Re: Shawn Savory
ORB File No: 4615
Hearing held on: Friday, January 23, 2026
Place of hearing: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. J. Goldenberg
Members: Dr. G.A. Chaimowitz Dr. L. Leong Hon. B. Durno Mr. S. Doherty
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Shawn Savory Counsel: Mr. A. Ostroff
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Mr. D. Blumenkrans
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. K. Kirec
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated March 2, 2026)
Overview
On November 24, 2006, Shawn Savory was found not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder on charges of assault with a weapon, and mischief under $5,000.
Mr. Savory is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated January 23rd, 2025, by which he was ordered “to be detained at the Forensic Service of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto”.
On January 23rd, 2026, the Ontario Review Board convened a hearing at CAMH and conducted the annual review of Mr. Savory’s Disposition.
Position of the Parties
At the outset of the hearing Mr. Ostroff, counsel for Mr. Savory, advised that his client was not feeling well. Mr. Ostroff was kind enough to speak with his client and received instructions to ask that his client be excused from this hearing. Mr. Ostroff advised that he had instructions to proceed in the absence of Mr. Savory. Given that information, the Board permitted Mr. Savory to be absent from this hearing pursuant to the provisions of s. 675.5(10)(a).
Mr. Blumenkrans appeared for the hospital. He advised of the hospital position that Mr. Savory remains a significant threat to public safety, and if the Board so finds, the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a continuation of a detention order with the exact terms set out on last year’s Disposition.
In a response to a question from the Altnerate Chair as to the hospital position should the panel choose the specify the level of security, Mr. Blumenkrans simply stated that it is the hospital’s position that the Disposition should be made to the Forensic Service.
Ms. Kirec appeared for the Attorney General. She supported the hospital’s position.
Mr. Ostroff appeared for Mr. Savory. Mr. Ostroff advised that his client was consenting to a continuation of a Disposition with the exact terms set out in last year’s Disposition.
Index Offence
- The circumstances of the index offences are taken from last year's Board Reasons 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.”
Evidence at Hearing
- The Board admitted into evidence the hospital report dated January 8th, 2026. The hospital report provides a great deal of information concerning Mr. Savory, his personal history, his mental health history, details of the index offence, details of a very significant criminal record, and Mr. Savory’s course in hospital subsequent to the original NCR finding. As the hospital report was made an exhibit in this hearing, it is not necessary to reproduce the information contained in the hospital report. We do note however, the stated diagnoses of:
Schizophrenia;
Mild Intellectual Disability;
Severe Cocaine, Cannabis and Alcohol Use, in remission within a controlled environment;
Query Antisocial Personality Disorder.
In addition to the documentary evidence the Board heard from Dr. Kravtsenyuk. Mr. Blumenkrans drew the doctor’s attention to paragraph 35 of the Reasons of the Board from February 2025. At that paragraph it was noted “He is sub-optimally treated with antipsychotic medication.” Dr. Kravtsenyuk opined that things have improved since the writing of last year’s Reasons. Mr. Savory has agreed to be treated with a second medication. Dr. Kravtsenyuk noted that her patient continues with his decision not be treated with Clozapine. The patient’s mother is his Substitute Decision Maker, and she also will not consent for her son to be treated with Clozapine.
Mr. Blumenkrans asked the doctor whether his Disposition should continue with a term for community living. Dr. Kravtsenyuk acknowledged that Mr. Savory is not yet close to being ready to move into the community but requested that this privilege continue in the Disposition as it would be motivating for Mr. Savory to have this as a goal to work towards.
In response to question from Crown counsel, Dr. Kravtsenyuk acknowledged that in the past year there was some extreme physical aggression from Mr. Savory. This included “Throwing punches and biting a member of the security staff.”
The doctor described a generally uneventful year for Mr. Savory with little progress as he has struggled to self-motivate for program involvement and exercising ground privileges.
Mr. Savory is currently on Pass level 1, which is escorted with staff to hospital grounds and although the team attempts, on a daily basis to engage Mr. Savory to exercise this privilege, he shows a preference to stay in his room and is described as a passive gentleman in this disrespect.
Mr. Savory’s mother remains his Substitute Decision Maker. She recently retired. There was a family meeting where the introduction of clozapine medication was discussed. This medication is considered “the gold standard” for treatment refractory schizophrenia, but in the case of Mr. Savory, it is not currently being used as it is an oral medication which requires blood work. The team is not satisfied that Mr. Savory has the current stable mental status to try oral medication with blood work. The doctor indicated that Mr. Savory does not have the mental status wherewithal at this time to successfully trial this medication. It should be noted that Mr. Savory’s mother did support the introduction of clozapine medication when the time is appropriate.
The doctor was asked about the plan for the coming year. It is the team’s wish 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 privileges since the summer of last year.
The doctor was asked about the inclusion of the community living term in his current disposition, and whether it was necessary and appropriate. The doctor said that Mr. Savory would benefit from some motivation to progress in his community reintegration if this term is included.
The doctor noted that the negative symptoms of Mr. Savory’s schizophrenia will have to be addressed before indirectly supervised privileges are given to either the hospital grounds or the community. The doctor was asked about absconding risk and the doctor advised that since his prolonged AWOL he has not expressed any interest in absconding and, as noted, he tends to be reclusive to his own room and is described as expressing no interest in absconding. He does not currently receive the services of Developmental Services Ontario as he is not involved in programming.
No further evidence was called at the hearing.
Final Submission
Mr. Blumenkrans repeated that CAMH is asking for a continuation a Disposition with no changes. CAMH is asking that the Disposition continue with a community living clause. In response to questions from the Alternate Chair, Mr. Blumenkrans repeated that the hospital is asking for detention to be continued “At the Forensic Service” of CAMH.
Ms. Kirec agreed with the hospital.
Mr. Ostroff also agreed with the hospital’s position.
Findings of the Board
A member of the panel had asked a number of questions about a detention order directing Mr. Savory to be detained in the Secure Forensic Unit, but with discretion given to the person in charge to transfer Mr. Savory to a General Forensic Unit should the person in charge determine that Mr. Savory’s improved condition justified such a transfer. We note however, that we had before us a joint position. We note that Mr. Ostroff had received instructions from his client to consent to a continuation of the Disposition as is. Under those circumstances, the panel agreed to continue with a Detention Order as set out in last year’s Disposition.
We also accept that we will continue with a community living clause. The doctor noted that this would in fact be a motivating factor. The panel considered the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Simonic (re) 2024 ONCA 573, and accordingly we will continue with a community living clause and will issue a Disposition with the exact terms set out in last year’s Disposition.
In reaching our decision the Board has taken into consideration public safety, Mr. Savory’s mental condition and his other needs, and Mr. Savory’s integration into the community.
DATED this 2nd day of March, 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Mr. J. Goldenberg Alternate Chairperson
__________________
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board