ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

– and –

WALTER STARNAMAN

Robert Thomson, for the Crown

James Foord, Counsel for the Accused

HEARD: January 25 – 28, 2021

ruling

PHILLIPS J.

[1] This is my ruling in respect of whether Walter Starnaman shall be designated a dangerous offender.

The Offence Before the Court

[2] Mr. Starnaman was convicted after a judge alone trial of one count each of sexual interference and sexual assault, contrary to sections 151 and 271 of the Criminal Code respectively, committed against C.B. a then 10-year-old girl. The offences occurred from roughly January 1, 2015 through May 24, 2016. Throughout the material time, Mr. Starnaman had ingratiated himself into C.B.’s life by befriending her mother and offering himself up as a babysitter. While supervising the child at his apartment in the absence of her mother, Mr. Starnaman would invite her into his bed and rub her genital area over her clothing. This happened several times.

[3] Because it will be very important later, I will note that I found as a fact that Mr. Starnaman’s principal interest in the B family was C.B. and not her mother, F.B. I rejected his trial evidence to the contrary as incapable of belief. The totality of the evidence made it crystal clear that Mr. Starnaman pursued a friendship with F.B. in order to gain access to C.B. His present position that he was merely trying to kindle a romantic relationship with F.B., and that is how he came to be coincidentally babysitting C.B., is simply untrue.

Walter Starnaman’s Relevant History

[4] Born in November 1958, Walter Starnaman has a long history of inappropriate and criminal sexual contact with children and the vulnerable. As he amassed a lengthy criminal record, Mr. Starnaman was interviewed many times in the context of longstanding treatment efforts for his sexual interest in prepubescent children. I have reviewed the materials filed on consent in respect of his convictions as well as many utterances made by Mr. Starnaman to various professionals engaged in his treatment. Upon considering their context and content, I assess them as voluntary, reliable and trustworthy. I find the following facts to have been proved by the Crown at this hearing at the beyond a reasonable doubt threshold:

1976, Sept 8, 22, 30: Indecent assault on 6-year-old M.R. [Brandford]

• Withdrawn: 27 July 1977. [Same date as conviction for indecent assault on C.K.].

• Details: Mr. Starnaman, age 17, took a 6-year-old female to a garage near her residence where he took down her underwear and inserted his finger into her vagina on 3 separate occasions (Sep 8, 22, 30, 1976). The child finally made a complaint after being hurt slightly during the third incident. Mr. Starnaman has admitted to this conduct, albeit in a statement to a psychiatrist to the effect that: “He did not see that he had caused any trouble to his victims – he just felt that the parents would be upset.” (p5).

1977, May 31: Indecent assault on 5-year-old C.K. [Barrie]

• Conviction: 27 July 1977.

• Details: Mr. Starnaman, age 18, enticed a 5-year-old female, C.K., into a bedroom where he took down her underwear, inserted his finger in her vagina, licked her private parts, and tried to get her to perform the same act on him. She was threatened if she complained. Afterward, he rewarded her with a bottle of soda pop. This occurred while he was awaiting trial on charges relating to M.R., above.

• The date of Mr. Starnaman’s release is unknown, except that it was sometime in 1977.

1979: Sexual touching of 9/10-year-old girl [Orillia]

• Uncharged: Mr. Starnaman revealed this misconduct to a police detective in 2009.

• Details: Mr. Starnaman, age 20, enticed a 9 or 10-year-old girl over to his apartment with candy in order to get sexual favours such as having her expose herself or allowing him to touch her. Mr. Starnaman remembers that he would try to get the girl alone, away from her brothers. This occurred 3-4 times. He would play hide and seek with her in the basement and touch her inappropriately.

1980, Mid-May: Sexual intercourse with 13-year-old C.V. [Orillia]

• Conviction: 10 Oct 1980.

• Details: Mr. Starnaman, age 21, met C.V. at a restaurant and they began dating. C.V.’s mother told him that C.V. was 13 years old. Mr. Starnaman has admitted that he had intercourse with C.V. before she turned 14 on two occasions.

