Re: Scott J. Schutzman aka Prof. Starson
ORB File No: 2852
Hearing held on: Wednesday, February 26, 2025
Place of hearing: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health 1001 Queen Street West, Toronto
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. C. Fraser
Members: Dr. W. Johnston Dr. H. Moulden Ms. C. Murray Mr. J. Cyr
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Scott J. Schutzman aka Prof. Starson Amicus Curiae: Ms. A. Szigeti
The Person in Charge of Hospital: Counsel: Ms. M. Warner
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. V. Culp
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated April 10, 2025)
Overview
On November 24, 1998, Scott J. Schutzman aka Prof. Starson, was found not criminally responsible on two counts of utter threat to cause death, contrary to the Criminal Code. At the outset of the hearing, it was confirmed that the accused prefers to be addressed as Prof. Starson. He will be referred to by that name in these Reasons.
Prof. Starson is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the Board) dated March 1, 2024, detaining him at the general forensic unit of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto (CAMH or the Hospital). Prof. Starson has the privilege to live in the community in accommodation approved by the person in charge. He is currently a resident in LOFT transitional housing located on the campus of CAMH.
On February 26, 2025, this panel of the Board convened a hearing at CAMH for the annual review of Prof. Starson’s disposition pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Prof. Starson was present for the hearing and was assisted by Amicus Curiae, Ms. Szigeti.
The issues for the panel to decide were first whether Prof. Starson remains 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 recommended a continuation of the current detention order with a modification to the reporting term to permit Prof. Starson to report not less than once every four weeks. He currently is required to report not less than once every two weeks. Crown counsel anticipated supporting the Hospital position. Prof. Starson requested an absolute discharge or habeas corpus. Ms. Szigeti asked the Board to consider a conditional discharge disposition in the alternative, with his current residence named in the disposition as the place where he would reside.
For the reasons which follow, the Board finds Prof. Starson 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, with some modifications. The Board concluded that the testing term in the disposition is no longer necessary and appropriate. The Board also agreed to a lesser reporting condition based on the joint recommendation of the parties.
Index Offences
- The circumstances of the index offences can be set out briefly. The landlord at the premises where Prof. Starson was residing called police over an apparent landlord/tenant dispute. Police were dispatched but took some time in arriving. A police dispatcher called the residence to say the police would be late in attending but were coming. The telephone was answered by another tenant. Prof. Starson picked up the phone receiver and threatened the other tenant’s life. Police took him into custody. On the way to the station, he threatened one of the attending officers.
Background and Course Since Last Hearing
Prof. Starson is 69 years of age. He has a current diagnosis of schizophrenia. He has been under the jurisdiction of the Board for approximately 27 years. Prof. Starson is capable of managing his own finances and is supported by a CPP disability pension. He is incapable of consenting to treatment for his major mental disorder and the Public Guardian and Trustee had been acting as his substitute decision maker until he appointed Ms. Sandra Alexander as his Attorney Personal Care (POA) in December 2021.
This matter has a very long history. In last year’s Reasons of the Board dated March 14, 2024, Prof. Starson’s extensive history under the Board is detailed and we adopt again this information. It is not necessary to repeat this information in these Reasons. A useful starting point of relevance is the period from February 2022 to the present.
“In February 2022, Starson was transferred to a general forensic unit 1-4 (FGUC) under the care of his current attending psychiatrist. He continued to demonstrate significant delusional ideation and auditory hallucinations, including grandiose bizarre beliefs about his personal wealth, intelligence, being a “supreme life form”, political powers, telepathic abilities, collaboration with alien life forms, and scientific capabilities. He believed he was not a patient at CAMH. He could become irritable and upset if challenged on his beliefs and/or not addressed as “Professor” or by his last name. If he felt disrespected or upset, he would make threats that aliens would massacre thousands of people and refuse to follow instructions. He did not, however, make direct threats to harm individuals himself. Despite the persistent delusional content, there were no incidents of physical aggression, nor need for chemical or physical restraint.
