Ontario Review Board
Re: Julia Mazurek
ORB File No: 7341
Hearing held on: Monday, May 4, 2026
Place of hearing: Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences 700 Gordon Street, Whitby
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. J. Weinstein Members: Dr. S. Chatterjee Dr. M. Green Hon. A. Sosna Mr. A. Mete
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Julia Mazurek Counsel: Ms. J. Boissonneault
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Mr. L. Crowell
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. N. MacDonald
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated May 27, 2026)
Introduction:
On April 12, 2018, Ms. Julia Mazurek was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, on a charge of aggravated assault, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (“Criminal Code”).
Ms. Mazurek is subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the “Board”), dated May 5, 2025, which discharged her from Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences (“Ontario Shores”), on certain terms and conditions as set out therein.
On May 4, 2026, the Board convened a hearing at Ontario Shores to conduct the annual review of the current Disposition.
Ms. Mazurek was present at the hearing and was represented by her counsel, Ms. Boissonneault. A Polish interpreter provided consecutive translation throughout the hearing.
A Hospital Report, dated April 20, 2026 (the "Hospital Report"), was entered as Exhibit 1.
The issues at this hearing were whether Ms. Mazurek 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.
For the reasons set out below and based on the expert evidence and opinions before it, the Board concluded that Ms. Mazurek continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public. The Board ordered that the necessary and appropriate Disposition in the circumstances is the continuation of the existing Conditional Discharge order.
Current Psychiatric Diagnosis:
- Treatment-resistant Schizophrenia
Index Offence:
- The circumstances giving rise to the Index Offences are extracted from last year’s Board Reasons, as follows:
“I reviewed the notes of Police Constable Kinna, badge 2289. He interviewed the victim, Melissa Henry, in hospital. She indicated that she, Ronand Mazurek and their daughter had all attended Ms. Mazurek’s home for her birthday. They arrived at approximately 5 PM. As they were about to leave, and as she was putting on her jacket, Ms. Mazurek attacked her from behind with a knife. Ronald Mazurek put down their daughter and pulled his mother off of her. Ms. Henry then grabbed her daughter and ran out of the apartment to safety. She indicated that Ms. Mazurek had let them into the building when they arrived and met them at the elevator. They sat down for dinner, and there was “nothing out of the ordinary.” They were there for approximately one hour. After dinner they talked, and gave Ms. Mazurek her birthday gift, which consisted of a framed family picture. Ms. Henry noted that she did not have much of a relationship with Ms. Mazurek; neither did Mr. Mazurek. She indicated that they decided to leave as their daughter was getting tired. She reported that Ms. Mazurek did not say anything prior to the attack. She noted that she had only visited Ms. Mazurek three to four times in the past. She denied any history of violent incidents between her and the accused. She indicated that the knife was a kitchen knife with a 5-6-inch blade.
I reviewed the notes of Police Constable Kerr, badge 3392. He interviewed Ronand Mazurek, Ms. Mazurek’s son. Mr. Mazurek indicated that they arrived at his mother’s building at approximately 5:15 or 5:30 in the afternoon. Ms. Mazurek was not talkative. They ate and then decided to leave. Mr. Mazurek said that he heard Ms. Henry screaming and saw his mother stab her ‘many times.’ He indicated that he pushed Ms. Mazurek away and punched her. He tried to grab the knife from her and cut his thumb. Ms. Henry picked up the baby, and he held the door shut. He eventually took the elevator down. He reported that his mother suffered from mental illness. He indicated that when they first arrived, a woman let them into the apartment building, and they met his mother at the elevator. He said that they went to her apartment, and that she appeared to be quiet, and tired. He said, ‘she seemed off.’ He said that Ms. Mazurek went to the bathroom, and he and Ms. Henry decided to leave. He said that during the attack Ms. Mazurek said, ‘Get this whore out of my apartment and never bring her here’.”
Criminal History:
- Ms. Mazurek has no prior criminal history.
