Re: Bohdan I. Kudelya
ORB File No: 6052
Hearing held on: Thursday, April 23, 2026
Place of hearing: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. M.D. Segal
Members: Dr. T. Verny
Dr. M. Green
Ms. A. Israel
Ms. K. McMillan
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Bohdan I. Kudelya
Counsel: Mr. W. Jacksa
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. J. Meaney
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. A. Dimiskovska
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated June 2, 2026)
Introduction
On February 1, 2012, Bohdan Kudelya was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on a charge of assault, contrary to the Criminal Code. Mr. Kudelya is currently subject to an Ontario Review Board Disposition of May 5, 2025, which detains him at the Forensic Service of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto (“CAMH” and the “Hospital”) with privileges up to and including living in the community in accommodation approved by the person in charge and travel passes, including international travel, for up to three weeks with conditions.
On April 23, 2026, a panel of the Ontario Review Board (“Board”) convened to review Mr. Kudelya's current Disposition pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code.
Mr. Kudelya was present at his hearing. He was represented by counsel, Mr. Jaksa, throughout the proceedings.
A Hospital Report dated March 23, 2026, was entered as Exhibit 1.
The issues to be determined are whether Mr. Kudelya continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public, and if so, the necessary and appropriate disposition to manage that risk having regard to the criteria set out in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
For the reasons set out below and based on the evidence before us, the Board found that Mr. Kudelya continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. The Board finds that a continuation of the detention disposition is the necessary and appropriate order having regard to the safety of the public, which is the paramount concern, and also having regard to Mr. Kudelya's mental health, reintegration into society, and his other needs.
Current Psychiatric Diagnoses
- Schizophrenia and Substance Use Disorder, in early remission in a controlled environment.
Position of the Parties
At the commencement of the hearing, the parties were canvassed for their without prejudice positions. All parties took the position that Mr. Kudelya continues to represent a significant threat to the public and the necessary and appropriate disposition is a continuation of the current Detention Order on the same terms of last year.
Therefore, there was a joint submission on all issues.
Index Offence
- A summary of the index offence is as follows:
“Mr. Kudelya and the victim of the index offence lived next door to each other in Toronto. On November 26, 2011, the accused banged on the victim’s apartment door. When the victim answered the door, the accused barged in and punched the victim in the face and said, “You fucking Jew.” He tried to punch the victim again. The accused fled when the victim’s wife said she was calling the police. The accused was apprehended under the Mental Health Act and arrested in the hospital where he was assessed.”
Background
Mr. Kudelya was born in Ukraine in 1988 and immigrated to Canada with his mother at approximately 10 years of age. He is single and has no dependants. Throughout his adult life, his mother has remained his principal support and has at times acted as his substitute decision maker. His educational history includes completion of high school and partial post-secondary studies, which were disrupted by the onset of mental illness and substance use. His occupational history has been marked by intermittent and short-term employment, often ending due to psychiatric instability, non-adherence to treatment, or behavioural difficulties, although in more recent years he has maintained limited part-time work within supported settings.
As noted earlier, in November 2011, the patient committed an unprovoked assault on a neighbour. The offence occurred in the context of untreated psychosis, prominent delusional beliefs involving satellites, persecution, and ideological themes, as well as concurrent substance use. On February 1, 2012, he was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. This index offence remains the sole offence before the Board but is significant given its psychotic motivation and victim proximity.
The patient has a long-standing diagnosis of treatment resistant schizophrenia, with onset in late adolescence. His illness has been characterized over time by fixed and recurrent delusions, disorganized thinking, anxiety, episodic agitation, and limited insight. During periods of untreated illness or medication non-adherence, particularly when combined with substance use, he has demonstrated behavioural dysregulation and aggression. His insight into his illness has often been superficial, fluctuating over time and frequently insufficient to support consistent self-directed treatment adherence.
The patient also has a significant history of substance use disorder, including cannabis, cocaine, ketamine, and other substances. Substance use has repeatedly been associated with psychiatric decompensation, increased psychotic symptoms, and behavioural instability. While he has demonstrated periods of abstinence, relapse has occurred opportunistically, particularly during times of reduced supervision or increased autonomy.