• Sentence: 12 months.

1982-83: Paid 11/12-year-old girl for sexual favours at Bramalea City Centre [Brampton]

• Uncharged: Mr. Starnaman revealed this to the police in an interview conducted on May 13, 2009.

• Details: Mr. Starnaman, age 23-24, was working at the Bramalea City Centre. He came across a young girl, 11 or 12 years old, while looking for possible victims. Mr. Starnaman indicates that he considered her a prime victim and offered her money for sexual favours. Sexual contact included oral sex and getting on top of her and rubbing until he ejaculated. There were probably 4-6 incidents with this girl.

1983, Apr 23: Sexual assault on 11-year-old J.E.C. [Brampton]

• Arrest: Apr 23, 1983.

• Conviction: 28 June 1983.

• Details: Walter Starnaman was 24 years old. At the Bramalea City Centre he approached two 11-year-old females and succeeded in leading them to a quiet area near a garbage container. Mr. Starnaman attempted to persuade J.E.C. to prostitute herself to him. J.E.C. refused. Mr. Starnaman then restrained J.E.C. by holding her arm and lifting her dress. J.E.C. made a commotion and passing citizens came to her assistance.

• Sentence: 2 years less 1 day. While Mr. Starnaman’s exact release date is unknown, it would have been prior to April 1985.

1986-87: Blackmail of 11/12-year-old girl (M.) so he could fondle her [Toronto]

• Uncharged: Mr. Starnaman revealed this to the police in an interview conducted on May 13, 2009.

• Details: Mr. Starnaman was 28-29 years old. One day, he looked outside and saw children running around naked. Later when one of the girls happened to come near his place, he blackmailed her that he would tell her mother that he saw her running around naked. He then bribed her to let him touch her. He then fondled her. She was 11-12 years old.

1988, May 20: Sexual assault on 14-year-old babysitter T.B. [Scarborough]

• Conviction: July 27, 1988.

• Details: Walter Starnaman was 29 years old. He arranged to have a 14-year-old girl, T.B., babysit his one-year-old son. Starnaman gave T.B. alcoholic drinks and marijuana and showed her pornography while his wife slept. At about midnight, the victim was informed that she could sleep in the living room and given a nightgown to wear. In the early morning, Mr. Starnaman, nude, went into the living room and undressed the victim. She awoke during this and struggled with him. Mr. Starnaman forced her legs apart and had sexual intercourse with her. Mr. Starnaman had placed numerous ads requesting babysitters who were young girls and then had them complete an application form.

• Sentence: 2 years less a day. Mr. Starnaman was released November 27, 1989.

1990, May 17: Sexual assault on wheelchair bound G.M. [Scarborough]

• Arrest: May 20, 1990. Detained pending trial.

• Conviction: 14 Nov 1990.

• Details: Mr. Starnaman and 31-year-old G.M. were dating. At G.M.’s home, Starnaman helped G.M. into bed (she was wheelchair bound). Mr. Starnaman then took G.M.’s pants and underwear off. G.M. said she did not want to have intercourse because her mother would be coming home soon. Mr. Starnaman ignored her refusal and raped her.

• Sentence: Time served & 1 day & 3 years probation. Released November 14, 1990.

1991, Nov 12: Threats to G.M. [Scarborough]

• Conviction: Jan 24, 1992.

• Details: Mr. Starnaman went to G.M.’s apartment and knocked on her door (G.M. is the same complainant as in the May 17, 1990 matter). Mr. Starnaman demanded to be let in, she told him to go away. He pounded on the door, demanding in an angry voice that she let him in, or he would kill her. G.M. said she would call police. Mr. Starnaman continued to pound on the door and repeated his death threat on three occasions.

• Sentence: Ultimately after appeal, 2 years. Mr. Starnaman was held until his warrant expiry date January 23, 1994.

