Re: Darrell Mowat
Re: Darrell Mowat
ORB File No: 7655
Hearing held on: Tuesday February 18, 2025
Place of Hearing: St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. R. Bigelow
Members: Dr. S. Simpson
Dr. M. Kalia
Mr. S. Doherty
Ms. L. Maunder
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Darrell Mowat
Counsel: Mr. B. Hurst
The Person in Charge Counsel: Ms. L. Barney
Attorney-General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. K. Schultz
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated April 2, 2025)
Introduction
On December 6, 2019, Darrell Mowat was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCR) on a charge of criminal harassment (besetting or watching a dwellinghouse) contrary to the Criminal Code. He is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the Board) dated February 20, 2024, ordering his discharge subject to conditions.
On Tuesday, February 18, 2025, the Board convened a hearing at St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton (the Hospital) to review Mr. Mowat’s disposition pursuant to section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Mowat was present at the hearing and represented by Counsel, Mr. Hurst. Mr. Mowat’s mother was also present at the hearing.
The issues to be determined at the hearing were whether Mr. Mowat continued to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public as defined in section 672.5401 of the Criminal Code and, if so, what was the necessary and appropriate disposition which was also the least onerous and least restrictive, taking into account the factors set out in section 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
Positions of the Parties
At the commencement of the hearing the parties were requested to provide their initial without prejudice positions with respect to the issues before the Board. Counsel for the Hospital advised that the position of the Hospital was that Mr. Mowat continued to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate disposition was a continuation of the current discharge on conditions with no change to the terms.
Counsel for the Attorney General supported the Hospital position.
Counsel for Mr. Mowat submitted this client no longer represented a significant threat to the safety of the public and accordingly was entitled to be discharged absolutely. In the alternative, should the Board find that significant threat had been established, he submitted that the conditional discharge should be continued with the removal of the terms prohibiting consumption of intoxicating substances as well as the term requiring that he provide urine samples on request.
Findings:
- For the Reasons that follow, the Board finds that Mr. Mowat continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate disposition is a continuation of the current discharge on conditions with the same terms save and except the removal of the term prohibiting consumption of intoxicating substances.
Index Offences:
- The circumstances surrounding the index offence taken from last year’s Reasons are as follows:
On September 9, 2019, the victim, DW was inside her residence and observed the accused on her front step, the accused was refusing to leave which prompted her to contact police. DW reported that she and accused had met in 2012, they worked together and became acquaintances. The accused had been charged with an offence in 2012 and was incarcerated. Upon the accused’s release, in 2013 DW agreed to allow the accused to move in with her. Throughout this time their relationship grew intimate in nature. The accused resided with her until March 2014. DW no longer wanted any contact with the accused. She had written a letter to the accused stating that police would be contacted if he approaches her.
The accused had not contacted DW since then. Between September 3, 2019, and September 9, 2019, the accused was observed attending her residence on numerous occasions several times a day. DW grew fearful of the accused due to knowledge of his past violent crime. She states that the accused strongly believes that they are in a relationship and has told people that they are getting married.
When police arrived at DW’s residence on September 9th, the accused was observed sitting on the front steps. The accused was told numerous times by police to leave. The accused ignored several verbal demands and verbally told police that he will not leave and will keep returning to the residence until he can talk to DW. The accused began rambling and losing his train of thought and refused to leave.
The accused had knowledge of DW’s place of residence and had been besetting and watching the dwelling house. The accused was subsequently arrested and charged with Criminal Harassment, section 264 (2) (C) of the Criminal Code of Canada. Under caution, the accused made an utterance that he ''loves Sonia and thought that she was the one."
Background Information Regarding the Accused:
Mr. Mowat is currently 40 years of age and was born and raised in the Niagara Falls Ontario area. His parents, Joel Mowat and Ann Reid divorced when he was eight years of age. He did well in school and completed a university program in civil engineering. After completing university, he spent time backpacking in Europe prior to enrolling in the Canadian Armed Forces in 2007. However, he left the military after 2 ½ years and returned to the Niagara Falls area. There is conflicting information with respect to whether his discharge from the military was honourable or dishonourable.