Following the NCR finding, the patient remained in hospital for several years, with gradual and repeated attempts at reintegration into the community. Between 2015 and 2022, he experienced multiple cycles of discharge and readmission, often precipitated by substance use relapse, medication tampering or non-adherence, breakthrough psychotic symptoms, and difficulty complying with structure and conditions in the community. Over time, clozapine became the cornerstone of his treatment, resulting in improved stability when adherence was maintained. In December 2022, he was discharged to high support supervised housing and followed closely by Forensic Outpatient Services, where he has remained subject to intensive external oversight to maintain psychiatric stability and public safety.
During this past reporting year, the patient voluntarily returned to the hospital for a brief inpatient admission from April 28 to May 7, 2025. This admission was undertaken at the recommendation of the treatment team to permit a monitored reduction of his clozapine dosage, in light of his and his mother's repeated requests for medication changes due to the reported symptoms of “head pressure.” The patient presented to the Hospital on his own accord, was admitted to an acute inpatient unit, and cooperated with treatment throughout the admission. During this period, his clozapine dose was reduced while his mental state was closely observed. He remained clinically stable, with no evidence of overt psychotic decompensation, and was subsequently discharged back to his approved high support community residence on May 7, 2025, where he resumed follow up with Forensic Outpatient Services.
Following the patient’s voluntary inpatient admission from April 28 to May 7, 2025, a Restriction of Liberty hearing was held by the Ontario Review Board on June 26, 2025, pursuant to s. 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code. The hearing was convened to determine whether the patient's temporary inpatient detention constituted a significant increase in restrictions on his liberty and, if so, whether those restrictions were warranted. The parties jointly agreed that the admission represented a significant restriction; however, they submitted that it was necessary and appropriate given the clinical context. In its decision, the Board concluded that the admission was justified, represented the least onerous and least restrictive means of managing the patient’s care, and was undertaken for a sound therapeutic purpose. The Board therefore upheld the hospital’s decision and determined that the existing Disposition remained appropriate, with no change required.
Evidence at the Hearing
The evidence at the hearing was provided by Dr. D. Jaiswal. In addition, the Board had the Hospital Report dated March 23, 2026, which was made Exhibit 1.
Dr. Jaiswal testified that Mr. Kudelya continues to reside in 24/7 supervised high support permanent housing on Dowling Avenue. He has remained generally clinically stable in the community with recent medication adjustments arising from Mr. Kudelya’s and his mother's request to reduce clozapine due to perceived “head pressure.” Following a gradual reduction of clozapine, his mother reported increased irritability; the team therefore augmented treatment with a second antipsychotic (Aripiprazole), and Dr. Jaiswal reported a subsequent decline in irritability with no recent concerns.
Dr. Jaiswal testified that Mr. Kudelya has partial insight: he recognizes medication reduces relapse risk but continues to attribute some experiences to “mind internet” phenomena, and the team remains concerned that he may underreport psychotic symptoms when pursuing medication reductions.
Dr. Jaiswal testified that there are ongoing substance use concerns, referencing a positive urine drug screen for ketamine, and noted that he has limited confidence that Mr. Kudelya would self-disclose absent screening. However, any associated symptoms were described as transient and not significantly altering his baseline mental state.
Dr. Jaiswal also described nuisance rule breaches at the supervised residence which have not resulted in imminent loss of placement but require ongoing monitoring given the risk of housing stability.
With respect to risk, Dr. Jaiswal testified that early decompensation would likely present as irritability affecting those in close proximity, and more severe decompensation could include hallucinations, referential and paranoid delusions; in that context a Mental Health Act pathway alone was not viewed as sufficient in the early stages particularly given historical housing instability.
Looking forward, the treatment goals are to optimize and stabilize medication, re-engage Mr. Kudelya in programming and therapy, as well as vocational or educational pursuits. Dr. Jaiswal also testified that the team will consider a return to the clozapine dose of 350 milligrams, and if tolerated and consented to, conversion of Aripiprazole to a long-acting injectable to enhance adherence protection.