From February 2022 to July 2023, Starson resided on the general forensic unit 1-4 (FGUC) under the care of Dr. Benassi. Following his discharge from hospital, he has been followed as an outpatient under the expanded forensic outpatient service (EFOPS) as well as psychiatrists associated with the LOFT transitional housing team.”
Prof. Starson continues to reside at LOFT transitional housing. He delusionally believes he financed and owns the property outright. Prof. Starson has expressed a willingness to stay indefinitely, however, this is not feasible as the facility is intended for short-term (up to two years) transitional housing. Prof. Starson has been at the residence since July 2023. In November (2024), the Expanded Forensic Outpatient Team (EFOPS) encouraged him to tour a permanent residence operated by LOFT (St. Anne’s). It was during this visit that he made verbal threats claiming that all tenants there would die, and they were not “life forms”. Prof. Starson indicated that he would only accept living in the White House or the penthouse suite of a luxury downtown hotel. He has expressed resistance to exploring other permanent housing options.
As noted at page 47 of the hospital report:
“Mr. Starson continues to display significant, bizarre, and grandiose delusional ideation, along with auditory hallucinations. His complex delusions center on the belief that he is an omnipotent life form currently inhabiting a humanoid body. He claims to possess extraordinary political influence, telepathic abilities, scientific expertise, superior intelligence, and enhanced physical capabilities. He believes he controls the world through a geopolitical and science chat room and can communicate telepathically with world leaders and elites. He often draws connections between current events he observes in the media and his delusions, sometimes attributing these events to alien involvement or claiming that he orchestrated them.”
As further noted in the hospital report at page 47, the delusions experienced by Prof. Starson significantly affect his daily life which can lead to concerning behaviours as he becomes easily irritated and upset if his beliefs are challenged or if he is not addressed by a name that he prefers, such as “Superman” or “Prof. Starson”. An example of his concerning behaviour occurred when he was informed he could not smoke marijuana in front of the hospital entrance. In response Prof. Starson made delusional threats, claiming “people are going to be killed because of this”. Although Prof. Starson makes these threats of death when frustrated, he denies any violent intentions and there has been no physical assaultive behaviour by Prof. Starson since 2008. He often suggests that acts of violence will be carried out by aliens.
As noted in last year’s Disposition there was a term permitting Prof. Starson to use cannabis under restrictive conditions. He began using cannabis in early March of last year. He reportedly smokes half a joint approximately every five hours, claiming it enhances his intelligence and improves his motor symptoms. He has been willing to show the EFOPS team the packaging of his cannabis products. He has been advised to choose products with a lower THC content; however, he prefers products with a higher content (above 26 percent THC). Of note, his cannabis use does not appear to exacerbate his psychotic symptoms, and he remains compliant with his antipsychotic treatment. Prof. Starson has consistently refused urine drug screens.
Evidence at the Hearing
Dr. Benassi gave the evidence for the Hospital. The doctor has been Prof. Starson’s psychiatrist since February 2022. The doctor has treated Prof. Starson both as an inpatient and now as an outpatient with EFOPS.
The doctor did not have any material updates to provide since the preparation of the hospital report. He commended Prof. Starson on having a strong working relationship with the EFOPS team. Over the course of the past year, they have been able to build trust. This has not always been easy. In the past, Prof. Starson’s many readmissions were due to his fluctuating mental status and the uneven relationship with the professionals he was working with.
Prof. Starson likes where he is currently living at the LOFT residence. It meets his needs both medically and for his mental health. As noted, it is transitional housing, and the team needs to find permanent housing for Prof. Starson, in a residence where he is comfortable. The doctor acknowledged that this goal will be challenging as Prof. Starson has settled views on where he wants to live.
LOFT transitional housing is not operated by CAMH but by a separate community organization and it is a partnership with CAMH. Control over bed allocation and whether housing is transitional (and for how long) is strictly up to LOFT to determine.
