Re Robin Garth Bowes, 2025 CanLII 84082

Re: Robin Garth Bowes

ORB File No: 7356

Hearing held on: June 23, 2025

Place of hearing: Thunder Bay Regional Hospital Science Centre

Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) & 672.81 (2.1) of the Criminal Code

Before:

Alternate Chairperson: Mr. J. Goldenberg

Members: Dr. P. Prendergast Dr. S. Wiseman Hon. E. Kruzick Mr. S. Duffy

Parties Appearing:

Accused: Robin Garth Bowes Counsel: Mr. U. Agostino

The Person in charge of Hospital: Representative: Ms. M. Davidson

Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. A. Pollak

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated August 21, 2025)

Introduction

1. On May 1, 2018, Robin Bowes was found not criminally responsible (“NCR”) by reason of mental disorder on charges of assault with a weapon, theft under, utter threat to cause death or bodily harm (x3) and mischief not exceeding $5000, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (“Criminal Code”).

2. As a result, Mr. Bowes is currently under the jurisdiction of the Ontario Review Board (“ORB” or “Board”) pursuant to a Disposition dated, June 17, 2024, whereby he is detained subject to conditions and living in the community in approved accommodation. On April 14, 2025, Mr. Bowes was admitted to the Thunder Bay Regional Hospital Science Centre (“TBRHSC” or the “hospital”).

3. On Monday, June 23, 2025, the Board convened an in-person hearing and conducted Mr. Bowes annual review hearing and a restriction of liberty (“ROL”) hearing as a result of Mr. Bowes’ admission to the hospital on April 14, 2025. He remained detained on the inpatient unit until June 10, 2025. Mr. Bowes was present and represented by his counsel, Mr. Agostino. His sister, Celeste Bowes, also attended by telephone-conferencing.

Issues at the Hearing

4. The issues for Board at this hearing are whether Mr. Bowes is a significant threat to the safety of the public and, if so, to determine the appropriate disposition. Secondly, the Board must determine if Mr. Bowes’ ROL on April 15, 2025, was warranted and was the least restrictive decision that could have been made.

Position of the Parties

5. At the outset of the hearing, the parties were canvassed as to their recommendation to the Board. Ms. Davidson, as the hospital representative, informed the panel that the hospital position is that Mr. Bowes remains a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate disposition is a continuation of the Detention Order with the same terms set out in last year’s disposition. On the ROL, it is the hospital’s position that Mr. Bowes’ restriction of liberty on April 15, 2025, was warranted and was the least restrictive decision that could have been made.

6. On behalf of the Attorney General, Ms. Pollak indicated that the Attorney General is aligned with the position of the hospital.

7. Mr. Agostino, who appeared for Mr. Bowes, informed the Board that his client concurs with the position of the Hospital on significant threat and disposition. He expressed that he took no position on the ROL.

Findings

8. For the Reasons that follow, the panel found that the threshold for significant threat is met, and that the necessary and appropriated disposition is a continuation of the current Detention Disposition. On the ROL the Board finds that Mr. Bowes’ restriction of liberty and admission to the hospital on April 15, 2025, was warranted and was the least restrictive decision that could have been made.

Index Offence

9. The allegations giving rise to the index offence(s) are set out in the last year’s reasons for disposition as follows:

“On January 31st, 2018, the complainant Kimberly CALDWELL called 911 to report that a male commonly-known as Robin BOWES was at the Rendezvous located at 1201 Idyllwild Drive in the Town of Fort Frances and was damaging property and threatening staff. The complainant advised P.C.C. that he had damaged the area around the front desk. He threw a computer monitor on the ground, pulled the TV off the wall and damaged a door which entered the hallway to the motel. Bowes is commonly known to police to suffer from mental health issues.