The Hospital report summarizes his parents reports with respect to the changes in his behaviour after returning home as follows:
Mr. Mowat resided with his father after returning home from the military. Mr. Joel Mowat reported he began to notice a change in his son’s presentation. He reported his son believed he was being followed and watched, and his mother noted that he became frightened when airplanes flew by and avoided television sets and radios for fear that the military would come after him. Mr. Mowat’s parents indicated their son contacted multiple family members in an effort to apologize for his actions as a teenager and for any wrongdoing, and he became preoccupied with signs and numbers. Mr. Mowat’s parents noted their son to become more religiously preoccupied. Mr. Joel Mowat added that his son became depressed at times and on one occasion asked his father to kill him, stating he needed to die, and citing his guilt for previous actions during his teenage years. Mr. Joel Mowat indicated that his son also at times would sleep minimally or not at all, and he often talked about elaborate plans and thoughts for months on end. Mr. Joel Mowat indicated that his son began describing auditory hallucinations from God, often engaging in strange behaviours such as bathing in snow due to the belief that tap water had impurities, and that this was a command from God. Ms. Reid and Ms. Hornby noted that he would fast for extended periods of time, adopted strange eating habits, and appeared malnourished. Ms. Hornby stated that her brother’s reasoning for not eating was because he was awaiting an “answer from God.”
Psychiatric History
- Mr. Mowat had no history of psychiatric hospital admissions prior to the index offence however he had experienced episodes of depression since childhood but declined to take medications offered by his family physician. He also had experienced occasional transient suicidal ideations.
Current Diagnosis
- Mr. Mowat’s current diagnosis is schizophrenia.
Legal History:
Prior to the index offence Mr. Mowat had convictions from 2012 for mischief under $5,000 and willfully cause unnecessary pain/suffering to an animal, in respect of which he served 203 days of pretrial custody.
The background to the animal cruelty charge was that while Mr. Mowat was volunteering at a local farm, he saw a horse "he believed to be of lesser quality,” and whom he also “believed [the horse] to be sick.” Mr. Mowat severed the horse's head and placed it into a co-worker's truck to "'send a message'" that he was growing frustrated with his co-worker. According to the accused's father, Mr. Mowat “did not regret his actions or show remorse as he felt justified in killing the horse because it was in poor health.”
Evidence of Dr. Prat
Dr. Prat indicated that he had been Mr. Mowat’s treating psychiatrist for the last two years and had read and adopted the contents of the Hospital Report. By way of an update to the report he indicated that Mr. Mowat was likely to commence counselling with a psychotherapist to assist in dealing with his limited insight and rigid thinking soon. The Hospital had recently started a program which was coordinated by the Anxiety Clinic as well as the Schizophrenia Outpatient Clinic which would likely be of assistance to Mr. Mowat.
Dr. Prat indicated that by and large Mr. Mowat had an uneventful year. He continued with employment, socializing with his family and his religious studies. He also had accepted a referral to the Schizophrenia Outpatient Clinic. However, there was one incident in the summer which only came to light in October when Mr. Mowat reported that he had experienced thoughts about hitting his mother with a shovel while they were working together in the garden after he became upset with a comment made by his mother. However, he just dropped the shovel and walked away.
Dr. Prat indicated that Mr. Mowat’s insight into his illness fluctuated along with his delusions. He displayed a lack of insight into the symptoms of his illness at the time of the beheading of the horse and, although adherent to medication, has limited insight into the actual effect of medications on his illness. Dr. Prat indicated that, absent Board supervision, it was likely that over time Mr. Mowat would reduce or stop medication, and he agreed with the most recent risk assessment indicating that Mr. Mowat was at a moderate risk of violence. Mr. Mowat’s mental health is fragile even when adherent to medication and if he discontinued there would be quick decompensation.
Dr. Prat indicated that the treatment team had no real concerns with respect to substance use by Mr. Mowat and believed that a removal of the abstinence clause in his disposition would be a way to test his commitment to abstinence and the impact of any substance use on his mental health. However, he recommended that the requirement that he provide urine samples be continued so that the team could monitor any use of substances and the impact on his stability.
In response to questions from counsel for Mr. Mowat, Dr. Prat indicated that Mr. Mowat had indicated that he would take medication as long as it was recommended by his doctors and that, although he accepts that Mr. Mowat currently believes that he would, given his limited insight into the need for and impact on his mental health of medications that belief would change over time without Board supervision. In Dr. Prat’s opinion, Mr. Mowat needs psychotherapy to deal with his anxiety and psychotic symptoms in order to manage his risk.
In response to questions from panel members, Dr. Prat indicated that he had not considered any increase in or change to medications for Mr. Mowat. In his opinion the medications were working reasonably well and a change outside of the controlled environment of the Hospital would not be recommended. He also indicated that the current diagnosis should be amended to include obsessive personality traits.
