Re: Darrell Mowat
ORB File No: 7655
Hearing held on: February 17, 2026
Place of hearing: St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton, West 5th Campus
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Ms. K.A Connidis
Members: Dr. J. Cheston Dr. S. Bouskill Mr. D. D’Intino Ms. B. Little
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Darrell Mowat
Counsel: Mr. B. Hurst
The Person in Charge of Hospital Counsel: Ms. L. Barney
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. I. Shaikh
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated April 14, 2026)
Introduction
On December 6, 2019, Mr. Darrell Mowat was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, on a charge of criminal harassment (besetting or watching a dwelling house) contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (“Criminal Code”).
Mr. Mowat is subject to a Conditional Discharge Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (the “Board” or ORB), dated February 28, 2025.
On February 17, 2026, a panel of the Ontario Review Board convened in person and a hearing was held at St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton (SJHH). Mr. Mowat was present at the hearing with his counsel. The purpose of the hearing was to determine if Mr. Mowatt continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public as defined in the Criminal Code of Canada, and if so, the necessary and appropriate Disposition.
For the reasons set out below, the Board unanimously finds that Mr. Mowat meets the threshold for significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a continuation of his current Conditional Discharge Disposition with no changes to its terms and conditions.
Current Psychiatric Diagnosis:
- Schizophrenia;
Index Offences:
- The facts arising from the index offences were set out in the Hospital Report and are summarized 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."
Without Prejudice Positions of the Parties:
At the commencement of the hearing, the parties were canvassed for their initial positions.
The Hospital took the position that Mr. Mowat meets the threshold for significant threat to the safety of the public and that the necessary and appropriate Disposition was a continuation of the existing Conditional Discharge Disposition with no changes to its terms and conditions.
Counsel for the Attorney General supported the Hospital’s position.
Counsel for the accused advocated for an Absolute Discharge, arguing that Mr. Mowat no longer poses a significant threat to the safety of the public.
Evidence at the Hearing:
The Board had available to it the evidence and documents forming the Record, the Exhibits, and oral evidence from Dr. Prat, who is Mr. Mowat’s attending psychiatrist.
Dr. Prat testified by way of update to the Hospital Report that Mr. Mowat is now engaged in psychotherapy with a social worker and outpatient case manager. The intention is to work on helping Mr. Mowat to develop more flexibility in his thinking and to try to develop coping strategies that do not involve being guided by what the Bible says. It is not expected that Mr. Mowat’s rigid religious thinking will go away entirely, but it is the hope that he will be able to develop more robust coping strategies.
Dr. Prat testified that those sessions are going well, but that there are ongoing difficulties with Mr. Mowat extracting himself from his preoccupation with religious beliefs. For example, when the psychotherapist tries to inquire about Mr. Mowat’s thoughts about certain topics, he simply reverts back to what the Bible says. However, she did note that since the start of psychotherapy, the time Mr. Mowat has reported spending on reading the Bible and praying has decreased.
Dr. Prat opined that part of this rigidity in thinking may be some underlying cognitive difficulties that prevent Mr. Mowat from engaging in abstract thinking and being able to foresee consequences. This is in part because Mr. Mowat’s rigid thinking seemingly only permits him to do what he thinks is permitted by the Bible or some higher power.
Next, Dr. Prat advised the parties that he, Mr. Mowat and his mother met recently with the Community Treatment Order (CTO) coordinator and that Mr. Mowat agreed to be placed on a voluntary CTO. The order would be valid for six months, but its existence did not change the opinion of the clinical team about the presence of significant threat, nor did it change their recommendation for the hearing.
Dr. Prat explained that Mr. Mowat continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and that his risk at present is mitigated mainly due to the external controls provided by his medication, through forensic monitoring and through the existence of an ORB disposition. Dr. Prat opined that the CTO would not be enough to mitigate the significant threat to the safety of the public posed by Mr. Mowat in the absence of ORB oversight.
Dr. Prat provided a number of reasons for this opinion. Firstly, Dr. Prat explained that in his experience, getting patients back to the Hospital using a Form 47 has been problematic. For example, in some cases it took weeks for the police to bring the patient back to the hospital, notwithstanding the fact that the patients’ locations were known.