At 7:48 hrs, police arrived on scene and observed several items scattered around the floor area of the lobby of the Rendezvous Hotel. There was a damaged TV on the floor, the computer monitor was knocked over as well as the door to the entrance of the actual hotel was damaged. The complainant advised that the male was in the hallway. Upon speaking to the victim Bonnie DAW she advised that Bowes stated to her that he was god and that he was going to kill her. Bowes repeatedly stated to DAW that he was going to kill her, which caused DAW to fear for. her safety and lock herself into the hotel office lobby. Police entered the hallway and at 8:00 a.m. located Robin Bowes laying on his stomach.”

Background Information Regarding the Accused:

10. Mr. Bowes is currently 63 years old. He is the youngest child in a family of 5 children. His sister Celeste Bowes is his Substitute Decision Maker (SDM). The children, reportedly, were raised in a strict but a fair atmosphere.

11. As a child, Mr. Bowes met all his developmental milestones within normal limits without evidence of any problems. Mr. Bowes was described as having a hard time at school and, with assistance, was promoted each year to the next grade. His grade 10 teacher worked with him, and, with that assistance, Mr. Bowes graduated from grade 12. Mr. Bowes’ mother reported that his “blending in” at school may have been a factor of not being identified with a learning issue.

12. After high school Mr. Bowes worked at a corner gas station for a period of time. He then obtained a job at a construction site. He suffered a lower back injury in or around 1988-89 and was unable to continue working in construction.

13. While living in Thunder Bay Mr. Bowes met a woman named Delores, whom he married in 1992. While living in Thunder Bay the couple were involved in substance use including marijuana and alcohol. The couple subsequently lived in Seine River, Ontario. In or around 2000 the marriage ended in a separation and subsequent divorce.

14. After the divorce, Mr. Bowes’ family assisted him in building a house on the lot in Seine River. While the house was being built, in a fit of anger, Mr. Bowes trashed the inside leaving just the shell of the house. While it was being rebuilt Mr. Bowes lived with his parents. Over the years Mr. Bowes continued to live with his parents for periods of time.

15. Mr. Bowes also lived in Fort Frances, Ontario. The index offences involved conduct that took place in 2018 while he resided in Fort Frances.

16. Mr. Bowes was admitted to the TBRHSC Forensic inpatient unit on February 12, 2018, and remained hospitalized to March 9, 2018. When admitted to hospital, he was in a manic state being floridly psychotic. He demonstrated pressured speech, loose associations, and flight of ideas. He went from being calm to being very loud and speaking with his eyes closed. He was noticeably agitated and became physically aggressive toward staff.

17. Mr. Bowes was returned to the Forensic inpatient unit on May 2, 2018, after being found NCR on the charges originating in Fort Frances.

18. Pursuant to an ORB hearing on June 8, 2021, the Detention Disposition gave Mr. Bowes discretionary privileges, including living in the community of Northwestern Ontario in approved accommodation. On July 26, 2021, Mr. Bowes moved into the Salvation Army residence in Thunder Bay where he currently resides.

19. As a result of a lower back injury suffered while working in construction, in or around 1988-99, Mr. Bowes is in receipt of a Workman’s Compensation of approximately $2000 a month. His finances are being managed by the Public Guardian and Trustee (PG&T). His sister Celeste is his substitute decision maker (SDM).

Current Diagnoses

20. The Hospital Report set out the following:

• Schizoaffective Disorder, Bipolar Type
• Intellectual Disability – borderline/mild

Evidence

21. The Hospital Report, dated May 22, 2025, was made an exhibit at this hearing, and therefore will only be briefly referred to. In addition, the Board heard the viva voce evidence of Dr. P. Schubert, who co-authored the Hospital Report. Dr. Schubert has been Mr. Bowes’ psychiatrist for approximately 7 and a half years.

22. Doctor Schubert testified that Mr. Bowes was placed in the community in a residence operated by the Salvation Army approximately 5 years ago. Since Mr. Bowes’ initial discharge into the community, he has had 10 re-hospitalizations. Dr. Schubert stated that many of the re-hospitalizations required the assistance of the police in order to bring Mr. Bowes back to the hospital.

23. Doctor Schubert adopted the diagnoses of Mr. Bowes as set out in the Hospital Report. At his baseline, Mr. Bowes is pleasant and acts well. However, Mr. Bowes can be difficult and oppositional. He continues to experience delusions that are frequently grandiose.

