Re: Shawn Savory
ORB File No: 4615
Hearing held on: Tuesday, January 7, 2025
Place of hearing: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. C. Fraser
Members: Dr. B. Sheppard Dr. T. Stirpe Ms. A. La Viola Ms. R. Chopra
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Shawn Savory Counsel: Ms. B. Ryan
The Person in Charge of Hospital: Counsel: Ms. S. Zelaya
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. V. Culp
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated February 14, 2025)
Overview
On November 24, 2006, Shawn Savory was found not criminally responsible (NCR) on Criminal Code charges of assault with a weapon and mischief under $5,000.
Mr. Savory is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the Board) dated December 11, 2023, which detains him at the Forensic Service of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto (CAMH or the hospital). Mr. Savory has privileges which include to live in the community of the Greater Toronto Area in supervised accommodation approved by the person in charge.
On January 7, 2025, this panel of the Board convened a hearing at CAMH to review Mr. Savory’s disposition pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Savory initially was not present, but he later attended the hearing and was represented by counsel, Ms. Ryan.
The issues for the Board to decide were whether Mr. Savory is a significant threat to the safety of the public and, if so, what is the necessary and appropriate disposition for the coming year based on a consideration of the factors in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
At the outset of the hearing, the parties were asked for their initial positions. Hospital counsel submitted there should be no change to the current detention order disposition with the same terms and conditions. Crown counsel was generally in agreement but wished to hear evidence from the doctor on the continuing inclusion of the community living term. Counsel for Mr. Savory said his client would like to have more privileges in the coming year, but he was not requesting a change to the terms of the current disposition. The issue of significant threat to the safety of the public was uncontested by the parties.
For the reasons which follow, the Board finds Mr. Savory is a significant threat to the safety of the public and the necessary and appropriate disposition for the coming year is a continuation of the current detention order, unchanged.
Index Offences
- The circumstances of the index offences are taken from last year's Board Reasons dated January 4, 2024 at paragraph 12 as follows:
“Charge 1: Assault with a Weapon
On Tuesday June 20, 2006 at approximately 6:10 am, the victim, who is a custodian at the Finch Main Plaza located at 2437 Finch Avenue West, was sweeping the sidewalk out front of the stores in the plaza.
At this time, the victim observed the accused walking by. The victim ignored the accused until the accused asked the victim for a cigarette. The victim advised that he didn't smoke and kept sweeping.
The accused then asked the victim for money and the victim replied that he had none. The accused began yelling and swearing at the victim. The victim became upset and told the accused to leave the property.
As the victim was trying to get the accused to leave, the accused grabbed the broom from the victim and hit him over the head. The victim advised police that the accused fled once he saw that the victim was bleeding.
The victim was transported to Humber River Regional Hospital (Finch site). The victim sustained a 1.5-inch laceration to the top of his head. The victim advised police that he did not know the accused and had never seen him before.
Charge 2-11: Mischief under $5,000
On Tuesday, June 20th, 2006 at approximately 4:50 am the accused attended a closed used car dealership located at 2424 Finch Avenue West, #16.
The accused was then observed on video to smash the windows of numerous vehicles within the lot. This damage was caused by the accused throwing rocks at the vehicles. A total of nine vehicles suffered damages, ranging from $400 to $800 as a result of the smashed windows.”
Background and Course Since Last Hearing
The hospital report dated December 25, 2024 (exhibit 1) details Mr. Savory’s background history and his psychiatric and criminal offending history. These full details are in the report and can be referred to for that purpose. Some relevant material will be highlighted.
Mr. Savory is 46 years of age and has current diagnoses of schizophrenia (treatment refractory), mild intellectual disability, severe cocaine, cannabis use disorder, and alcohol use disorder, all in remission within a controlled environment, and rule out antisocial personality disorder. Mr. Savory is treatment incapable for psychiatric decisions and his mother is his substitute decision maker. He is capable to manage his financial affairs.