Secondly, Dr. Prat explained that CTOs work best when a person has close family support. In Mr. Mowat’s case, his family members have expressed concerns that Mr. Mowat would discontinue his medication. Those family members have seen him unwell and do not wish to take on a more supervisory role if Mr. Mowat were on a CTO and not under the ORB’s jurisdiction.
Thirdly, Dr. Prat testified that even if Mr. Mowat agreed to switch to an long-acting injection medication, absent ORB oversight, Mr. Mowat’s willingness to continue that treatment is in question.
A fourth concern identified by Dr. Prat is that last year, when a prohibition on alcohol was removed from his Disposition, the team saw a gradual but significant increase in Mr. Mowat’s alcohol consumption which exceeded both safe consumption guidelines and what the team had thought he might consume. This was concerning largely because Mr. Mowat has a history of problematic alcohol consumption which dates back to his teenage years.
Dr. Prat further explained that Mr. Mowat is very intelligent and that the doctor is careful what he says and how it is said because he doesn’t want Mr. Mowat to learn what to say in order to placate others. This was a concern because at the last ORB hearing, Mr. Mowat had indicated a willingness to accept a long-acting injectable medication, but then a month after the hearing when Dr. Prat discussed this with Mr. Mowat, the latter was no longer interested. Dr. Prat testified that Mr. Mowat has given different explanations for his hesitation to accept the LAI depending on who he is talking to.
When asked by Ms. Barney to speak about Mr. Mowat’s degree of insight, Dr. Prat testified that Mr. Mowat is very intelligent and he knows what to say, such that Dr. Prat is unable to find him incapable of consenting to treatment. Dr. Prat believes that Mr. Mowat is unable to foresee the consequences of him stopping psychiatric treatment.
In response to questions by the Crown, Dr. Prat further explained that he believes Mr. Mowat has some degree of insight into his mental illness and that, in the past, he was able to recognize to some degree that the index offence was caused by beliefs that were not rooted in reality. However, at other times, his insight fluctuated and it is difficult to say if he had become delusional at those times.
Dr. Prat explained that it can be very difficult to determine where the line is between psychotic delusion and religious belief. This difficulty was illustrated somewhat when Dr. Prat tried to speak to Mr. Mowat about an incident in 2012 when Mr. Mowat beheaded a horse. Mr. Mowat said that he thought the horse was ill and needed to be helped, but he also said that he wanted to scare his coworkers.
Mr. Mowat was not found NCR at that time and was in fact sentenced. He was seen by a psychologist at the time, and they were concerned about the possibility of borderline personality disorder and depression, but in Dr. Prat’s opinion Mr. Mowat was very psychotic at the time of that offence.
In response to questions from Mr. Hurst, Dr. Prat agreed that Mr. Mowat recognizes that he was psychotic at the time of the index offence, that his medication assists with his thinking in some way and that his urine screens show the presence of his antipsychotic medication, although his self-administration of the medication is not supervised.
Dr. Prat agreed that Mr. Mowat has not expressed an intention to change his current residence and that, while his mother would likely notice signs of mental status decompensation, these signs may not be apparent until Mr. Mowat becomes more aggressive and begins to perseverate on religious ideas. If Mr. Mowat were to cease his medication, Dr. Prat believed that he would become unwell very quickly.
When asked what would happen on a CTO if Mr. Mowat became unwell and needed to be brought to hospital under a Form 47, Dr. Prat opined that it is likely Mr. Mowat would be brought to the hospital in Niagara Falls. Dr. Prat hoped that the hospital would contact him in that scenario but was unsure if the hospital would have access to Mr. Mowat’s records from SJHH. In his experience, Dr. Prat has regularly seen Emergency Room physicians discharge patients before being seen by a psychiatrist.
When asked about whether Mr. Mowat could be admitted to the hospital under the Mental Health Act, if granted an Absolute Discharge, Dr. Prat opined that Mr. Mowat would not meet the Box B criteria and even under Box A it would depend on the opinion of the physician doing the assessment.