Personal History:
- Ms. Mazurek’s personal history is outlined in the Hospital Report, and is accurately summarized in last year’s Reasons:
“After graduating from high school in Poland, Ms. Mazurek moved to Canada in 1992 with her husband. The couple separated after arriving in Canada. There were three children of the marriage, two of whom lived with Ms. Mazurek and one who lived with his father. All three children began living with their father after Ms. Mazurek’s first involvement with the mental health system following an assault on a police officer. This did not lead to criminal charges.
As set out in the Hospital Report, Ms. Mazurek first received treatment for schizophrenia while residing in Poland prior to immigrating to Canada. The onset of schizophrenia apparently coincided with a thyroidectomy. Ms. Mazurek was prescribed medication which she complied with until about 2015 when she stopped and began presenting with increased signs of paranoia. In 2016, Ms. Mazurek was admitted to St. Joseph's Health Centre for approximately one week. Prior to her admission, her daughter noticed that she was walking about with a kitchen knife concealed in her coat. Ms. Mazurek expressed paranoid thoughts about being threatened by others at that time. She was readmitted to the hospital for three weeks in August of 2016, once again following noncompliance with her medication and endorsing multiple persecutory delusions. She believed her children were exposed to ‘torture, extorsion, poisoning, rape and multiple other atrocities’ by their father. While living in the community for the next year, Ms. Mazurek was assisted by case workers from the hospital. In August, her daughter advised the crisis team that she had been without medication for the past year. Once again, she began to express paranoid delusions. Ms. Mazurek had no known relationships beyond her husband. Her employment history was unknown, and she was reported to be unemployed at the time of the index offence.”
Position of the Parties:
Counsels for the hospital, the Attorney General and Ms. Mazurek advised that this was a joint submission. All were supporting the hospital’s recommendation of a continuation of the existing Conditional Discharge order.
Counsel for Ms. Mazurek advised that, for the purposes of this hearing, significant threat was not in dispute.
Counsel for Ms. Mazurek confirmed that, although her client is incapable to consent to treatment, she does understand the consequences of a breach of the clause requiring her to take prescribed medication, pursuant to s. 672.55(1) of the Criminal Code and that she does consent to the inclusion of this clause in her current Disposition.
Course Since Last Disposition:
- Ms. Mazurek's course since her last Disposition is set out in detail in the Hospital Report. The following extracted paragraphs are relevant to this hearing:
“There was no change in Ms. Mazurek’s housing this past reporting year, she continued to reside at Myers Home, an all-Women’s group home located in Whitby. The home provides supervision 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and is operated by the Canadian Mental Health Association Durham branch (CMHA Durham).
On the December 22, her oral Abilify medication was titrated upwards from 2mg to 5mg at dinnertime to target any remaining symptoms, the FOS treatment team was unaware at this time of Ms. Mazurek’s non-compliance. In February 2026, Ms. Mazurek confirmed that she had been ‘vomiting’ her clozapine but insisted she would stop throwing up once she vomited one 100mg clozapine tablet, allowing the other two 100mg tablets to digest in her stomach. Subsequently, the FOS clinician found clozapine pills that Ms. Mazurek had spat out in her bedroom.”
Evidence at the Hearing:
- The Board had available to it the evidence and documents forming the Record, the Exhibits, and oral evidence from Dr. Bhullar. Dr. Bhullar testified as follows:
a) She has been Ms. Mazurek’s out-patient psychologist since October 2022 and last met with her on April 27.
b) Ms. Mazurek’s mental state has returned to her baseline, and her overall presentation has stabilized.
c) The group home staff continue to monitor Ms. Mazurek’s ingestion of her clozapine. Her serum levels remain within the therapeutic range. Ms. Mazurek reported one episode of attempting to vomit her medication. This event has not reoccurred, and staff have not observed any more non-adherence.
d) Ms. Mazurek frequently reports feeling unwell with higher doses of clozapine, but this sensation may be largely attributed to multiple medical comorbidities, rather than medication intolerance.
e) Ms. Mazurek is highly resistant to change, which would make any transition to a long-term care facility challenging.
