Ontario Review Board
Re: Andre Schugt
ORB File No: 8496
Hearing held on: Thursday, April 24, 2025
Place of hearing: Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences 700 Gordon Street, Whitby
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Ms. L. Silver
Members: Dr. R. Wood Hill Dr. G. Stones Mr. D. D’Intino Mr. J. Cyr
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Andre Schugt Counsel: Ms. J. Boissonneault
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. J. Szabo
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. T. Hewitt
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated May 12, 2025)
Introduction
On February 13, 2024, Mr. Andre Schugt was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on charges of aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, and possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada.
The Board convened in person at Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences (“ “the Hospital”) on April 24, 2025, to review Mr. Schugt’s disposition.
At the time of the hearing, Mr. Schugt was subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated April 16, 2024, which ordered his detention at the Hospital, with privileges including indirectly supervised community passes.
At the outset of the proceedings, the parties were canvassed regarding their positions on the two issues before the Board:
i) Whether Mr. Schugt continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public, and
ii) If so, what disposition is necessary and appropriate, in accordance with the criteria set out in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code of Canada.
Counsel for the Hospital, Ms. Szabo, submitted that Mr. Schugt continues to pose a significant threat and recommended no changes to the current disposition. Counsel for the Ministry of the Attorney General, Mr. T. Hewitt, concurred. Ms. Boissonneault, counsel for Mr. Schugt, also agreed that he continues to present a significant threat and that a detention order is warranted but advocated for the inclusion of a community living privilege clause at accommodation approved by the person in charge, along with an expansion of his supervised and unsupervised privileges from up to 12 hours to up to 24 hours, as referenced in clauses 2(d) and (e) of the 2024 disposition.
For the reasons outlined below, the panel concludes that Mr. Schugt continues to pose a significant threat to public safety. A detention order remains necessary and appropriate, on the same terms and conditions as last year.
Index Offence
- The following summary is drawn from the Agreed Statement of Facts, as documented in the Hospital Report and transcripts from the NCR hearing dated February 13, 2024:
On October 11, 2023, police responded to a stabbing incident at 2 Millstone Crescent, Whitby, following a 911 call from Marlene Kirby-Schugt, reporting that her husband, Mr. Claudio Schugt, had been stabbed. Upon arrival, police found Claudio Schugt with multiple stab wounds to his arm and thigh, two of which were serious and bleeding heavily. Another individual, Andre Schugt, was located in the home with a stab wound above his right knee.
Claudio Schugt reported that he had been stabbed while sleeping but did not see the assailant due to the darkness. Police recovered two knives from the scene – one clean and found in the bathroom, and another in the bed where the assault occurred. Only Claudio, Marlene, and their son, Andre, were in the home at the time.
Claudio Schugt required approximately 20 stitches. Andre Schugt was arrested and charged with aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, and possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose. After receiving medical treatment for his own injury, Mr. (Andre) Schugt admitted in the recorded police statement that he had retrieved a kitchen knife and stabbed his father while he slept.
Diagnoses
- Mr. Schugt has been diagnosed with unspecified schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorders.
Legal History
The Hospital Report outlines multiple previous interactions between Mr. Schugt and law enforcement. Between 2016 and 2020, he was involved in two motor vehicle collisions: one in which he was rear-ended, and another in which he veered off the highway and struck a tree, possibly due to light-headedness. He was stopped by police on one occasion for driving with an expired validation sticker and on two occasions for speeding.
In addition, in late 2019, his father reported him missing after he left home unexpectedly. However, Mr. Schugt later contacted the police to clarify that he had been on vacation with friends.
On November 25, 2020, Mr. Schugt voluntarily surrendered a rifle to police for destruction, citing new government regulations.
On June 4, 2021, Mr. Schugt was arrested after being found on a boat he did not own, drinking beer and acting confrontationally. He was charged with theft and mischief under $5,000.
Later that day, police responded to a report of an armed individual at a family residence. Mr. Schugt was seen with a firearm. Neighbours and family members noted concerns about his mental health. He was apprehended and made unusual comments referencing “the hangman” and enjoying police attention. He was subsequently hospitalized and certified under the Mental Health Act.
Psychiatric History
According to the Hospital Report, Mr. Schugt has a documented psychiatric history leading up to the index offence, including multiple hospitalizations between June 2021 and October 2022.
In June 2021, he was first apprehended under the Mental Health Act following a standoff with police during which he barricaded himself at home with multiple firearms. He was diagnosed with psychosis NOS, marked by paranoid delusions.