Mr. Savory was born in Kitchener, Ontario. He has four siblings with whom he has no contact. Mr. Savory was raised primarily by his mother and in his earlier years by his stepfather. In 2004, the Children’s Aid Society (CAS) became involved with the family due to improper discipline by Mr. Savory’s stepfather. In 2006, he was placed into care and experienced several unsuccessful foster placements due to behavioural issues. When he was 16 years old, Mr. Savory was made a Crown ward.
Mr. Savory has no significant employment history. He is financially supported by Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) benefits. Mr. Savory is single with no dependants.
Prior to the index offences, Mr. Savory had a criminal history which began in 1995, when he was a youth. Mr. Savory’s criminal record is outlined in the hospital report at pages 8 to 10 and includes offences of violence, breaches of court orders, drug possession and trafficking.
Mr. Savory experienced changes in his mental state when he was approximately 20 years of age. According to his mother, Mr. Savory began to complain of hearing voices that he believed were ghosts within him. He also described auditory and visual hallucinations and at one point wanted to go to Jamaica, believing this would help rid himself of the ghosts.
After the NCR finding, Mr. Savory was detained at Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care and remained there until December 2012 (approximately six years) at which time he was transferred to a secure forensic unit at CAMH. Mr. Savory has been on different secure forensic units within CAMH to optimize the management of his challenging behaviours.
On December 19, 2022, Mr. Savory absconded from the hospital while on an indirectly supervised pass. At the time of this AWOL, he was resident on a general forensic unit for the first time since his admission to CAMH in 2006. Mr. Savory was returned to hospital by police on September 14, 2023. As noted, he was initially admitted to the FATU. On October 25, 2023, he was transferred to the Secure Observation Treatment Unit all-male (SOTU) where he remains as of the hearing date.
Throughout the reporting period, Mr. Savory has exhibited some challenging and escalating behaviours, with notable incidents leading to high DASA (Dynamic Appraisal of Situation or Aggression – a risk assessment tool to assess the likelihood of imminent aggression) scores. This underlines the need for close monitoring and intervention. The behaviours by Mr. Savory which were observed included impulsivity, verbal and physical aggression and a frequent refusal to comply with staff directives.
The hospital report highlights at pages 49 to 51 several incidents which included verbal aggression and a physical assault on a staff member in August which required a code white (patient violence) and seclusion.
Evidence at the Hearing
Dr. Kravtsenyuk gave the evidence for the hospital at the hearing. The doctor is Mr. Savory’s treating psychiatrist, and she adopted the contents of the hospital report in her evidence.
The doctor described a generally uneventful year for Mr. Savory with little progress as he has struggled to self-motivate for program involvement and use of privileges.
Mr. Savory is currently on privilege level 1, which is escorted with staff to hospital grounds and although the team attempts daily to engage Mr. Savory to exercise this privilege, he shows a preference to stay in his room.
Mr. Savory’s mother remains his substitute decision maker. She recently retired and there was a family meeting, and the introduction of clozapine medication was discussed. This medication alternative is considered the gold standard for treatment refractory schizophrenia. It is an oral medication which requires blood work, and the team is not confident that Mr. Savory has the current stable mental status to trial this oral medication, along with the required blood work. Mr. Savory’s mother supports the introduction of clozapine medication when the time is appropriate for her son.
The doctor was asked about the plan for the coming year, and it is the team’s plan to enhance Mr. Savory’s progress through potentially new pharmacological interventions. It is hoped that if this were to occur, his engagement with programming would be greater and he would progress on the privilege ladder. Currently, this progress has been stalled as Mr. Savory has been at level 1 since the summer of last year (2024).
The doctor was asked about the continuing inclusion of the community living term in his disposition, whether it was necessary and appropriate. The doctor said that Mr. Savory would remain motivated to progress in his community reintegration if the term remains in the disposition.
The doctor noted that the negative symptoms of Mr. Savory’s schizophrenia will have to be addressed before indirectly supervised privileges are granted to either the hospital grounds or the community. The doctor was asked about the absconding risk and the doctor advised that since his lengthy AWOL (9 months), he has not expressed any interest in absconding and he prefers to stay in his room.
He does not currently receive the services of a Developmental Services Ontario worker (or funding) as he is not involved in programming.
