David Vernon Rows

The accused was previously found unfit to stand trial on charges including assault and resisting arrest.

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to review her fitness and determine the appropriate disposition.

Based on expert psychiatric evidence, the Board found the accused remains unfit to stand trial due to severe intellectual disability and schizophrenia spectrum disorder.

The Board ordered a detention disposition with privileges, finding she requires a highly structured 24/7 supervised setting to manage her complex needs and mitigate the high risk of violent reoffending.

The accused was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for attempted murder and possession of a prohibited weapon.

At the initial disposition hearing, the Ontario Review Board found that the accused, who suffers from schizophrenia and substance use disorder, remains a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered a detention disposition at the forensic hospital with specific privileges and conditions, including a prohibition on weapons and substances, and directed the preparation of a Gladue Report.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for assault causing bodily harm and assault.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia and pedophilia, had made positive progress in a supervised group home and remained abstinent from substances.

However, due to his partial insight and need for external supervision to maintain medication compliance, the Board found he continued to pose a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered the continuation of his conditional discharge but removed the substance abstention clause to test his ability to remain abstinent without extrinsic legal support.

The Ontario Review Board held a mandatory hearing to review the disposition of the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for second-degree murder and assault.

The accused had been residing in a long-term care home and demonstrated significant stability with the support of a geriatric psychiatry team and a community treatment order.

The Board accepted the joint submission and uncontroverted psychiatric evidence that the accused's risk of harm was minimal and diminishing.

Finding that the accused no longer posed a significant threat to the safety of the public, the Board granted an absolute discharge.

The accused was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for criminal harassment, failure to comply with a release order, and uttering threats.

At the initial disposition hearing, the Ontario Review Board found that the accused, who suffers from bipolar disorder and a substance use disorder, continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public.

The Board ordered a detention disposition at the Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care, with conditions including a weapons prohibition, abstention from intoxicants, and no-contact provisions regarding the victim and their child.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for theft under $5000.

The accused, diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder and cognitive deficits, had been residing in a locked long-term care unit and demonstrated significant stability and compliance with treatment.

The treatment team, the hospital, the Attorney General, and the accused jointly recommended an absolute discharge.

Applying the test from Winko, the Board concluded that the accused no longer poses a significant threat to the safety of the public and granted an absolute discharge.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual hearing for an accused previously found unfit to stand trial on various charges including sexual assault and criminal harassment.

The accused suffers from Major Neurocognitive Disorder secondary to Adrenoleukodystrophy, resulting in progressive cognitive and physical deterioration.

The Board accepted expert evidence that the accused remains unfit to stand trial and poses a significant threat to public safety due to impulsive and sexually aggressive behaviours.

The Board ordered a continued detention disposition at the forensic hospital, with a reduction in reporting requirements, while noting that long-term care would be a more appropriate placement once substitute decision-maker issues are resolved.

The accused was found not criminally responsible for arson and appeared before the Ontario Review Board for an initial disposition hearing.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public due to his schizophrenia, substance use disorder, and history of decompensation linked to cannabis use.

The Board concluded that a conditional discharge was insufficient to manage the risk and ordered a detention disposition with conditions, including a prohibition on cannabis use and a requirement to report four times per month.

The accused was found unfit to stand trial on charges including failure to comply with a probation order and release orders.

The matter was remitted to the Ontario Review Board.

The Board heard psychiatric evidence that the accused suffers from Huntington's Disease, resulting in severe cognitive decline, delusions, and psychosis.

Applying the fitness test from R. v. Bharwani, the Board concluded the accused lacked a reality-based understanding of the proceedings and could not meaningfully instruct counsel.

The Board ordered a detention disposition with privileges for community living in approved accommodation, prioritizing public safety and the accused's need for supervised care.

The accused was found not criminally responsible for break and enter a dwelling house and the matter was remitted to the Ontario Review Board for a disposition hearing.

The accused suffers from schizophrenia and a substance use disorder, and continues to experience delusions similar to those that precipitated the index offence.

The Board found that the accused poses a significant threat to the safety of the public due to his lack of insight, history of treatment non-adherence, and risk of environmental violence.

The Board ordered a detention disposition with conditions, including hospital approval of accommodation, as the least onerous and restrictive disposition necessary to manage the risk.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused previously found not criminally responsible for sexual assault and an indecent act.

The hospital and the Attorney General supported an absolute discharge.