In early 2022, he sought assistance for medication side effects and later reported depressive symptoms linked to family stress. He was diagnosed with major depressive disorder. By October 2022, he presented with worsening paranoia and suicidal ideation. His diagnosis was updated to an unspecified schizophrenia spectrum disorder, and antipsychotic treatment was initiated.
Substance Use
- Mr. Schugt reported early substance use beginning in childhood, including the misuse of a steroid inhaler to achieve a high. In high school and university, he experimented with cannabis, alcohol, MDMA, cocaine, mushrooms, and LSD, although he denied regular use. He later developed a pattern of caffeine consumption. He also experienced episodes of paranoia and delusional thinking, attributing these to perceived drugging by family or foreign governments. He now believes these experiences were early signs of psychosis.
Personal History
- Mr. Schugt holds a degree in film production. He spent approximately a year on a farm in the United States associated with a Buddhist cult. He has held various short-term jobs and once considered a military career, which did not materialize. In 2019, he experienced homelessness and lived in his car.
Recent History Documented in the Hospital Report
Mr. Schugt was admitted to the Forensic Assessment Unit on February 13, 2024, following the NCR verdict.
Due to his history of recurrent psychosis, antipsychotic treatment was recommended. Initially, he declined medication due to concerns about side effects.
On April 10, 2024 —one day before his initial ORB hearing—he agreed to begin Abilify at 5 mg daily. He discontinued it one week later, believing it affected his eye pressure. Examination by a nurse practitioner found no significant issue.
On May 3, 2024, Mr. Schugt was transferred to the Forensic Rehabilitation Unit (FRU), a secure forensic setting where he remains. At the time of transfer, he was experiencing paranoid ideation and delusional beliefs, particularly involving his father's identity.
The Hospital documented multiple incidents of irritability, aggression, and verbal outbursts.
Mr. Schugt repeatedly refused or discontinued medication, citing fears of side effects and delusional beliefs. He displayed paranoia and hostility, especially toward staff and family, while denying psychiatric illness.
On October 1, 2024, Mr. Schugt was found incapable of consenting to psychiatric treatment - a decision upheld by the Consent and Capacity Board. Initially, the SDM declined consent for injectable antipsychotic medication but later consented following a behavioural incident in January 2025. The injection was eventually discontinued due to side effects.
On March 18, 2025, Mr. Schugt began treatment with oral Invega. His condition improved markedly —he became more engaged, stabilized in mood, used privileges appropriately, and showed no further aggression. He also began actively participating in therapy and family sessions.
Evidence of Dr. Bhullar
Dr. Bhullar, Mr. Schugt’s treating psychiatrist, testified at the hearing. Mr. Schugt continues to reside on the Hospital's secure forensic unit.
Mr. Schugt has had a challenging year, as detailed in the Hospital Report, including several incidents of concern, most notably an elopement attempt in August 2024. However, since initiating Invega Sustenna on March 18 and titrating up to 6 milligrams on April 1st, there has been a noticeable improvement in his symptoms and overall presentation.
As of last week, Mr. Schugt has advanced to level 2 privileges for the first time. This status permits him supervised access to indoor and outdoor areas on Hospital grounds in the company of peers and staff. However, Dr. Bhullar was opposed to extending his privileges further at this time, specifically, she did not support granting 24-hour passes or a community living clause.
Dr. Bhullar clarified that there is no realistic expectation that Mr. Schugt will attain the requested higher privilege level or become eligible for community living within the next reporting year. While there have been some signs of improvement in symptomatology and engagement with treatment, his recovery remains in the early stages. Historically, Mr. Schugt has exhibited resistance to medication and a pattern of guarded, uncooperative, and oppositional behavior toward the treatment team. Although he has recently consented to diagnostic assessments, these are still pending. His stress tolerance and coping mechanisms require significant development before further privileges can be considered. Further assessment is also needed to gain a clearer understanding of the impact of his personality traits on his overall clinical presentation.
Although Mr. Schugt has recently complied with oral medication and shows some improvement in insight, it remains limited. He continues to express uncertainty about the role of his psychotic illness in the index offence, instead attributing his actions to psychosocial stressors such as unemployment and financial difficulties. He has a longstanding history of resistance to psychotropic medications.
Dr. Bhullar stated that it is essential to observe how Mr. Schugt progresses through the current privilege structure before any expansion or inclusion of a community living clause can be responsibly considered.
His medication dosage was only recently titrated to 6 milligrams. While the current regimen appears to be effective, a longer observation period is necessary to confirm whether this is a therapeutic dose and to assess whether Mr. Schugt will remain compliant and continue to progress.