f) A preliminary cognitive screening was completed, but a more detailed geriatric neuropsychological assessment remains outstanding. The treatment team has provided referrals to community providers who can complete it. This assessment is necessary both for understanding the extent of Ms. Mazurek’s cognitive decline and for meeting long-term placement requirements. In the coming reporting year, the treatment team hopes to complete a comprehensive, neurocognitive assessment, to clarify the extent of Ms. Mazurek’s cognitive deficits. The team will work with her to develop a long-term plan that may include eventual placement in a long-term care facility
g) Ms. Mazurek’s cognitive impairment contributes to her risk profile. In particular, memory deficits have led her to misplace belongings and conclude that group home staff are stealing from her, incorporating them into her delusional system.
h) The current Disposition continues to meet Ms. Mazurek’s treatment needs and is necessary for the safety of the public.
Counsel for the Attorney General had no questions.
In response to questions from counsel for Ms. Mazurek, Dr. Bhullar testified:
a) Ms. Mazurek has remained calm, pleasant, and cooperative with the treatment team and the group home staff throughout the year.
b) Ms. Mazurek is generally forthcoming about her symptoms when asked, particularly regarding auditory hallucinations. However, she is less forthcoming about other psychotic symptoms, especially her paranoid beliefs.
c) The cognitive testing completed by the hospital was only a screening measure.
d) Ms. Mazurek has lived at Myer’s House, her current residence, for approximately six years, and it remains the appropriate placement for her at this time. It is possible in theory that she could be placed in a long-term care home closer to her daughter; however, when she was previously offered a placement in Newmarket, which is close to her daughter, Ms. Mazurek refused to even visit the home. She continued to express strong resistance to any move to long-term care facilities and did so as recently as the previous week.
- In response to questions from the panel, Dr. Bhullar testified:
a) It is her understanding that a cognitive assessment is a standard requirement for long-term care placement, but she did not have any detailed information about the specific measures required by the long-term care system.
b) A referral to a neurologist had been made previously, and Ms. Mazurek has undergone an MRI.
c) She could not recall with certainty whether the Polish language version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment has been completed. She agreed that a validated Polish MoCA would be useful.
- No other evidence was called.
Analysis and Conclusions:
Having heard and considered the entirety of the evidence, as well as the submissions from the parties, the Board agrees with the joint submission: Ms. Mazurek remains a significant threat to the safety of the public.
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. Bhullar, in addition to the documentary evidence before us.
Ms. Mazurek continues to reside at the Myer’s group home. All meals are provided, medications are supervised and a case manager is provided.
In particular, the Board relies on the Clinical Assessment of Risk set out in the Hospital Report:
“Ms. Mazurek’s primary risk factors for re-offence include her major mental illness (namely, Schizophrenia) with residual psychotic symptoms (primarily, paranoid delusions and auditory hallucinations), history of treatment non-adherence, and violence (serious index offense), and limited insight into her mental illness, need for treatment, and violence risk.
Ms. Mazurek firmly believes that she is being overdosed on her current clozapine dose and became non-adherent last month, which led to a deterioration in her mental state. Group home staff confirmed that she was not consistently observed after clozapine administration. As a result, her dose required re-titration under close supervision by the FOS team. It is important to note that group home staff did not initially recognize the change in her mental status, likely due to a low staff-to-client ratio. The deterioration only became apparent during her meetings with the treatment team. This underscores the need for close monitoring to ensure medication adherence, as well as continued oversight by the FOS team to manage her risk of violence toward the public.
Additionally, Ms. Mazurek demonstrates poor insight into her psychotic illness, the need for ongoing treatment, and her associated risk factors for violence. She has consistently declined participation in therapeutic programming, including CBTp. Ms. Mazurek remains ambivalent about whether she would continue psychiatric treatment if granted an Absolute Discharge. It is therefore essential that she demonstrate a sustained period of stability in the community before an Absolute Discharge can be considered.”
The Board is recommending that the Polish version of the MoCA be completed for Ms. Mazurek, if it has not already been, and that the results be included in next year's Hospital Report.
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 Ms. Mazurek, her reintegration into society and her other needs, the necessary and appropriate Disposition is to continue with the Conditional Discharge Order.
DATED this 27th day of May, 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.
Mr. J. Weinstein Alternate Chairperson Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board