim Impact Statement of K. N. (Exhibit 2), and the testimony of Dr. M. Pearce.

Personal Background

12. Mr. Gajewski’s personal history is set out in considerable detail in the Hospital Report. The relevant details are well summarized in last year’s Reasons for Disposition:

“Mr. Gajewski is 53 years old, single, and without children.

Mr. Gajewski was employed by a company as a cabinetmaker and, in that capacity, he completed some work on a renovation for the victim of the index offences. In 2003, he became infatuated with her. At that time, he was charged with criminal harassment and threatening bodily harm. The charges were withdrawn in 2004, when Mr. Gajewski entered into a Peace Bond.

Mr. Gajewski had no further contact with the victim until the time of the index offences. At that time, Mr. Gajewski was under the delusion that the victim and her father were involved in a conspiracy to commit crimes against him. Mr. Gajewski tried to have criminal charges laid against them and numerous other people. In 2004, he wrote to the Attorney General of Ontario and the Chief of the Toronto Police Service about this. No actions were taken on his unfounded complaints.

Prior to the index offences, Mr. Gajewski’s family became concerned that he was becoming ill and in particular was obsessed with the complainant. They obtained a Form 2 under the Mental Health Act (“MHA”) and Mr. Gajewski was admitted to hospital for three days. This action also led to a lengthy rupture of family ties. His discharge diagnoses were Adjustment Disorder, also query Paranoid Disorder and Personality Disorder with Paranoid and Antisocial Traits. No other mental health history is known.

On March 24, 2011, Mr. Gajewski was found NCR and admitted to CAMH under the ORB’s jurisdiction. At that time, he demonstrated a level of partial co-operation with his care and recognized that his actions were wrong and that the treatment team would provide proper care. His mother and sister noted that he was “back to normal” and had expected him to be more resistant to psychiatric treatment. He was also amenable to rehabilitative programming.

Mr. Gajewski was not a management problem but he presented as guarded and somewhat isolated. He participated in programming in a limited way but, at least originally, he was resistant to medications and questioned his diagnosis. He did not understand that his delusions were an on-going risk factor.

In the 2012/2013 clinical year, Mr. Gajewski continued to suffer from delusions regarding the complainant. He was resistant to medication and programming. This resulted in a Detention Order on a Secure Forensic Unit. There, he was often dismissive of the treatment team and would not engage with them. He was not a management problem, but did not accept that he was mentally ill. This lack of engagement and recognition of his situation continued until in March of 2015 he was given an intra muscular injection of anti-psychotic medication. He maintained he did not have a delusional disorder or mental illness. He attempted to pursue legal remedies regarding the victim of the index offences without success.

Improvements began in mid-2015 when Mr. Gajewski agreed to treatment with medication. By December of 2015, he was transferred to a General Forensic unit and did well there. He was treatment compliant. He still maintained his delusions and belief he did not have a mental illness; however, he continued to progress. There were no incidents of concern and Mr. Gajewski advanced up the privilege ladder and his family remained involved in his care.

With continued progress over the years, and the appropriate use of 72-LOA passes to his mother’s home, Mr. Gajewski was ultimately discharged from the hospital to his mother’s home in October of 2019. He remained treatment and medication compliant, although he maintained his view that he did not need such help. Mr. Gajewski admitted to being resentful towards the victim of his index offences but he was not overly preoccupied with her or her family or perceived maltreatment. He continued to indicate that he believed he was the victim in this matter but he denied any desire to contact them. Instead, he wanted to focus on moving forward with his life. He reported that he enjoyed living in the community and spending time with his family.

He has continued to reside in the community since that without incident. When probed, he expressed his ongoing and fixed delusional beliefs but he did not display any significant preoccupation with them. He admits he would discontinue medication immediately, if given the opportunity. He denies any desire to harm or contact the victim and has said he would, at most, pursue a civil remedy. He has stated he will never violently re-offend again.”

Index Offences

13. The circumstances giving rise to the Index Offences are set out in the Hospital Report, as follows:

“The victim K. N. and the accused are known to each other, with the victim having hired the accused in 2003 to do some home renovations. During the course of the renovation, the accused became infatuated with the victim, and his behaviour deteriorated to the point that the accused was charged with Criminal Harrassment and Threatening Bodily Harm.

These charges were eventually withdrawn in 2004 in favour of a Peace Bond, the conditions of which have long expired.

K. N. has reported no subsequent contact with the accused.

On Thursday September 17th, 2009, shortly after the noon hour K. N. was seated in her motor vehicle in her driveway at D[…] Road in the City of Toronto. She was waiting for her partner as they planned to drive to an appointment together.

