COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
Rosenberg, Epstein and Lauwers JJ.A.
IN THE MATTER OF: SCOTT J. SCHUTZMAN a.k.a. PROFESSOR STARSON
AN APPEAL UNDER PART XX.1 OF THE CODE
Professor Starson, appearing in person
Anita Szigeti, amicus curaie
Avene Derwa, for the Crown
Janice Blackburn, for the person in charge of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health
Heard: January 22, 2013
On appeal against the disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated, June 17, 2012.
ENDORSEMENT
1Professor Starson appeals the June 17, 2012 disposition of the Ontario Review Board in which the Board, rather than granting the appellant the absolute discharge he sought, granted a conditional discharge on terms that included reporting to the person in charge of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health once a week.
2The appellant has been detained in various mental health facilities since November 1998 when he was found not criminally responsible for two counts of threatening death.
3While exceptionally gifted in physics, Professor Starson unfortunately suffers from a condition identified as schizoaffective disorder. At this point his symptoms, which include extremely intimidating behaviour, are controlled by anti-psychotic medication.
4The appellant, supported by amicus, argues before this court as he did before the Board, that the evidence does not support a finding that he "poses a "significant threat" to public safety" per Winko v. BC (Forensic Psychiatric Institute), (1999) 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), 135 C.C.C (3d) 129 (SCC) per McLachlin J. at p. 163, para 61, and therefore the Board erred in not ordering an absolute discharge.
5In our view, based on the circumstances at the time of the hearing, the Board reasonably concluded that the appellant "remains a significant threat to the safety of the public". The Board relied on the expert medical evidence of Dr. Mark Pearce, who is Professor Starson's long-time psychiatrist, and on the historical evidence referred to by Dr. Pearce and laid out in the medical history. The evidence was overwhelming that if he were to be unsupervised, the appellant would immediately stop all medication; this, in fact, was his own evidence. The Board found that without his medication the appellant would quickly decompensate and become delusional, and would soon engage in threatening behaviour that would create a significant risk of harm to members of the public.
6After balancing the goals of public safety with fair treatment of the appellant, the Board also reasonably concluded that a discharge with conditions that would ensure that his condition is regularly monitored and that he takes his medication, was the "least onerous and least restrictive" disposition available.
7The Board's conclusions are owed considerable deference: R. v. Owen, (2003) 2003 SCC 33, 174 C.C.C. (3d) 1 (SCC). Given that the Board made no error of law and that its findings were supported by the evidence, there is no basis to interfere.
8The appeal is therefore dismissed.
"M. Rosenberg J.A."
"Gloria Epstein J.A."
"P. Lauwers J.A."