Re: Anton Pavelic

ORB File No: 3821

Hearing held on: Friday, May 8, 2026

Place of hearing: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health

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

Before:

Alternate Chairperson: Mr. G. Beasley

Members: Dr. Y. Alatishe Dr. L. Leong Ms. J. Ferguson Mr. W. Apted

Parties Appearing:

Accused: Anton Pavelic Counsel: Mr. A. McIver

The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. J. Meaney

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

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated June 17, 2026)

Introduction

1. On August 7, 2003, the accused, Anton Pavelic, was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on charges of mischief not exceeding $5000, dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, two counts of failure to stop at the scene of an accident, and assault with intent to resist arrest, all contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada. By reason of a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (“ORB”), dated February 13, 2025, Mr. Pavelic was ordered to be discharged on conditions including reporting to the person in charge of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (“CAMH”) or his or her designate, not less than once every four weeks and other conditions.

2. On May 8, 2026, the ORB convened a hearing at CAMH for the purpose of the annual review of Mr. Pavelic’s Disposition pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Pavelic was in attendance at the hearing and represented by counsel, Mr. McIver. Mr. Feindel appeared as counsel for the Attorney General of Ontario and Ms. Meaney as the representative of the hospital.

Index Offences

3. The circumstances of the index offences are as follows:

“The substance of the charges leading to the NCR finding is that on April 3, 2003, Mr. Pavelic, while operating his motor vehicle stopped at an intersection, got out, and smashed the window of a stranger's car in an unprovoked fashion. Mr. Pavelic then entered his car and drove away in an erratic manner. When driving later he lost control of his vehicle and spun around in a city intersection. He subsequently then proceeded through a red light and ignored traffic flow on the Queensway. He subsequently collided with another motor vehicle. Despite this he continued westbound on Queensway. He then struck another vehicle although he was not charged in this regard. Mr. Pavelic eventually stopped and when the police officer arrived, Mr. Pavelic was standing outside of his vehicle. Mr. Pavelic shoved the officer both hands and attempted to leave. A struggle ensued. Mr. Pavelic was arrested thereafter.”

Current Diagnosis

4. The current diagnosis as taken from the Hospital Report is as follows:

• Schizophrenia

Background and Personal History

5. Mr. Pavelic’s background and personal history are set out in detail in the Hospital Report and need not be repeated here. Briefly summarized, he is a 54-year-old man who was born in Toronto. He described himself as shy and happy as a child. His parents divorced in 1989. Mr. Pavelic denied any history of sexual or physical victimization in his childhood. He was an average student and completed high school and then attended Sheridan College for a three-year college diploma. He then completed a six-month computer diploma. Mr. Pavelic’s employment history consists of several temporary part-time positions in fast food restaurants or in warehouses. His last period of employment was in 1994. He has never been married and has no children.

6. Mr. Pavelic began using alcohol at age 13 but has never met the criteria for alcohol or substance abuse or dependence. Substance use does not appear to have been an issue in terms of the index offences.

Psychiatric History

7. Mr. Pavelic first saw a psychiatrist in 1993 as an outpatient with the possibility of a diagnosis of Attention Deficit Disorder. He was treated with the stimulant, Dexedrine, for six months. Mr. Pavelic believes that this treatment was completely responsible for his later psychological and social difficulties. Subsequently, Mr. Pavelic reports five or six admissions to hospital in Toronto for mental health issues. He states that he was treated with various medications including oral and injectable antipsychotics which he denied provided any benefit to his illness.

Position of the Parties

8. At the outset of the hearing Ms. Meaney submitted that Mr. Pavelic continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate disposition was a continuation of the current Conditional Discharge but with deletion of the requirement for Mr. Pavelic to provide UDS samples. Mr. Feindel supported the submission of the hospital. Mr. McIver submitted that Mr. Pavelic no longer represents a significant threat to the safety of the public and was therefore entitled to an Absolute Discharge.

Evidence

9. The evidence on behalf of the hospital was presented by Dr. Choptiany. He is the co-author of the Hospital Report which was entered as an exhibit. Dr. Choptiany stated that he has been Mr. Pavelic’s outpatient psychiatrist for the past 10 years. Dr. Choptiany said there were no material updates to the Hospital Report since the date of its preparation. Dr. Choptiany stated that Mr. Pavelic’s mental status has been stable throughout the past reporting year. He has attended for all his required appointments and has been compliant with his antipsychotic medication. Mr. Pavelic has not demonstrated any psychosis and primarily spends his time at home or going for walks. Mr. Pavelic does not participate in any programs and does not have any structured activities.