When asked why the requested privilege expansions could not be included in the disposition, given that the Hospital would still retain discretion over their implementation, Dr. Bhullar testified that such provisions would not serve as motivation or incentive for Mr. Schugt, as they might for other patients.
On the contrary, she believed it could be counterproductive and potentially trigger conflict with the treatment team. Dr. Bhullar explained that Mr. Schugt’s personality traits do not support the inclusion of such provisions at this time. Over the past year, he has frequently challenged the boundaries of his privileges, resulting in ongoing tension with staff.
In response to Ms. Boissoneault’s questions, Dr. Bhullar acknowledged that Mr. Schugt began taking oral antipsychotic medication in February but experienced significant adverse side effects. Consequently, the switch to Invega Sustenna was made in March. She also confirmed that his psychotic symptoms have been contained since February, and there have been no incidents of aggression or violence since that time.
Dr. Bhullar emphasized that even without a community living clause in the disposition, the treatment team retains the authority to place Mr. Schugt on a waitlist for community accommodation if they determine he is approaching readiness for such a transition.
Finally, Dr. Bhullar stressed that the therapeutic rapport being built with Mr. Schugt remains fragile, and more time is needed to monitor his stability and progress before any expansion of privileges can be responsibly supported. Dr. Bhullar concluded her evidence by stating that the plan for the upcoming year is for Mr. Schugt to achieve medication optimization, complete recommended treatment groups, and continue working through privileges while his treatment team monitors his clinical progress.
Evidence of Mr. Schugt
Mr. Schugt testified that he is committed to managing his symptoms and rebuilding his life. He expressed his intention to remain compliant with his medication, stating, “It is working and I have no other option.”
He described his current confinement at Ontario Shores as “bleak” and said that gaining 24-hour passes would be a significant motivator. Referring to the possibility as “a light at the end of the tunnel,” he reiterated his desire to be discharged, resume his life, and return to employment as soon as possible.
Analysis and Conclusion- Significant Threat
The Board finds clear and uncontested evidence that Mr. Schugt continues to pose a significant threat to public safety.
His history of aggressive behavior, closely tied to his psychotic symptoms, began in 2021 and culminated in the index offence. This violence appears primarily driven by paranoia, persecutory delusions, and other psychotic experiences.
Several persistent risk factors contribute to the likelihood of reoffending, including a major mental illness, a documented history of violence, chronic non-adherence to medication, and limited insight into his illness and treatment needs.
During the review period, Mr. Schugt exhibited active psychotic symptoms such as ideas of reference, paranoia, and persecutory delusions. These symptoms contributed to significant emotional and behavioral instability, marked by irritability, agitation, verbal and environmental aggression, and altercations with co-patients. His inconsistent engagement in treatment, frequent conflicts with staff, and the persistence of high-risk behaviors have further undermined therapeutic progress.
While he has recently demonstrated encouraging signs of progress, such as better cooperation, participation in programming, appropriate use of limited privileges, and medication compliance, these gains have occurred only within a highly structured and supervised environment. They have yet to be sustained over time or proven effective in less controlled settings.
Mr. Schugt continues to demonstrate limited insight into his illness, including denying the impact of his symptoms, and a history of medication non-compliance. A serious incident in August 2024, during which he attempted to elope, claimed to have a knife, and required police intervention, highlights the ongoing risk of emotional and behavioral deterioration.
Though he has only recently advanced to Level 2 privileges, the Board finds any further increase must be contingent upon sustained stability and closely monitored. His ability to manage incremental freedoms remains untested and uncertain.
Before community reintegration can be responsibly considered, Mr. Schugt must demonstrate enduring emotional and behavioral stability, continuous engagement in treatment, and responsible use of privileges over an extended period. Continued support is essential to improving Mr. Schugt’s ability to tolerate distress, develop adaptive coping mechanisms, and enhance his insight into his mental illness.
Dr. Bhullar testified, and the panel concurs, that there is currently no realistic prospect of Mr. Schugt living safely in the community within the next year. Including such a provision at this stage could undermine treatment efforts and create undue tension with the care team, potentially disrupting his progress.
Considering all the circumstances, the Board concludes that the current detention order, along with the Hospital’s recommended privileges and conditions, remains necessary and appropriate, and represents the least onerous and least restrictive disposition available. This approach appropriately balances public safety with Mr. Schugt’s treatment and rehabilitation needs.
DATED this 12th day of May 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.
Ms. L. Silver
Alternate Chairperson
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board