• On April 1, 1993, while he was still in the penitentiary, contraband was found in Mr. Starnaman’s cell. Among some drugs and a weapon, the authorities found news clippings featuring children ages 7-14, with names of the children along with pictures of them having won sports and school awards. In addition, Mr. Starnaman had apparently compiled a list of names, ages and addresses of single mothers and their children in the Kingston, Amherstview and Toronto area.

1994, January 20 – 2008, June 18 – Held under the Mental Health Act

• After being certified under the Mental Health Act (Form 1), Mr. Starnaman was held in a variety of psychiatric institutions and saw a variety of treating professionals until June 2008. He did not, however want to initiate assessment or treatment. As the treatment notes indicate “...Mr. Starnaman blames his most recent victim for his current problems.” Eventually, phallometric testing was completed Nov 10, 1995. Responses were sufficiently high for a valid diagnosis. Mr. Starnaman’s responses were highest female children between the ages of about 9 to 13 years. “This supports a diagnosis of pedohephilia.”

• Mr. Starnaman was transferred from Penetanguishene to the Queen Street Mental Health Centre on Oct 7, 1997. In the process, pornographic tapes and magazines, the latter involving nudism with photographs of children, were confiscated. Composite estimates of risk “… would indicate that he does represent a very high risk for re-offence over time. As is the case with many such offenders, it is very likely that his rate of re-offence would significantly underestimate the risk of his being involved in any problematic behaviour should he be free in the community.”

• In 2006, treatment notes indicate: “Mr. Starnaman tended to focus on himself as the victim … He presented this history as having created in him unavoidable circumstances for sexual activity with children; it being impossible “to know it was wrong to have sex with kids.” This view led to self pity rather than the desire to closely examine the cognitive issues relevant to his past offences and ongoing risk factors.”

• On November 27, 2007, Mr. Starnaman was transferred to the Forensic Assessment Unit at Royal Ottawa Hospital. Treatment notes from that time indicate: “Concerning paraphilic sexual interests, Mr. Starnaman admitted having had a past sexual interest in children. He indicated that he no longer has this sexual interest … At the time of assessment there was no indication that Mr. Starnaman would meet the usual criteria for certification and, therefore, his Form 4 was allowed to lapse … Since his admission to our unit, Mr. Starnaman has complied with treatment with Lupron to reduce his sex drive.”

2008, June 18 – 2016, Sep 1: Walter Starnaman was in Community

• After his release into the community, Mr.Starnaman entered into a section 810.1 bond on June 18, 2008. In other words, reasonable grounds were shown to exist that Mr. Starnaman would commit another sexual offence against a person under age 16 and his liberty was thus restricted by various terms. That bond was successful and ran to its expiry without incident.

• On July 17, 2009, Mr. Starnaman was placed on another 810.1 bond, this time to run for two years. Treatment notes from the time indicate that Mr. Starnaman’s prescription for Lupron was decreased to 11.25 mg every three months at his request. “Today, Mr. Starnaman declined to resume treatment with anti-androgen medication. He assured me that he has not had sexual thoughts of any type and he would inform me if any recur. He assured me that he has no plans to re-offend. He would like to stop Lupron in order to restore his interest in children … Will discontinue Lupron (he is aware of the risks and benefits).”

2011, July 17: the 810.1 Peace Bond Lapses

• A treatment note from October 17, 2011 reads: “Still shows indication of pedophilia.” A note from September 6, 2012 reads: “He agrees he should not be alone with children to avoid false accusations.” The last progress note, before arrest, was a cancelled appointment.

2015, Jan – 2016, May: Sexual Malfeasance on C.B. (Index Offences)

• Mr. Starnaman was arrested for the index offences on September 1, 2016. He was then assessed by Dr. Federoff on April 15, 2017. Mr. Starnaman’s position expressed to the doctor was essentially the same as his evidence at trial: “Mr. Starnaman said he disputes the reason for the referral. He said he denies every part of the alleged offence and accepts no responsibility for the alleged offence” ... “In the past, I was attracted to females who were older than age 6, but I have no attraction to minors now.” The last note is from May 2, 2017: “He agrees he does not need Lupron.”