24. With respect to Mr. Bowes’ mental health, Dr. Schubert noted that, while in the community, Mr. Bowes has been re-admitted to the hospital. This past year was similar to the previous four years, in that there were two re-hospitalizations this reporting period and four last year.

25. In his evidence Dr. Schubert indicated that Mr. Bowes’ ability to continue to reside at his current residence arises from a very close relationship between the hosts the home operators, the Salvation Army, and the forensic team at the hospital. The doctor noted instances where representatives of the community residence would call the hospital to alert the hospital of various issues such as Mr. Bowes’ decline when not taking his oral medication or using cannabis.

26. On page 53 of the Hospital Report examples of reports to the program received from the Salvation Army staff are more specifically set out, as follows:

• August 28, 2024 – Salvation Army staff called the program to report that Mr. Bowes was yelling to himself for no apparent reason and staring at people, making them uncomfortable.
• September 3, 2024 – Mr. Bowes was reportedly refusing medication.
• September 16, 2024 – Mr. Bowes was reported to be yelling and swearing at Salvation Army staff, refusing to keep his living space tidy and telling staff to “fuck off”.
• February 14, 2025 – Staff at Salvation Army reported, “He has been rude and defiant with staff and tried to pick a fight last evening with another resident.” He was noted to be delusional stating he was the RCMP and related to the Queen of England.
• February 18, 2025 – Salvation Army staff notified the program that Mr. Bowes was smoking in his room again (strictly no smoking indoor policy at the Salvation Army). He was described as being agitated and verbally aggressive towards staff. Staff did call police who removed Mr. Bowes from the residence and returned him to the Forensic inpatient unit.

27. Dr. Schubert testified that Mr. Bowes continues to reside at this residence because of the unique relationship the hospital team has with the residence. In the relationship, the hospital team works with the residence to diffuse the issues and to get Mr. Bowes back to his baseline.

28. The Salvation Army residence has a strict no smoking policy and requires residents to sign a contract with that term to live there. Mr. Bowes signed that contract which he breached and was, as a result, evicted on April 15, 2025.

29. At the commencement of this last admission to the hospital, on April 15, 2025, Dr. Schubert testified that Mr. Bowes did not want to be there. Mr. Bowes was notably irritable and labile towards staff and co-patients. He spent much of his time in his room sitting in his chair, talking, or yelling to himself. He remained delusional he refused routine blood work, valproic levels, urine drug screens or an ECG. He also often refused nursing interventions such as vital signs.

30. On April 17, 2025, Mr. Bowes was granted his first off ward privilege. Later that day he eloped from the program. Mr. Bowes did not return to the unit at his specified time and was observed by security departing in a taxi. Police were notified and Mr. Bowes was apprehended a short time later at the Delta Hotel. He was returned to the hospital by police that evening.

31. On that occasion, Mr. Bowes claimed to own the Delta Hotel and was reported stating, “I thought I had a room there”. Given the index offence when Mr. Bowes caused serious damage to a hotel in Fort Frances and psychological harm to the hotel staff, Dr. Schubert testified that this behaviour is concerning.

32. Following this incident Mr. Bowes’ mood gradually calmed down and he became more cooperative with staff. However, he continued to self-isolate in his room. He could be heard talking to himself at times voicing grandiose delusional thoughts. He was granted off unit hospital grounds passes, and his privileges gradually increased. By May 10, 2025, Mr. Bowes began accessing the community with both his brother and his Best Care worker.

33. Dr. Schubert reported that Ms. Bowes’ case manager, who attended this hearing, sees him at least once per week at the residence. There is also a worker supported by Developmental Services Ontario (DSO) who sees Mr. Bowes once a week. Mr. Bowes also has family support from his brother who lives in Thunder Bay and with whom he visits.