As she waited, the vehicle door was opened, and the victim turned to see the accused who said that he was placing her under arrest pursuant to the Code and in the name of Jehovah God.

He grabbed her by the wrists, and pulled her from the vehicle, and as he tried to drag her down the street, he was saying that he was there to arrest the complainant pursuant to the Criminal Code and in the name of Jehovah and amongst other things, that in the name of Jehovah I have come to take you, J. R. N. will not be able to save you, you are corrupt and you must be punished.

The victim, who is a frail woman, could not offer much resistance to her seizure by the accused.

At this point, P. C., who is K. N.’s partner, arrived and saw what was taking place.

He immediately intervened and pushed and kicked the accused in an effort to free her from the grasp of the accused.

The accused who is a large man, managed to pull K. N. and P. C. approximately 40 metres down the street when two other neighbours intervened and tried to help the victim.

Police were called that the accused was placed under arrest.”

Diagnosis

14. Mr. Gajewski’s diagnosis is delusional disorder, persecutory subtype.

Course Since the Current Disposition

15. Mr. Gajewski’s course since the finding of NCR is set out in considerable detail in the Hospital Report. For the purposes of these reasons his most recent course (since the making of the current disposition) is reproduced here:

“Mr. Gajewski remained psychiatrically stable over the year under review, with little overall change in his presentation. He continued living in the community with his mother and sister in midtown Toronto. Throughout this period, there were no incidents of violence or aggression, and he did not require readmission to hospital. He ultimately only met with his treatment team every 2 or 3 months, with additional appointments arranged when necessary. He cooperated with those additional appointments, without fail. He remained compliant with his prescribed long-acting injection (Invega Trinza 263 mg IM every 12 weeks), although he continued to report side effects, particularly sedation and lethargy. He did not want to take the medication and said he did not need it. He felt the diagnosis attributed to him was “wrong.” When asked why he took the medication, he said, “I take it otherwise you guys would bring me in.” Despite encouragement from his clinicians, he seldom engaged in physical exercise. To his credit, he assisted with household tasks and appeared to maintain adequate self-care. His mother did not report any significant concerns. He did not initiate contact with the victim and spoke about her only when specifically asked. In the spring of 2025, Mr. Gajewski was offered the opportunity to transition to a CMHA-based community support team, though Dr. Pearce would remain involved in his care. He declined the referral, stating he did not want to “change anything.”

There were no concerns regarding substance use during the review period.

In terms of recreation and social engagement, Mr. Gajewski maintained involvement with his church community and volunteered there several days per week, which appeared to be a meaningful activity for him.

From a medical standpoint, he remained generally well, with the exception of hypercholesterolemia. He had Covid in the summer of 2025, and some dental work done at the CAMH in the fall of 2025. He had intermittent contact with his family physician, Dr. Mills, on an as-needed basis. He reported ongoing difficulties with sleep and was prescribed Dayvigo 5mg by Dr. Pearce in the fall of 2025, with some effect. He had to pay out-of-pocket for this medication. He declined a referral for a sleep study.”

Risk

16. The details concerning Mr. Gajewski’s risk assessment and risk management are set out in the Hospital Report. The following excerpts summarize the opinion of the clinical team:

“Taken in totality, the clinical team opines, based on both actuarial and clinical assessments of risk, that Mr. Gajewski remains a significant threat to the safety of the public.

The most important treatment for Mr. Gajewski will be the ongoing administration of antipsychotic medication for his entrenched delusional beliefs. Antipsychotic medication has helped him reduce his preoccupation with the victim and the intensity of his delusional beliefs.

Mr. Gajewski should continue to receive psychoeducation about his illness, the risks of the absence of medication treatment, and the potential benefits of engaging in psychosocial rehabilitation. Ongoing supervision is critical to his ability to remain in the community.”

Team Review of Recommendation

17. The recommendation of the clinical team is set out in the Hospital Report:

“The clinical team is of the unanimous opinion that the least onerous and least restrictive disposition consistent with public safety remains a discharge subject to conditions. No changes are being proposed. Admittedly, it is difficult to formulate a plan to transition this gentleman to an absolute discharge; he is not eligible for a CTO (as he has been conditionally discharged since 2020) and he continues to express a desire, when asked, to stop his medication.”

Evidence at the Hearing

18. Dr. M. Pearce testified at the hearing. He is a Forensic Psychiatrist, Complex Mental Illness, in the Forensic Service at CAMH, Mr. Gajewski’s treating psychiatrist, and one of the authors of the Hospital Report.