10. Dr. Choptiany stated that Mr. Pavelic has not made any gains in insight into his mental illness or his need for treatment. Dr. Choptiany stated that as set out in the Hospital Report, Mr. Pavelic has consistently requested reductions in his medications or changes to his medications as a result of his concern over side effects. Mr. Pavelic has also consistently been reluctant to agree to any increase in his antipsychotic medications. Mr. Pavelic has stated that he will stop taking his medications once he is no longer under this jurisdiction of the ORB. Mr. Pavelic does not have a community psychiatrist at this time. When asked about the need for a community psychiatrist, Mr. Pavelic will superficially state that he will follow up with treatment, but he does not believe that he needs either medication or the supervision of a psychiatrist once he is discharged from the ORB. Mr. Pavelic has blamed the antipsychotic medications he takes for his difficulties in the past.

11. Dr. Choptiany stated that Mr. Pavelic’s stability in the community is based on his receiving the Long-Acting Injectables (LAIs) at an adequate dose. However, even when optimally treated, Dr. Choptiany stated that Mr. Pavelic can still decompensate without cause and without any clear warning. Dr. Choptiany stated that in his opinion Mr. Pavelic does require support in the community. He stated that Mr. Pavelic’s motivation for treatment is the existence of the Conditional Discharge and Disposition. Dr. Choptiany stated that he is not surprised if Mr. Pavelic would agree to continue treatment but that he “does not have an integrated understanding of his illness and his need for medications.” When asked about the possibility of an Absolute Discharge, Dr. Choptiany stated that Mr. Pavelic would initially likely follow up with the team. However, over time he would stop keeping appointments and stop his antipsychotic medications. This would result in a decompensation in his mental status and return of his psychotic symptoms with anger, and aggressive behaviour representing a risk to the safety of the public. Dr. Choptiany stated that there have been a number of readmissions to the hospital in the past. Some of these have occurred as a result of non-adherence with oral antipsychotic medications but there have also been instances where Mr. Pavelic was on an LAI without any clear stressors which might be associated with the decompensation. Dr. Choptiany stated that Mr. Pavelic has no insight into the decompensation when it occurs.

12. In response to a question from Mr. Feindel, Dr. Choptiany stated that if Mr. Pavelic were to receive an Absolute Discharge and decided not to follow up with the treatment team on a voluntary basis then there was nothing that the hospital could do. Dr. Choptiany confirmed that Mr. Pavelic continues to state that many of his difficulties are caused by his antipsychotic medication.

13. Dr. Choptiany was asked a number of questions by Mr. McIver on Mr. Pavelic’s behalf. Dr. Choptiany stated that he meets with Mr. Pavelic once per month by way of a virtual conference. Mr. Pavelic has support in the community from both his father and his sister. He has not committed any further criminal offences, and he lives alone in a condominium. There have been no reasons for Mr. Pavelic’s caseworker to attend at his residence. He exercises by walking on a regular basis. Dr. Choptiany stated that while Mr. Pavelic has not worked for some time he has been encouraged to look for employment. Mr. Pavelic believes that he is not ready for work at this time because of the side effects of his medication. Dr. Choptiany stated that Mr. Pavelic complains about side effects on all of his medications at all doses. There is no objective evidence of the existence of the side effects mentioned.

14. Dr. Choptiany confirmed to Mr. McIver that if the Board awarded an Absolute Discharge, then Mr. Pavelic would be able to continue with the treatment team until a civil team was in place. Dr. Choptiany agreed that Mr. Pavelic had kept the peace and good behaviour as required by his Disposition during the last reporting period. When asked about Mr. Pavelic’s insight or acknowledgement of his illness, Dr. Choptiany stated that superficially he will agree that he suffers from a major mental illness. Mr. Pavelic disagrees that he suffers from an illness that includes a thought disorder and disagrees with the circumstances of the index offence.

15. In response to a question from a Board member about the non-association condition contained in the Conditional Discharge, Dr. Choptiany stated that that related to a staff member and was not connected to the index offences. He stated that the hospital wished to have this clause continue in the Disposition.