[5] Before leaving the facts, I should make clear that I am aware that Mr. Starnaman should not be punished for maintaining his innocence. He is not required to agree with my findings of fact or with my conclusion in respect of his guilt. His insistence on being wrongfully accused and convicted here is by no means an aggravating factor. That said, his position is nonetheless informative about insight on his part and likely motivation to follow liberty restrictions in the future necessary to ensure treatment and compliance with same.

Legal Principles

[6] The Court “shall” find the offender to be a dangerous offender if the offender meets the criteria under s. 753(1). The predicate offence must be a “serious personal injury offence” and the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the offender constitutes a threat to the life, safety, or physical mental well-being of others based on one (or more) of four statutory criteria. These four statutory routes are ways through which it could be shown that an offender’s conduct is “intractable,” meaning that the offender is “unable to surmount” his behaviour. This incorporates both a retrospective and prospective evaluation of the offender’s treatability and likelihood of re-offending (see: R. v. Boutilier, 2017 SCC 64, at paras. 27, 45).

[7] I note that sexual interference and sexual assault against a child under 16 are both punishable by up to 14 years’ imprisonment. Sexual abuse of children is inherently violent and likely to cause severe psychological damage. As the Court of Appeal has put it: “Sexual abuse is an act of violence. When committed against children, the violence is both physical and profoundly psychological. It is coercive and exploitative conduct and represents the use of compulsion against someone who is defenceless.” (see: R. v. Stuckless, 1998 7143 (ON CA), [1998] OJ No. 3177, at para. 44 (ONCA)). I consider the “serious personal injury offence” aspect to be made out.

[8] The four routes to a dangerous offender designation are not mutually exclusive and the Crown may resort to one or more of them.In the circumstances, I have decided to focus on the section most in line with the principal facts of this case: 753(1)(a)(ii). I will therefore assess whether the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Starnaman exhibits a pattern of persistent aggressive behaviour, of which the predicate offence forms a part, showing a substantial degree of indifference about the reasonably foreseeable consequences to others of his behaviour.

[9] In other words, in light of the fact that Mr. Starnaman is convicted of a serious personal injury offence, I shall determine whether the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he is a threat to the life, safety, physical or mental well-being of other persons based on evidence that he has engaged in a pattern of persistent aggressive behaviour, of which the offence for which he has been convicted forms a part, showing a substantial degree of indifference on his part respecting the reasonably foreseeable consequences to others of his behaviour.

[10] “Aggressive” behaviour does not require the use of physical force. A pattern of “aggressive” conduct can exist where the offender engaged in behaviour that was not violent but that involved tenacious pursuit of his sexual interests. Sexual assault is by definition the forceful achievement of one’s aims and interests. To repeatedly engage in assaultive behaviour with dogged persistence can only be described as aggressive. I note that in 1995, the Court of Appeal for Ontario characterized Mr. Starnaman’s offences to that date as constituting “a lengthy history of aggressive sexual misconduct directed primarily at young females” (see: R. v. Wong, 2016 ONSC 6362, at paras. 218-219; Starnaman v. Penetanguishene Mental Health Centre, 1995 1518 (ON CA), [1995] OJ No. 2130, at para. 1 (ONCA) [emphasis added]).

Legal Principles Applied

[11] In fairness to Walter Starnaman, I should begin by observing that he did not commit any offences from the time the charges before the court were laid to when his bail was revoked after conviction. Indeed, he lived in the community without incident, saw the doctors as required, and built up a support network through COSA. Also, I note that Mr. Starnaman has been quite candid with various assessors over the years about his sexual interests and the degree to which he has indulged them. This indicates some willingness on his part to increase the chances of any future treatment having positive effect.