34. Mr. Bowes remained at the hospital until June 10th when he returned to the Salvation Army residence.

35. Dr. Schubert testified to a pattern of behaviour when Mr. Bowes absconds from the Salvation Army residence and the police are called. Over the course of the last few years there have been a number of unauthorized departures from the residence.

36. This past year Mr. Bowes submitted urine samples for screening of common substances of abuse every one to two weeks. He submitted a total of 39 samples while in the community and since his last ORB hearing. All urine samples show the presence of his prescribed medications. Twenty-nine samples were also positive for the presence of cannabinoids: six positive samples occurred between June 24 to July 31, 2024, and one on August 28, 2024. From October 17, 2024, to the date of the Hospital Report 22 samples were positive for the presence of cannabinoids.

37. Generally, while Mr. Bowes’ insight fluctuates, insight into his illness remains poor. He correlates medication compliance with avoiding hospitalization and does not acknowledge the medication treats his mental disorder, which he states does not exist.

38. In Dr. Schubert’s expert opinion Mr. Bowes remains a significant threat to the safety of the public.

39. In response to a question from counsel for the Attorney General about Mr. Bowes use of cannabis Dr. Schubert responded that it affects his symptomology and destabilises Mr. Bowes’ well-being.

40. In response to a question from Mr. Agostino about housing for Mr. Bowes, Dr. Schubert stated that he will be able to remain at the Salvation Army residence as long as he abides by the rules that are set for the residents. Dr. Schubert added that going forward, when Mr. Bowes was discharged from the hospital this month things seemed a little more positive.

41. When asked by a panel member about Mr. Bowes’ cannabis use Dr. Schubert reported, as set out above, that Mr. Bowes used cannabis in 2024 and 2025. The most recent drug screen, administered on June 14 and after Mr. Bowes left the hospital, was negative. Mr. Bowes has previously been in a medical marijuana program, but he discontinued it as he did not like the quality of marijuana that was prescribed.

42. In response to a question for a panel member about Mr. Bowes the smoking in his room at the Salvation Army residence Dr. Schubert confirmed that Mr. Bowes would be smoking cigarettes which is against the rules of that residence.

43. In response to a panel member’s question about Mr. Bowes’ level of risk to the safety of the public at the present time, Dr. Schubert responded that given Mr. Bowes’ mental health, it was more than merely possible that Mr. Bowes would re-offend.

44. All counsel informed the Alternate Chair that they would not be calling other evidence.

45. Mr. Bowes expressed a desire to speak. On his client’s wish to address the panel Mr. Agostino acquiesced. In his remarks, Mr. Bowes did not understand why if marijuana is now legalized, he was not able to use the substance. He remains of the view that marijuana helps him with his pain.

46. No other evidence was called.

Submissions of Counsel

47. Ms. Davidson, as the hospital representative, submitted that Mr. Bowes remains a significant threat to the safety of the public and, that the necessary and appropriate disposition is a continuation of the Detention Order with the same terms set out in last year’s disposition. On the ROL it was submitted that the hospital’s position is that Mr. Bowes’ restriction of liberty on April 15, 2025, was warranted and was the least restrictive decision that could have been made.

48. On behalf of the Attorney General, Ms. Pollak remained aligned with the position of the hospital.

49. On behalf of Mr. Bowes, Mr. Agostino confirmed that his client concurs with the position of the Hospital on significant threat and disposition. He took no position on the ROL.

Analysis and Findings

a) Annual Review

Significant Threat

50. The panel accepts the evidence as set out in the Hospital Report and the oral evidence of Dr. Schubert. On the evidence the panel unanimously finds Mr. Bowes poses a risk of serious physical or psychological harm as set out in the Criminal Code. We note that the parties to this hearing accept that at this present time.

51. In coming to our conclusion, we accept the factors as outlined by Dr. Schubert in his testimony. Mr. Bowes suffers from a major psychotic illness with little insight into his serious illness and the need for medication. We accept the evidence that Mr. Bowes continues to experience delusional thoughts and to engage in threatening conduct. The doctor referred the panel to Mr. Bowes’ history of non-compliance with medication, his history of cannabis use, his numerous elopements, and his repeated disregard for rules.