Evidence of Mr. Mowat
Mr. Mowat confirmed that he had been living with his mother in the Niagara Falls since his discharge from hospital and that it was just two of them at the residence. He also confirmed that he had been working for a period of time without any issues. He agreed that he had a mental health issue and took medication for it and “probably” would need to take it for the rest of his life. He stated that the medication “makes me clearer” and that he was not sure what would happen if he stopped.
He advised that he had met with his case manager from the Schizophrenia Outpatient Clinic but that they had not discussed any program involvement. He stated that alcohol consumption was a problem for him both in high school and when he was in the military, but he had been abstinent for many years.
Final Positions of the Parties
At the conclusion of the hearing counsel for the Hospital maintained her position that Mr. Mowat continued to represent a significant threat and that a continuation of the discharge on conditions was necessary and appropriate but submitted that the evidence supported the removal of the prohibition from the use of intoxicating substances but continuing the requirement to provide urine samples.
Counsel for the Attorney General supported the Hospital recommendations.
Counsel for Mr. Mowat submitted that the evidence did not support a finding that the high test set by both the Criminal Code and the Supreme Court of Canada for a finding of significant threat had been met. He submitted that the most recent risk assessment showed a reduction in risk level from “moderately high” to “moderate” . He submitted that his client’s insight into the need for treatment was supported by his statement that he needed medication for the rest of his life. In his submission, any risk of ceasing to take medication was purely speculative.
Counsel for Mr. Mowat also submitted, that should the Board find that the evidence supported a finding of significant threat and found that the prohibition from use of intoxicating substances was no longer necessary and appropriate, he would concede that continuing the requirement for urine testing would be appropriate.
Analysis and Conclusion, Significant Threat:
- The Board finds that Mr. Mowat continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. Mr. Mowat suffers from a major mental illness and despite adherence to oral medication continues to experience symptoms of his illness. The hospital report summarizes Mr. Mowat’s last year as follows:
In the past reporting year, Mr. Mowat has presented with a relatively reactive clinical risk profile. He continues to endorse delusional thought content, primarily religious in nature (e.g., Messianic Age, considers himself to possibly be the Prince, continues to believe prior persecutory delusions from military time, continues to believe he saw Jesus in flaming figure in armory). He has problems with insight into his own mental health, violence risk, and need for treatment (e.g., declines higher dosage, declines long-acting injection, very limited retention of CBT content). He has endorsed sporadic violent ideation, focused primarily on his mother (e.g., when she provided him feedback during gardening, he thought about hitting her with the shovel). There was evidence of cognitive and affective instability (e.g., easily frustrated and over his coping limit, daily prayer and Bible study to offset frustration, distorted attributional style) in the past year. Although he attends appointments reliably and has attended a cognitive behavioural program through Niagara Mental Health, responsiveness to pharmaceutical and therapeutic intervention has been suboptimal. As noted, Mr. Mowat has not been receptive to increases in medication or changing to a long-acting injection.
The most recent risk assessment places Mr. Mowat’s risk to the community level if granted an absolute discharge as moderate.
Although counsel for Mr. Mowat submitted that his client’s insight into the need for medication was supported by his statement to the treatment team that he would take medication for the rest of his life, his own evidence contradicted that when he stated that he “probably” would take medication for the rest of his life and indicated that he did not know what would happen if he ceased taking medication. This lack of insight is also supported by refusal to accept long-acting injectable medication both for clearly unsupported reasons (it would atrophy his muscles) and that he wants to decide if and when he takes medication.
Although Mr. Mowat has been accepted into the Schizophrenia Outpatient Clinic and has met on one occasion with his case manager there, he has not discussed programming with the case manager and will not be meeting with his new psychiatrist until sometime in March. At this point, it is unclear how the transition from the current forensic outpatient program will development.
Analysis and Conclusion, Necessary and Appropriate Disposition:
- The Board finds that the evidence supports a finding that the current disposition has been effective in managing Mr. Mowat’s risk and is the least onerous and least restrictive disposition available. However, the Board also agrees with the recommendation that the prohibition from the use of intoxicating substances is no longer necessary and appropriate. Although Mr. Mowat had some difficulties with particularly the use of alcohol, there has been no issue with respect to the use of any intoxicating substances for many years and the Board accepts the opinion of Dr. Prat such a prohibition is not necessary to manage risk.
DATED this 2^nd^ day of April 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Robert Bigelow
Alternate Chairperson
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board