19. There were no updates to the Hospital Report.

20. He described Mr. Gajeski as cooperative and compliant notwithstanding the side effects of his antipsychotic medication. According to his mother, he has been getting along well at home.

21. He is seen by the clinical team every three months when he comes to hospital for the injection of his (long-acting antipsychotic) medication. He is very stable.

22. Regarding a reduction of the frequency of reporting, Dr. Pearce observed that Mr. Gajewski gets an injection every 12 weeks and “we should see him that often.” He later added that “we are more comfortable with every three months” when Mr. Gajewski is seen by Dr. Pearce and/or his case worker.

23. Asked whether he thought Mr. Gajewski would attend for his injection every three months if his reporting condition was reduced to “not less than once every six months” he replied, “Probably.”

24. Dr. Pearce said that it had been his idea to reduce Mr. Gajewski’s reporting requirement to “not less than once every three months.” Neither Dr. Darby nor Mr. Gajewski’s case worker was in favour of that reduction. The doctor added that he thought the status quo is appropriate to permit assessment at the time Mr. Gajewski receives his long-acting antipsychotic medication.

25. Regarding Mr. Gajewski’s mental status, there has been no change in the time Dr. Pearce has know him (2019) even with a reduction in his medication several years ago. He has ongoing sleep issues and has reached out to the team for medication.

26. Mr. Gajewski thinks he does not require his antipsychotic medication and would discontinue it if given the chance. He has not asked for a further reduction of that medication and in any event is receiving the lowest dose currently.

27. Asked by Mr. Gajewski’s counsel if there is any long-acting intramuscular antipsychotic medication injectable every 6 months, the doctor said that he thought so but that he had not used them and was uncertain about funding, availability, dosing and potential side effects.

28. Transition to a less intensive CAMH clinical team has been canvassed with Mr. Gajewski but he did not wish to pursue that.

Final Submissions

29. Counsel for the hospital observed that Mr. Gajewski had another very good year. Regarding the reporting condition, she said that the hospital recommends continuation of the “not less than once every three months” requirement in conjunction with the administration of his long-acting antipsychotic medication.

30. Counsel for the Attorney General adopted the hospital submissions.

31. Counsel for Mr. Gajewski posited that the impetus for her request (to reduce the reporting requirement) is to acknowledge the progress Mr. Gajewski has made and as a motivator i.e. the “not less than once every three months” requirement has gone well and there is no reason to suggest that a “not less than once every six months” requirement would not go well.

Analysis and Conclusions

Significant Threat

32. 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.

33. In coming to our conclusion in this matter, the Board relies on the uncontroverted expert evidence of Dr. Pearce in addition to the documentary evidence before us. That issue was not in dispute at this hearing.

34. On the totality of that evidence, the Board is unanimous in finding that Mr. Gajewski remains a significant threat to the safety of the public. Mr. Gajewski suffers from a major mental illness: Delusional Disorder, persecutory subtype. He continues to express fixed, delusional beliefs about the victim of the index offences notwithstanding he is well-treated with medication, has participated in many years of programming, is cooperative and compliant with his clinical team, and is very stable. According to the Hospital Report, Mr. Gajewski would be a “moderate to high risk to reoffend” absent the supervision of the ORB and his clinical team.

Necessary and Appropriate Disposition

35. In light of our finding of significant threat, the Board must determine a Disposition for the coming year. In doing so, our paramount consideration must be the safety of the public, but we must also take into account the needs of Mr. Gajewski pursuant to s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.

36. We reiterate and adopt the reasoning of last year’s panel:

“The panel notes that, at the present time, the barrier to further progressing Mr. Gajewski to full community reintegration and the grant of an Absolute Discharge is his consistent plan to stop his antipsychotic medication when he is no longer under the ORB’s jurisdiction. The expert evidence before the Board indicates that the most important treatment to manage Mr. Gajewski’s risk is the ongoing administration of antipsychotic medication. It is precisely this medication that has helped him reduce his preoccupation with the victim and the intensity of his delusional beliefs.”

37. Accordingly, the Board is unanimous in accepting the hospital’s recommendation and in finding that the necessary and appropriate, least onerous and least restrictive Disposition to effectively manage the risk posed by Mr. Gajewski to the public while still meeting his needs is the existing Conditional Discharge Disposition with no reduction in the reporting requirement.

DATED this 21^st day of May, 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.

Hon. N. Kozloff

Legal Member

Office of the Registrar

Ontario Review Board