16. Dr. Choptiany confirmed that at last year's disposition hearing the hospital recommended that the necessary and appropriate disposition was a Detention Order. He stated that this was based on Mr. Pavelic being subject to rapid decompensation in his mental status. Dr. Choptiany stated that as set out in the Hospital Report, Mr. Pavelic had gone through a period of instability between 2019 and 2022. Dr. Choptiany said that the treatment team had had significant difficulty using the MHA to readmit Mr. Pavelic to hospital. On one occasion, it was only the coincidental appearance of a number of police officers and their willingness to accept Dr. Choptiany’s issuance of a form under the MHA by cell phone that Mr. Pavelic was returned to the hospital for assessment. Dr. Choptiany stated that at last year's hearing he was of the opinion that Mr. Pavelic was unstable and that the treatment team needed the authority of a Detention Order to protect the safety of the public. Dr. Choptiany stated that he was not willing to make that argument again. Dr. Choptiany was asked if, in the event of an Absolute Discharge Disposition with the civil team in place, if Mr. Pavelic would continue with treatment. He stated that Mr. Pavelic would likely fall away from treatment as he “follows his Disposition.”

17. Dr. Choptiany stated that when Mr. Pavelic reads the Hospital Report prepared for the purposes of his annual hearing, despite seeing the documented evidence of what he experiences and how he presents during his episodes of decompensation, he attributes it to a “misunderstanding or misinterpretation.”

18. There was no further evidence called at the hearing.

Submissions

19. Ms. Meaney repeated the submission made at the outset of the hearing that Mr. Pavelic continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate disposition is a continuation of the current Conditional Discharge with the deletion of the UDS sample condition. Ms. Meaney asked the Board to accept the evidence of Dr. Choptiany that Mr. Pavelic is motivated to continue with treatment and medication solely by the existence of the Conditional Discharge and his obligation to the ORB. Ms. Meaney submitted that the Board should accept Dr. Choptiany’s evidence that in the event of an Absolute Discharge it was likely that Mr. Pavelic would discontinue any treatment with the continuation of the hospital’s care or a treatment team in the community and would in all likelihood stop taking his antipsychotic medication. Based on his history, this would represent a significant threat to the safety of the community as it was likely that decompensation in his mental status would be the inevitable result. Ms. Meaney stated that Mr. Pavelic has a 30-year history of a lack of insight into both his illness and his need for treatment.

20. Mr. Feindel submitted that after hearing the evidence of Dr. Choptiany, the Attorney General was now recommending that the necessary and appropriate disposition was a Detention Order. While acknowledging that Mr. Pavelic had demonstrated some success in the community, Mr. Feindel submitted that the evidence was “unequivocal” that he will stop taking his medication. This represented a significant challenge to the treatment team in managing Mr. Pavelic’s risk to the safety of the community. Mr. Feindel submitted that the evidence of Dr. Choptiany was that it was unlikely that the MHA is sufficient to manage the risk to the safety of the public. Mr. Feindel referenced Dr. Choptiany’s evidence about the difficulties in obtaining a Form 2 and stated that it was a “fluke” that there happened to be police officers in the area when Dr. Choptiany was able to do an assessment via mobile phone. He submitted that public safety required a Detention Order.

21. Mr. McIver submitted that the evidence at the hearing supported the conclusion that Mr. Pavelic was no longer a threat to the safety of the public and was therefore entitled to an Absolute Discharge. Mr. McIver reviewed the many positive comments about Mr. Pavelic’s past reporting year including the fact that he has his own residence in the community and manages his own finances. Importantly, Mr. McIver pointed out that Mr. Pavelic has not been in breach of any of the conditions during the past reporting year and has not used substances. He has the support of his family including his father, who was present at the hearing. Mr. McIver submitted that if the Board was not persuaded with respect to an Absolute Discharge, then the necessary and appropriate disposition was a continuation of the current Conditional Discharge.

Analysis and Disposition

22. The threshold issue for the panel to determine is whether or not Mr. Pavelic continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. The “significant threat” standard is an onerous one. There must be both a likelihood of a risk materializing and the likelihood that serious harm will occur. An accused is not to be detained based on mere speculation; the Board must be satisfied as to both the existence and gravity of the risk of physical or psychological harm posed by the accused to deny them an absolute discharge. As set out in Winko (1999] 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), 2 S.C.R. 625) the threat must be:

(1) More than speculative in nature and must be supported by the evidence;

(2) Significant in the sense of there being a real risk of physical or psychological harm to individuals in the community and in the sense that this potential harm must be serious; and

(3) The conduct creating the harm must be criminal in nature.