The doctor highlighted some of Prof. Starson’s physical needs which include his motor abnormalities (medication related) leading to difficulties with personal care and meal preparation, both of which he receives assistance with by workers at LOFT.
The doctor described the LOFT residence as very high support and akin to an inpatient setting or a long-term care facility. The staff at LOFT monitor Prof. Starson’s symptoms, his medication compliance and they assist with medical appointments and going to the bank, purchasing items including clothing. Prof. Starson enjoys a very good relationship with his case manager, Ms. Dam. He has contact with her several times a week (she was present at the hearing).
The doctor supported less reporting as a recognition of the rehabilitative gains made by Prof. Starson over the past year. In addition to Dr. Benassi, there are two psychiatrists at LOFT housing available to Prof. Starson. He also has an outpatient worker and an occupational therapist. Dr. Benassi anticipated that his involvement would potentially lessen over the course of time and a less restrictive reporting condition is consistent with this goal.
Dr. Benassi adopted the Composite Assessment of Risk as set out at page 54 of the hospital report and he also adopted by reference his recommendation for a detention order rather than a conditional discharge as set out at page 55 of the hospital report. For completeness the Composite Assessment of Risk at page 54 is as follows:
“Given the ongoing positive symptoms of Starson’s illness, the historical severity of his psychosis and propensity for violence absent treatment, his ongoing delusionally-informed violent attitudes and pattern of threatening and intimidating behaviour, his lengthy history of non-compliance, and very poor insight, the clinical team believes that he continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public, as defined in the Criminal Code. Absent a detention order of the ORB, there is a high likelihood that Starson would disengage from care and discontinue medication, resulting in deterioration within days to weeks. At that juncture, he would in all likelihood become verbally threatening and possibly physically aggressive towards others. When untreated, his risk of causing serious psychological harm to others is high.”
The doctor did not support a conditional discharge as appropriate at this time as the clinical team requires the ability to intervene quickly and efficiently to bring him back to hospital prior to Prof. Starson becoming certifiable under the Mental Health Act. The doctor also indicated that the team needs to approve housing as the current residence is strictly transitional housing and they are in the process of finding a more permanent placement. In the event this transition takes place in the coming year, this will be a time of potential stress for Prof. Starson and there is the need to return him to hospital in the event of mental status decompensation. It was clear in the evidence of Dr. Benassi that the more salient aspect of the need for a detention order was the ability to approve housing. The Hospital requires the ability to maintain him in the hospital until suitable accommodation is available and the ability as noted in the hospital report to remove him from housing should it become inappropriate in terms of managing his risk.
To alleviate the issue of Prof. Starson’s smoking cannabis and his desire to do so inside (which is not permitted at the residence or on hospital grounds) the doctor suggested oils or edibles to Prof. Starson. Prof. Starson prefers smoking dried leaves and was not in agreement with switching over to oils or edibles. He has been allowed to smoke outside the residence, which technically is not permitted. They make a special allowance for him.
It was confirmed in questions from Amicus Curiae, Ms. Szigeti, that since the finding of NCR approximately 27 years under the jurisdiction of the Board there has been no serious physical harm. There have been two incidents, the last being in 2008 and although there has been no overt physical violence there have been verbal threats including in the past year as noted earlier in these Reasons. Dr. Benassi confirmed that no psychological distress was reported by these individuals who were proximate to the threats being uttered and no one has expressed fear for their safety as a result. Dr. Benassi said it needs to be put into context as he has worked with Prof. Starson for years and he is better able to understand the threatening comments.