Relying on uncontroverted psychiatric evidence, the Board found that the accused's risk to public safety was well-managed by his placement in a long-term care facility, a Community Treatment Order, and his declining physical health.

Concluding that the accused no longer posed a significant threat to the safety of the public, the Board ordered an absolute discharge.

The Ontario Review Board conducted a mandatory annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for assault with a weapon and other offences.

The accused, diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder and Substance Use Disorder, had transitioned to living in the community but remained vulnerable to relapse due to isolation and lack of structured activities.

The Board accepted the hospital's evidence that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety and that a detention order remains necessary to facilitate rapid readmission if he decompensates.

The detention disposition was continued, with an expansion of community passes to the Province of Ontario.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused's Detention Disposition.

The accused, who was found not criminally responsible for uttering threats, suffers from schizoaffective disorder and has a history of rapid decompensation.

The Board found that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety and ordered the continuation of the Detention Disposition.

While the Board accepted recommendations to expand the geographic area for community living and reduce reporting requirements, it rejected the hospital's recommendation to remove the weapons prohibition, citing the accused's history of threatening behaviour and rapid decompensation.

The accused was previously found not criminally responsible for attempted murder and was subject to a conditional discharge.

At the annual review hearing, the Ontario Review Board considered whether the accused continued to pose a significant threat to public safety.

Based on evidence from the attending psychiatrist that the accused's mental illness was well-managed, he was compliant with treatment, and he had successfully transitioned to independent living with community supports, the Board concluded the accused no longer posed a significant threat.

The Board ordered an absolute discharge.

The offender was convicted of sexually assaulting a 16-year-old who had passed out intoxicated on his couch.

The offender had a prior conviction for aggravated sexual assault for which he served a six-year penitentiary term.

Applying the principles from R. v. Friesen, the court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, noting the severe psychological trauma suffered by the victim.

The court sentenced the offender to 7 years' incarceration, along with a lifetime weapons prohibition, a lifetime SOIRA order, and a no-contact order.

The accused was charged with sexual assault.

The complainant, a 16-year-old, became highly intoxicated at the accused's residence and was unable to consent to sexual activity.

Witnesses observed the complainant naked from the waist down with the accused, and DNA evidence linked the accused to spermatozoa found on the complainant.

The court found the accused guilty, concluding beyond a reasonable doubt that a sexual assault occurred while the complainant was incapacitated.

The offender pleaded guilty to trafficking fentanyl and criminal negligence causing death after selling cocaine laced with fentanyl to the victim, who subsequently died of an overdose.

The offender admitted to wilful blindness, having told the victim the drugs were a 'real head-spinner'.

The court rejected a suspended sentence, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for fentanyl trafficking, and sentenced the offender to three years' imprisonment.

The accused was tried for the second-degree murder of his wife, whose body was found near a gas tank on their property.

The Crown's case was entirely circumstantial, relying on motive, opportunity, and post-offence conduct, including the accused's destruction of his wife's poetry.

The defence argued the victim may have interrupted a gas theft or been killed by an alternate suspect with whom she was having an affair.

The court found the investigation had tunnel vision and failed to adequately explore other possibilities.

Concluding that the accused's guilt was not the only reasonable inference to be drawn from the evidence, the court found the accused not guilty.

The defence brought an application to admit expert testimony from a psychotherapist on the issue of traumatic grief, specifically to explain the accused's conduct in discarding his murdered wife's poetry as a coping mechanism.

The Crown opposed the admission.

The court analyzed the necessity criterion under the Mohan framework for expert evidence.

The application was dismissed, with the court finding that the trier of fact possesses the requisite experience and knowledge to understand that grieving individuals may react in unpredictable ways, rendering the expert assistance unnecessary.

The applicant, charged with drug and firearms offences, brought a Charter motion to exclude evidence seized from his residence and vehicle.

The court initially denied standing regarding the residence but allowed the applicant to reopen evidence, ultimately finding he had a reasonable expectation of privacy.

The court found the Information to Obtain (ITO) the search warrant for the residence lacked sufficient corroboration, resulting in a section 8 Charter breach.

However, the court dismissed the section 7, 8, and 9 claims regarding the vehicle search and arrest, finding them lawful.

Applying the Grant framework under section 24(2), the court admitted the evidence from the residence, concluding the police acted in good faith and the highly reliable evidence was essential to the truth-seeking function of the trial.