Court of Appeal for Ontario

Date: 20221102 Docket: C70367

Fairburn A.C.J.O., Doherty and Lauwers JJ.A.

In the Matter of: Scott J. Schutzman (a.k.a. Prof. Starson)

An Appeal Under Part XX.1 of the Code

Counsel: Anita Szigeti, for the appellant, Prof. Starson Leisha Senko, for the respondent, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health Joshua W. P. White, for the respondent, His Majesty the King

Heard and released orally: October 31, 2022

On appeal from the disposition of the Ontario Review Board, dated January 26, 2022, with reasons dated February 16, 2022.

Reasons for Decision

[1] The appellant argues that the Board erred by concluding that he remains a significant threat to public safety. We do not agree. The Board’s reasons set out the factual underpinnings that support this conclusion. This includes the finding, at para. 40 of the Board’s reasons, as follows.

The Board accepts that Professor Starson has very little to no insight into his mental illness and the need for medication and that he would not accept medication if the decision was his alone, resulting in a deterioration of his condition and a worsening of his behaviour. This would put the public at significant risk.

[2] The appellant also maintains that the Board erred by failing to consider whether a conditional discharge was the least onerous and least restrictive disposition. Although the Board does not specifically use the term “conditional discharge”, it is clear from the reasons that the Board concluded that a detention order was the only order available in the circumstances.

[3] Finally, we do not accept that the Board erred by providing direction to the Hospital as opposed to ordering the Hospital to work on a discharge plan. As the Board noted, at para. 42:

This panel was troubled by the evidence that there is no discharge plan in place for Professor Starson. This Board expects the Hospital to engage its resources to locate appropriate accommodation for him so that it is available when the Hospital decides to discharge Professor Starson into the community.

[4] There is no legal error in how the Board proceeded.

[5] The appeal is dismissed.

“Fairburn A.C.J.O.”

“Doherty J.A.”

“P. Lauwers J.A.”