No further evidence was called at the hearing.
The positions of the parties remained the same in final submissions. The Crown confirmed that she was not opposed to the community living term being continued in the disposition.
Analysis and Conclusion
The Board finds Mr. Savory is a significant threat to the safety of the public based on s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code, and Winko, and its related authorities.
The Board notes the issue of significant threat to the safety of the public was not contested by the parties at the hearing. Nonetheless, the Board makes its own finding of significant threat based on the expert evidence of Dr. Kravtsenyuk, as supplemented by the hospital report.
Mr. Savory has a major mental illness, schizophrenia, which is treatment refractory. He also has historically suffered from severe substance use disorders including cocaine, cannabis, and alcohol. Mr. Savory’s antisocial personality traits are another risk factor identified by the treatment team, and the Board agrees this factor has behavioural elements that are not treatment amenable with medication.
The Board notes that Mr. Savory has a criminal history for violent offences including assault, assault with a weapon, robbery, threatening, and forcible confinement. Mr. Savory also has an extensive criminal history for drug related offences, including trafficking. As indicated, the history of multiple substance use disorders have exacerbated his psychotic symptoms in the past and increased his risk for violence.
During Mr. Savory’s extended AWOL period, there is little doubt that his cannabis use resulted in a heightened risk of re-offending, albeit no reports were made to the police. Despite this, the Board accepts he would have been in a destabilized state, periodically at the very least, as he was noncompliant with his medication, chronically using cannabis, and not being followed by a psychiatrist.
The Board adopts the re-offence scenario as set out in the hospital report at page 53 as follows:
“If Mr. Savory were to re-offend, it would likely be in the context of medication non-compliance and/or substance use, resulting in re-emergence of psychotic symptoms, and him falling away from psychiatric services and treatment. In a psychotic state, he would be likely to present with delusional beliefs, auditory hallucinations, and behavioural dyscontrol, resulting in agitation, aggression, and violence towards others. This was exemplified clearly over this reporting period, whereby Mr. Savory absconded from the hospital, was lost to forensic psychiatric services, stopped taking antipsychotic medications, and began using cannabis regularly and heavily, ultimately resulting in physical violence towards others.”
The Board also notes that there have been several incidents of aggression and threatening behaviour exhibited by Mr. Savory over the past year while on a secure unit under close supervision and structure. Mr. Savory has a history of violence and a sexual assault both in hospital and in the community, including sexually assaulting a staff member on a secure unit at CAMH in 2018. He remains symptomatic and is only partially responsive to antipsychotic treatment and he experiences residual positive and profound negative symptoms of schizophrenia. All of this enhances Mr. Savory’s risk to public safety.
This is not a case where a conditional discharge disposition requires serious consideration. Mr. Savory is an inpatient on a secure unit at the hospital and his recovery trajectory is uncertain due to his current unstable mental status. He is not yet at his psychiatric baseline, and he is sub-optimally treated with antipsychotic medication. The Board accepts, without hesitation, that the appropriate accommodation for Mr. Savory will be supervised with a high degree of structure and oversight when he is clinically ready for discharge. The Board observes that this is unlikely to occur within the coming year.
When Mr. Savory is discharged to the community, the hospital will require the authority to designate where he resides as it will be supervised accommodation. This requires a detention order. See Runnalls (Re) 2012 ONCA 295 at para.12. The hospital will also need to return Mr. Savory to hospital rapidly in the event of a decompensation. This is to ensure public safety. The significant criminal history of Mr. Savory and his tendency to decompensate rapidly necessitates this response. The use of the Mental Health Act would create undue delay leading to an increased risk of violence.
Based on the foregoing, the Board accepts the joint recommendation of the parties for a continuation of the current detention order, unchanged.
In arriving at our conclusion, the Board has considered the paramount factor of the safety of the public, Mr. Savory’s mental condition, his community reintegration, and his other needs, all as required by s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
A disposition will issue accordingly.
DATED this 14th day of February, 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Mr. C. Fraser Alternate Chairperson
__________________ Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board