[12] Walter Starnaman has demonstrated a virtually unabated pattern of sexually abusing children since 1976. When the time he was either in custody or subject to strict s.810.1 judicial supervision orders is taken into account, the longest unsupervised period that Mr. Starnaman has gone without sexually abusing a child comprises the 3.5 years between September 2011 to May 2015. It was less than 3.5 years after the expiry of his last s.810.1 that Mr. Starnaman began to sexually touch C.B.

[13] Mr. Starnaman did not simply have a lapse. He went to considerable lengths to engineer a situation where he would have access to a young female child, and then took advantage of that situation multiple times. Mr. Starnaman has longstanding first-hand experience with the penal and mental health care systems and the various consequences he has received for failing to manage his sexual interests appropriately would have brought home the wrongfulness of his interest in the prepubescent as forcefully as can be imagined. Yet he persisted. This was not a flare up, or an unforeseeable one-off scenario that just came by and overwhelmed the man’s defences. This was misconduct that occurred as a result of significant planning and deliberation. He spent a lot of effort trying to get himself a child to babysit. As Dr. Klassen noted, not only did Mr. Starnaman form a relationship with F.B., a single mother, Mr. Starnaman also formed a relationship with at least one other single mother, (K). Dr. Klassen commented, “latterly this gentleman has seemingly shown an interest in connecting with single mothers, likely for access to their children.”

[14] At the very least, Walter Starnaman knowingly set himself up for failure. In doing so, he showed a substantial degree of indifference about what he knew would almost surely happen. He would have known that he would likely be unable to exercise self-control when alone with C.B. because he had learned that fact about himself from similar circumstances time and time again. The conduct vis-a-vis C.B. is part of a pattern of persistent aggressive conduct. Mr. Starnaman well knew the risk presented by the situation he engineered, yet he continued. I can only conclude that he did so because his drive to have access to a child outweighed any concern about future imprisonment or the like, never mind any appreciation of the harm it would cause C.B.

[15] The core problem is Walter Starnaman’s inability or unwillingness to do what is basically required. He will not take even the elementary precautions necessary to adequately minimize the risk of reoffence. In fact, he will expend considerable effort toward elevating reoffence from a prospect to a certainty. As such, the problem is not just Walter Starnaman’s sex-drive, but his character. For that reason, I make little of the various actuarial instruments that predict only modest risk (largely as a result of his advancing age). In my judgment, when looked at against the backdrop of his history, Walter Starnaman’s decision in this case to befriend a single mother in order to become her child-care provider shows both an enduring sexual aggression problem and such an extraordinary willingness to assume risk about it as to make the actuarial instruments so far from determinative as to be useless.

[16] Given his long history of aggressive behaviour, the sheer regularity and persistence with which he has molested children, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Starnaman setting himself up as a babysitter for a 10-year-old girl and ultimately molesting her shows a substantial degree of indifference on his part respecting the reasonably foreseeable consequences of his behaviour. Mr. Starnaman will remain a paedophile for the rest of his life. The question is, will he act on his wrongful desires again? In light of the substantial degree of indifference he showed about managing or at least minimizing the risks inherent in his permanent sexual disorder in this case, the answer is most assuredly yes.

Conclusion

[17] Walter Starnaman has been convicted of a serious personal injury offence as defined in s.752(a) of the Code. The Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he is a threat to the life, safety, physical or mental well-being of other persons based on evidence that he has engaged in a pattern of persistent aggressive behaviour, of which the offence for which he has been convicted forms a part, showing a substantial degree of indifference on his part respecting the reasonably foreseeable consequences to others of his behaviour.

[18] I designate Walter Starnaman, a dangerous offender. A hearing shall now be scheduled to determine more precisely what sort of sentence should be imposed.

Justice Kevin B. Phillips

Released: March 31, 2021

COURT FILE NO.: 16-SA5112

DATE: 2021/03/31

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

– and –

WALTER STARNAMAN

ruling

PHILLIPS J.

Released: March 31, 2021