Ontario Review Board
Re: Maria R. Rowe
ORB File No: 3252
Hearing held on: Monday, March 3, 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: Mr. J. Goldenberg Members: Dr. W. Johnston Dr. S. Wiseman Ms. C. Murray Mr. S. Duffy
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Maria R. Rowe Counsel: Ms. J. Boissonneault
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. J. Szabo (via Zoom)
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. N. MacDonald
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated March 17, 2025)
On November 7, 2000, Maria Rowe was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, on charges of uttering death threat and uttering threats to burn property. Ms. Rowe is currently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated March 18, 2024, by which she was ordered to be detained at a General Forensic Unit of the Forensic Program at Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences (“Ontario Shores”) with a number of privileges and prohibitions.
One of the privileges is the ability “to live in the community in supervised accommodation approved by the person in charge”.
On Monday, March 3, 2025, the Ontario Review Board convened a hearing at Ontario Shores and conducted the annual review of Ms. Rowe’s Disposition.
Position of the Parties
At the outset of the hearing, the Alternate Chair noted that Ms. Rowe was not in attendance. Ms. Boissonneault is Ms. Rowe’s counsel. She advised that Ms. Rowe finds attending at these hearings to be extremely stressful and she prefers not to attend at the hearing. Ms. Boissonneault advised that Ms. Rowe has not attended at the hearings for the three or four years that Ms. Boissonneault has been her counsel. Under the circumstances, the Board did exercise its discretion under s. 672.5(10)(a) of the Criminal Code.
Subsequently, the Alternate Chair asked the parties for their recommendations at today’s hearing. Ms. Szabo appeared for the hospital. She advised of the hospital position that Ms. Rowe remains a significant threat to public safety, and if the Board so finds, the hospital opines that the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a continuation of the Detention Order with the exact terms set out in last year’s Disposition.
Ms. MacDonald appeared for the Attorney General. Ms. MacDonald supported the hospital’s recommendation.
Ms. Boissonneault appeared for Ms. Rowe. She also supported the hospital’s recommendation. In response to a question from the Alternate Chair, Ms. Boissonneault accepts that at the present time her client remains a significant threat to public safety as that term is used in the jurisprudence, and at the present time the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a Detention Order with the exact terms set out in last year’s Disposition.
Index Offence:
- “A Dr. Marcin had been the accused's former psychiatric doctor at the London Psychiatric Hospital. Shortly after her detention at the Vanier Detention Center in January 2000, she was seen by a Dr. Srinivasan, a psychiatrist at the Vanier Detention Center.
Ms. Rowe told Dr. Srinivasan that when she was released, she intended to kill her former doctor, Marcin, by stabbing her in the back and that she intended to burn down 545 English Avenue in London, a dwelling of one Don McDonald. The accused had attempted to burn down this home earlier on August 20, 1998, while there had been three occupants in the house.
The accused also advised Dr. Srinivasan that she intended to set fire to St. Joseph's Hospital and a church in London.
As a result of these threats, the authorities were notified, as was Dr. Marcin, who out of concern for her safety and her family's safety, left her present residence, believing that the accused would carry out the threat.”
Evidence at Hearing:
The Board admitted into evidence the Hospital Report dated February 14, 2025. The Hospital Report provides a great deal of information concerning Ms. Rowe, her personal history, her mental health history, details of the index offences and Ms. Rowe’s course in hospital subsequent to the date of the 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 in these Reasons.
We do note, however, the stated diagnoses on page 1 of the Hospital Report as follows:
Schizoaffective Disorder, bipolar type
Borderline Personality Disorder
Pyromania
We will return to the issue of the appropriate diagnosis subsequently in these Reasons.
In addition to the documentary evidence the Board heard from Dr. F. Karayilan, Psychiatrist, Clinical Fellow in Forensic Psychiatry. We also note that Dr. Hartfeil was in attendance at this hearing.