As stated by McLachlin, J. (as she then was) at para. 69

“it is for the court or Review Board, acting in an inquisitorial capacity, to investigate the situation prevailing at the time of the hearing and determine whether the accused poses a significant threat to the safety of the public. If the record does not permit it to conclude that the person constitutes such a threat, the court or Review Board is obliged to make an order for unconditional discharge.”

23. The Ontario Court of Appeal re-emphasized the onerous test in Re: Gibson 2022 ONCA 527, per Lauwers J.A. at para. 9:

Huscroft J.A. said in Carrick (Re), 2015 ONCA 866, 128 O.R. (3d) 209, at para. 17, that “the ‘significant threat’ standard is an onerous one”. He added that “[t]he board must be satisfied as to both the existence and gravity of the risk of physical or psychological harm posed by the appellant in order to deny him an absolute discharge.” Mere speculation is insufficient. See also, Sim (Re), 2020 ONCA 563, at paras. 63-65, per Strathy C.J.O., Marmolejo (Re), 2021 ONCA 130, 155 O.R. (3d) 185, per Tulloch J.A., at paras. 33-37.

24. The Board is unanimous in finding that Mr. Pavelic continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. Mr. Pavelic has a long-standing history of schizophrenia. Even when compliant with antipsychotic medication his mental state can quickly deteriorate leading him to have catatonic and disorganized behaviour, including significant aggression requiring hospitalization and restraint. Notwithstanding the many years that Mr. Pavelic has been under the jurisdiction of the ORB and receiving the high supervision and support of the hospital, Mr. Pavelic has demonstrated a lack of insight into his mental illness, the need for treatment, and his risk of psychotic decompensation and violence if untreated. Mr. Pavelic remains incapable to consent to treatment, and his substitute decision maker is the Public Guardian and Trustee. During the past reporting year there were no changes to his medication, and his mental status has remained stable. As set out in the Hospital Report, there were no positive symptoms of psychosis including no hallucinations, delusions or grossly disorganized or catatonic behaviour. There were no episodes of aggression. Mr. Pavelic’s mood was stable, and he had no suicidal, violent or homicidal ideation.

25. To his credit, Mr. Pavelic is fully cooperative with the treatment team and attends all his required appointments and accepts medication and treatment. The difficulty arises from the aforementioned lack of insight. Mr. Pavelic simply does not believe that he suffers from any form of mental illness and is unable to identify any symptoms. He is incapable of identifying early warning symptoms of decompensation and does not view himself as a risk to the safety of others. Not surprisingly, Mr. Pavelic has not taken any steps to arrange for care or treatment from a community-based psychiatrist. Mr. Pavelic has in the past expressed an intention to either reduce or stop taking his antipsychotic medications if given that opportunity. A further significant factor in assessing Mr. Pavelic’s risk to the safety of the public is the evidence of Dr. Choptiany that even while optimally treated with antipsychotic medications and under the supervision of the treatment team Mr. Pavelic can decompensate without any apparent cause or clear warning.

26. Having made the finding of significant threat, the Board must consider the further provisions of s. 672.54 in drafting the necessary and appropriate disposition for the forthcoming reporting year. The paramount factor is the safety of the public along with Mr. Pavelic’s reintegration into the community and his other needs.

27. The Board has considered but does not accept Mr. Feindel’s submission that the necessary and appropriate disposition is a Detention Order. Mr. Feindel’s submission was based on the evidence of Dr. Choptiany that, in his opinion, the MHA is not sufficient to protect the safety of the public in the event of a decompensation in Mr. Pavelic’s mental status. Although this was the submission advanced by Dr. Choptiany and the hospital in 2025, Dr. Choptiany acknowledged that it was unsuccessful and the treatment team were obliged to manage Mr. Pavelic under the terms of the Conditional Discharge. As has been clearly set out in the Hospital Report, in the evidence, and summarized by counsel in their submissions, Mr. Pavelic has had a stable year under the terms of that Conditional Discharge. There have been no incidents of concern, no readmissions to the hospital, and no apparent change in Mr. Pavelic’s mental status. Other than Dr. Choptiany’s expressed concerns about the utility of the MHA, there is no evidence to support a submission that a disposition for the upcoming reporting year should be more onerous and restrictive than the prior year.

28. The Board is unanimous in finding that the necessary and appropriate disposition is a continuation of the current Conditional Discharge with the removal of the UDS sample condition.

DATED this 17th day of June, 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.

Mr. G. Beasley Alternate Chairperson

Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board