52. Dr. Schubert evidence, which we accept, is that that given Mr. Bowes’ mental health, it was more than merely possible that Mr. Bowes would re-offend. In coming to our conclusion, the panel is mindful of the serious nature of the index offence set out above.

Disposition

53. Dr. Schubert opined that a detention order is both necessary and warranted. The panel accepts and relies on Dr. Schubert’s testimony for the necessity to be able to react to the earliest evidence of any inappropriate conduct of Mr. Bowes. Based on the doctor's expert evidence we are satisfied that the provisions of the Mental Health Act in this case would not be sufficient to manage Mr. Bowes’ risk to the safety of the public.

54. On the evidence as set out above we have no hesitation in finding that a Detention Order in this case is both necessary and appropriate to protect the safety of the public.

55. In reviewing the appropriate terms, we are satisfied that the terms should remain as set out in last year’s disposition.

b) Restriction of Liberty

56. In this case the hospital significantly restricted the liberty of Mr. Bowes for more than seven days.

57. By a letter dated the 21st of April 2025 the TBRHSC gave notice to the ORB, pursuant to s. 672.56(2)(b) of the Criminal Code, that Mr. Bowes was admitted to the Forensic inpatient unit on April 14, 2025. The hospital therefore fulfilled its statutory obligation to provide notice to the ORB as soon as practicable and as required by ss.672.56(2)(b).

58. This ROL hearing was then set to coincide with Mr. Bowes’ annual review hearing. The ORB therefore convened this ROL hearing to review the hospital’s exercise of its discretion as soon as practicable and pursuant to ss.672.81(2.1).

59. On the ROL the Board accepts the evidence of Dr. Schubert that Mr. Bowes’ return to the hospital was triggered after a call from the Salvation Army residence. Mr. Bowes’ refusal to abide by the rules of the residence, more specifically, by smoking in his room and then by exhibiting disruptive behaviour caused the residence to have Mr. Bowes removed. On the evidence the Board finds that Mr. Bowes’ restriction of liberty and admission to the hospital on April 15, 2025, was warranted and was the least restrictive decision that could have been made.

60. As set out above, Mr. Bowes suffers from a major psychotic illness. While under the ORB, and during the past few years, Mr. Bowes’ decompensation while living in the community has resulted in some 10 admissions to the hospital.

61. While the panel bears in mind the submissions of counsel, the panel accepts and relies on the evidence of Dr. Schubert in independently coming to our conclusion. Mr. Bowes was visibly unwell when he was admitted to the hospital on April 15, 2025. He was notably irritable and emotionally unstable and reactive to staff and co-patients. We accept the evidence that Mr. Bowes remained delusional, and he refused to engage with the treatment team when he was admitted.

62. During the period of time that Mr. Bowes was out of the Salvation Army residence, the unit he had been occupying was refurbished so that he had no other housing available to him. It was not available to him until June 10, 2025. Mr. Bowes returned to the residence on that day. The evidence supports that Mr. Bowes was functioning at his baseline when he was discharged from the hospital, and he is now doing well. As noted in the evidence portion of these reasons, Mr. Bowes was present at this hearing, was able to respectfully, calmly, and coherently address the Board expressing his point of view.

Conclusion

63. On the evidence the panel unanimously finds that the jurisdictional threshold of significant threat is met. A discharge subject to conditions on the facts and in the circumstance of this case would be insufficient to protect the safety of the public.

64. In the circumstances of this case the necessary and appropriate disposition is a continuation of the Detention Order with the same terms set out in last year’s disposition. The disposition is the least onerous and least restrictive while recognizing public safety as our paramount consideration and the rehabilitation and other needs of Mr. Bowes.

65. On the ROL, Mr. Bowes’ restriction of liberty on April 15, 2025, was warranted and was the least restrictive decision that could have been made. Mr. Bowes was subsequently discharged when his housing was available.

DATED this 21st day of August 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.

E. Kruzick

Legal Member

___________________

Office of the Registrar

Ontario Review Board