Ms. Szabo asked if there were any updates. Dr. Karayilan advised that there is one update. Recently, on February 18 of this year, the hospital determined that Ms. Rowe is capable of making treatment decisions. Dr. Karayilan advised that unfortunately Ms. Rowe’s application for housing through the CMHA (CMHA Community Homes for Opportunity (CHO)) was rejected. The doctor understands that this rejection occurred by reason of Ms. Rowe’s fire setting tendencies and also by reason of Ms. Rowe’s requirements. Dr. Karayilan explained that Ms. Rowe suffers from diabetes and significant visual impairment which affects her safe movement in any residence. Ms. Rowe remains on the waitlist for the Village of Taunton Mills residence. Unfortunately, the doctor has no idea of when a bed might become available for her patient.
We note information contained in the Hospital Report as follows:
“Ms. Rowe had another largely good year with no incidents of violence, aggression, threats, or fire-setting. There was, however, a brief period of covert clozapine non-adherence, which she appeared to have done with some pre-planning by requesting a switch to tablets so she could more easily discard her medication after administration.”
The panel understands that Ms. Rowe is now treated with the oral medication and appears to be adherent since the occurrence referred to above, which was in October 2024.
In response to questions from Ms. Boissonneault, Dr. Karayilan agreed that her patient had “another good year”. There was some self-harm in October arising from Ms. Rowe’s planned non-adherence to her medication. Since October, however, there has been no reoccurrence of such conduct. Again, in response to questions from Ms. Boissonneault, Dr. Karayilan acknowledged that Ms. Rowe has engaged appropriately with Dr. Levi, a psychologist.
Dr. Karayilan also noted notwithstanding the finding of capacity there remain issues of Ms. Rowe’s less than stellar insight.
Dr. Karayilan emphasized that Ms. Rowe’s preference with respect to housing is to find a suitable place within the Whitby/Oshawa area as she has a number of friends in that area.
No other evidence was heard at this hearing.
Findings of the Board:
At the conclusion of the evidence the parties were again canvassed as to their positions. All parties maintained their original position namely, that Ms. Rowe remains a significant threat to public safety and that the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a continuation of a Detention Order with the exact terms set out in last year’s Disposition.
The Board accepts the evidence contained in the Hospital Report and the evidence given by Dr. Karayilan. The Board further accepts the parties’ joint recommendation. We do specifically find that Ms. Rowe remains a significant threat to public safety. We note the serious nature of the index offence and we note a prior conviction for arson.
We also accept that a Detention Order is both necessary and appropriate. The hospital absolutely needs the requirement to approve any community residence. We note that the Disposition requires “supervised accommodation”.
Accordingly, the panel does accept that the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a continuation of a Detention Order with exact terms set out in last year’s Disposition.
There was one other matter that deserves some comment. On page 1 of the Hospital Report, under the heading “Current Diagnoses”, appears the following:
Schizoaffective Disorder, bipolar type
Borderline Personality Disorder
Pyromania
However, on page 64 of the Hospital Report, the diagnoses set out at that page are as follows:
Schizoaffective Disorder, bipolar type
Borderline Personality Disorder
Antisocial Personality Disorder Traits
Pyromania
Members of the panel had a number of questions and in particular why Antisocial Personality Disorder Traits were not set out on page 1 of the Hospital Report. At that point Dr. Hartfeil indicated she had some information. Dr. Hartfeil acknowledges and accepts that Antisocial Personality Disorder Traits should be included as an appropriate diagnosis. Dr. Hartfeil suggested that the system used by this hospital is such that for some reason that is not clear to the panel, will not allow the Antisocial Personality Disorder Traits to be included on the face page of the Hospital Report. Dr. Hartfeil indicated that antisocial personality trait is not a DSM diagnosis and she suggested that only DSM diagnoses are available to be entered in the electronic medical record. The panel would appreciate seeing all diagnoses, whether they are part of the DSM or not, and particularly as antisocial trait is in the ICD (International Classification of Disease) classification and diseases used by the Government of Canada, would like to see all diagnoses appearing on the face page of the report.
The panel hopes and expects that this issue will be clarified for all future reports.
In reaching our Disposition, the Board has taken into consideration public safety, Ms. Rowe’s mental condition and her other needs, and Ms. Rowe’s reintegration into society.
DATED this 17^th^ day of March, 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Mr. J. Goldenberg Alternate Chairperson Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board