Regarding the issue of naming his current residence under a conditional discharge disposition Dr. Benassi said the challenge is that they have to move Prof. Starson and they are currently working on a placement for permanent housing. For this reason, the Hospital requires the authority to approve accommodation to ensure it suits Prof. Starson’s needs and is consistent with addressing issues of public safety. As Dr. Benassi said “we need the tools of a detention order” to facilitate this transition goal. Dr. Benassi also noted that in moving to another residence it is a key transitional period and there would be a need to intervene, if necessary, if there was difficulty in Prof. Starson’s mental status because of the move. The doctor did not agree that Prof. Starson would come to hospital voluntarily if asked for admission. As noted, although Prof. Starson will come to scheduled meetings it is very different if he was asked to come to hospital for admission as he does not accept that he needs to be in the hospital. He does not believe he is a patient and, therefore, would not cooperate voluntarily. The doctor agreed that he could complete a Form 1 for admission under the Mental Health Act if necessary and call for an early Board to change the residence term. The doctor did not view this option as the best or practical available option. It did not ensure Prof. Starson’s continued admission in the Hospital pending placement in alternate housing.
Dr. Benassi did not think Prof. Starson would be a good fit for a long-term care facility, primarily because of his level of independence.
In response to questions from the panel, Dr. Benassi agreed that there would be no difficulty in removing the testing requirement (urine drug screens) and he supported the removal. The only substance of concern is cannabis, and he is permitted to use the drug and as a practical matter he refuses all urine drug screens in any event.
Prof. Starson gave brief evidence at the hearing. He expressed that he did not think he was at the stage yet of an absolute discharge or habeas corpus and acknowledged that he was making progress. He was appreciative of the decision of the Board from last year to remove the restriction on cannabis use and he said he feels much better when he is consuming cannabis. He would like to smoke inside as it would give him a better high and there is evidence to support this, according to Prof. Starson. He would like to go on TV and explain everything. Prof. Starson did not seem to like the idea of less reporting as he enjoys a good relationship with the outpatient team and Dr. Benassi. It was clarified for Prof. Starson that this is a minimum reporting requirement and that he could continue to see members of the team and the doctor. The Board thanked Prof. Starson for his evidence.
In final submissions, the parties maintained their initial positions from the outset. One clarification in submissions advanced by Ms. Szigeti was to clarify that Prof. Starson would not object to an absolute discharge but he did not think he was there yet. He was satisfied with the progress he had made. The Board asked if Prof. Starson would consent to a treatment clause, s. 672.55 of the Criminal Code, if a conditional discharge disposition was granted. He did not provide his consent.
Analysis and Conclusion
Significant Threat
- The threshold issue for the Board to consider is whether Prof. Starson remains a significant threat to the safety of the public.
Applicable Law
Parliament has defined that term in s. 672.5401 to mean “a risk of serious physical or psychological harm to members of the public...resulting from conduct that is criminal in nature but not necessarily violent”. Public safety has been determined by Parliament to be the paramount consideration. Thus, by the words chosen, the level of harm which could be created must be significant, not minimal or a mere annoyance.
The Supreme Court decision in Winko remains instructive as to how to interpret this section. A risk must be real and objectively supportable, not remote, theoretical or exist only due to one person’s fears (See: Winko v. British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute), 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] S.C.J. No. 31, at paras. 57, 62).
The Court of Appeal has also emphasized that the test to be applied is stringent, and there must be both a likelihood of risk materializing and the likelihood of serious harm occurring. Speculation as to the level of risk is not sufficient. It is recognized that the absence of violent behaviour in itself does not eliminate the risk of significant harm to the public. Similarly, lack of insight into the index offences, the discontinuation of medication and substance abuse are all factors to consider (see: Re: Sheikh, 2019 ONCA 692; Re: Krist, 2019 ONCA 802; Re: Abdulle, 2019 ONCA 812).
That Court 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.