In response to questions from the panel, Dr. Jaiswal testified:
a) In response to a question about the ketamine positive screen, Dr. Jaiswal stated that the supervised residence has not raised concerns or observed outward behaviours suggesting intoxication. He testified that the team learned of the ketamine use only through the urine drug screening.
b) When asked how the team intends to optimize treatment, Dr. Jaiswal indicated an intention to recommend a return to clozapine 350 milligrams and, if Mr. Kudelya consents, a switch from oral Aripiprazole to a long-acting injectable (with a brief overlap) to provide additional adherence protection. The doctor confirmed he considers both medications necessary, explaining that optimization is aimed at reducing early warning irritability that can escalate to verbal hostility, threats and inaccurate conclusions.
c) The panel also asked about a report reference to a positive alcohol screen possibly linked to Mr. Kudelya's mother adding “drops” to a drink. Dr. Jaiswal advised this had not yet been canvassed with the mother but could be followed up.
d) In response to a question from the panel, Dr. Jaiswal testified that the reference in the Hospital Report to “cheeking,” non-ingestion of a prescribed medication, had been reported in previous years but there were no incidents during this past reporting year.
- No further 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 independently finds that Mr. Kudelya 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 examine the NCR accused. In coming to our conclusion in this matter, the Board relies on the uncontroverted expert evidence of Dr. Jaiswal, in addition to the documentary evidence before us.
Mr. Kudelya has a major mental illness, a history of significant violence when unwell and a history of substance use. The re-offence scenario is described at page 58 of the Hospital Report:
“With reductions in the dose of clozapine, Mr. Kudelya’s mother reported concerns of a decline in his mental state towards the end of the reporting year. At the time of this report, optimal treatment had not been established. Moreover, there were concerns from the housing program pertaining to recurrent rule violations, and there was an episode of ketamine use.
If left to his own devices, absent ORB involvement, Mr. Kudelya is likely to return to substance use, experience housing insufficiency, fall away from treatment, and experience a mental state decompensation. In this context, he is likely to experience delusions and incorporate individuals in his proximity into such experiences. Subsequently, he is likely to engage in violent behaviours towards a member of the public. Hence, on balance, the threshold for significant threat is met in his case. The Mental Health Act is unlikely to mitigate the risk stemming from insufficient housing and substance use. Furthermore, given Mr. Kudelya’s guarded presentation with respect to disclosing the experience of psychotic symptoms and his treating team’s reliance on collateral sources to identify the same, waiting for the Mental Health Act to become available is unlikely to mitigate the risk flowing during the stages between early mental state decompensation and progression to full decompensation.
Accounting for the above risk assessment and re-offence scenario, Mr. Kudelya’s risk for violent re-offending is high in the context of an absolute discharge, and moderate to high in the context of a conditional discharge. His risk in the context of the current disposition and while residing in high support housing falls in the low to moderate range. Consequently, a Detention Order is necessary and appropriate with respect to mitigating the risk to public safety.”
The panel agrees with the submission of the treatment team that a conditional discharge is not appropriate at this time. Mr. Kudelya’s ability to abstain from substances, maintain housing, and adhere to treatment remain as concerns. Given that the index offence involved unprovoked violence, the panel agrees that the hospital requires the ability to quickly readmit Mr. Kudelya if he experiences mental deterioration in the community. This is of paramount importance as Mr. Kudelya tends to be guarded with his clinical team regarding his experience of psychotic symptoms. Therefore, the Mental Health Act would be insufficient to manage Mr. Kudelya's risk in the community.
In consideration of all the evidence, the submissions of the parties, and the criteria set forth in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code, the paramount consideration being the safety of the public, in addition to the mental condition of Mr. Kudelya, his reintegration into society and his other needs, we conclude that the necessary and appropriate disposition is to continue with the existing Detention Order disposition without change.
The panel acknowledges that Mr. Kudelya seemed to be doing okay, encouraged him to keep working with his doctors and the forensic team and wished him well.
DATED this 2nd day of June, 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Ms. A. Israel
Legal Member
__________________
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board