Findings
Prof. Starson suffers from a serious mental illness, schizophrenia. The question for the Board is whether the presence of this illness creates a reasonable likelihood of danger to the public. The Board is aware that the evidence indicates Prof. Starson has not engaged in physical violence since 2008. Although Prof. Starson has had multiple periods of psychotic deterioration since 2008, they have not been associated with any direct physical violence. This is not the complete answer to the issue of significant threat. Prof. Starson has a long history of threatening and intimidation, conduct which has continued in the past reporting year with threats to others. The Board understands that the threats must be made to instill fear and to be taken seriously.
Prof. Starson has a long history of threatening behaviour detailed in the hospital report. His targets have included his attending psychiatrists, health care providers, the police, and people in the community. He has had to be moved to more secure hospital units or have his attending doctors changed due to his behaviour. His actions demonstrate an attempt to dominate and intimidate others. The Board is satisfied that there is a high likelihood of significant psychological harm to others from his actions. This aspect of Prof. Starson’s risk has remained unchanged over time.
Prof. Starson has very little insight into his mental illness or the need for treatment. He does not believe he has a mental illness. He does not recognize the oversight of the Board, or the Hospital, as playing any role in his recovery as he lacks insight into the nature and severity of his mental illness. The functioning and role of forensic system has no meaning to Prof. Starson. This is a theme he has repeatedly stated over the many years he has been under the Board’s jurisdiction and it remains a risk factor.
The Board is satisfied that if Prof. Starson was not under the jurisdiction of the Board, he would likely become verbally threatening after disengaging from care and discontinuing his medication. This is the expert opinion of Dr. Benassi, which the Board accepts. If untreated, Prof. Starson would be at risk of causing serious psychological harm to others and the risk of occurrence is considered high. The Board finds that other persons would feel fear from Prof. Starson’s threats and that the threats would be taken seriously. It is on this basis that the Board makes a positive finding that Prof. Starson is a significant threat to the safety of the public.
Necessary and Appropriate Disposition
The issue for the Board is whether a detention order or a conditional discharge disposition is appropriate. The Board agrees that the ability to approve Prof. Starson’s housing is critical to risk management. The current residence for Prof. Starson is only transitional and as of July he will have reached the mandated two-year maximum for staying at the residence. Despite LOFT having some flexibility in the timing of the transition, the reality of the situation is Prof. Starson will require permanent housing sooner than later, and the Hospital requires the authority to approve suitable accommodation given his high level of needs and concerns for public safety. It is simply not feasible or practical to name his current residence (on a conditional discharge) as it is transitional housing with the time limitation.
There is also the need to readily intervene and return Prof. Starson to hospital if the transition to new housing acts as a stressor and leads to decompensation in his mental status. On the evidence, which the Board accepts, Prof. Starson would not voluntarily return to hospital, if asked, and the provisions of the Mental Health Act would be inadequate to allow the Hospital to act quickly and return Prof. Starson to the Hospital for admission. A detention order provides certainty of timely intervention and admission to the Hospital for stabilization. These critical risk management factors are not as certain under a conditional discharge disposition. It is the factor of certainty which the Board finds is necessary to optimize public safety.
The Board notes that Prof. Starson did not agree to a consent to treatment term in a proposed conditional discharge disposition (s. 672.55 of the Criminal Code). He is not required to consent, but the absence of the ability of the Hospital to treat him highlights the inappropriateness of a conditional discharge. The Board is satisfied, on the evidence, that if given the choice, Prof. Starson would not take his anti-psychotic medication. This is a risk factor.
The Board agrees that the urine drug screen testing provision is no longer necessary and appropriate, and it can be deleted. The Board also agrees that the efforts of Prof. Starson over the past year justifies a reduction in the reporting term to not less than once per month. This change is appropriate.
The Board wishes Prof. Starson well in the coming year and sincerely hopes that alternate permanent housing can be found for him which is suitable for all concerned.
In arriving at our disposition, the Board has considered the paramount factor of public safety, Prof. Starson’s community reintegration, his mental condition and his other needs as required by s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
DATED this 10^th^ day of April, 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Mr. C. Fraser
Alternate Chairperson
__________________
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board