In response to questions from the Panel, Dr. Prat confirmed that Mr. Mowat does not have any professional community supports in place should he be granted an absolute discharge. Mr. Mowat is also too high functioning to qualify for care from an ACT team. Mr. Mowat does not have a family physician to take over his care if he were absolutely discharged and he would have to voluntarily engage with the Schizophrenia Outpatient Clinic to receive care in the community.
When asked to articulate the nature of the significant threat to the safety of the public, Dr. Prat explained that he was concerned about Mr. Mowat engaging in the same delusional thinking that led to the index offence and a reoccurrence of the violent incident with the beheading of the horse in 2012. Dr. Prat explained that when Mr. Mowat was delusional previously, he was fixated on creating a new church and was thinking about animal sacrifice. Dr. Prat testified that it was not in Mr. Mowat’s nature to be violent, but he feels compelled to act on his delusional religious thoughts, which makes his risk to the public higher than perhaps someone with an antisocial attitude at their baseline.
Dr. Prat’s concern further extends to the fact that when delusional, Mr. Mowat feels compelled to interpret the Bible literally and he doesn’t then have the ability to fully appreciate that what the Bible says should not be read literally.
When Dr. Prat was asked if he felt that Mr. Mowat was responding sub optimally to pharmacological treatment, he disagreed. Dr. Prat felt more so that Mr. Mowat remains residually psychotic and perhaps is also suffering from cognitive difficulties which have affected his ability to be less rigid in his thinking. This in turn has affected his ability to deal with stress and frustration, as was seen two years ago when Mr. Mowat became frustrated with his mother and immediately thought about hitting her with a shovel.
Dr. Prat was then read a passage from the hospital report at page 57 where it was mentioned that several family members expressed concern and fear surrounding the possibility of an absolute discharge for Mr. Mowat. These family members expressed concern that he would cease his medications and pose a threat to his mother if he did so, with further concern that the civil mental health system would be inadequate to manage his risk. Dr. Prat confirmed that this was still the view of Mr. Mowat’s family and that one of the family members who shared these concerns was a Niagara Regional Police officer.
Dr. Prat next explained that if granted an Absolute Discharge, Mr. Mowat’s level of risk to the public would initially remain low to moderate for the first few days as a residual effect of his time under the ORB. However, Dr. Prat believed that Mr. Mowat would soon likely begin to test not continuing with treatment and would become a moderate to high risk within weeks. That risk, Dr. Prat explained, would be of both physical violence and psychological harm to others.
Lastly, Dr. Prat was asked to explain how Mr. Mowat’s escalating alcohol use might impact his risk to the public. He replied that he felt it would increase the rate of destabilizing Mr. Mowat’s mental status. Furthermore, that in the early stages of decompensation he would try to self-medicate his anxiety with alcohol, which in turn would likely increase his alcohol consumption.
In re-examination by Ms. Barney, when asked if he felt Mr. Mowat is experiencing more delusional thinking than he is letting on, Dr. Prat didn’t know.
Mr. Mowat himself then gave evidence. He testified that he has been living with his mother since 2021 and has been working with JD Spa as a hot tub technician. He works around 16 hours per week at this job.
Mr. Mowat agreed with his counsel’s suggestion that he was suffering from a mental disorder at the time of the index offence. When asked to explain why he agreed, Mr. Mowat replied as follows:
Similar to his [Dr. Prat’s] explanation. It’s just uncharacteristic of me and just, I don’t know, its just something that happened that I can’t even explain really. It’s just foolishness, I guess.
Mr. Mowat was able to identify his antipsychotic medication and his dosage and was able to say that they make him “more stable” but was unable to articulate what would happen if he stopped taking his medication. He testified that he would be on medication “for the foreseeable future”. He testified that he would continue to take his medication even if he was no longer under the jurisdiction of the Board.
Mr. Mowat then explained that he declined the treatment team’s recommendation for a switch to an LAI because he was concerned about pain and because of an adverse reaction he had previously to one. He also testified that he prefers oral medication because he has control over it.
When the concerns of his family members that were contained in the hospital report were put to him, Mr. Mowat simply replied that this was their opinion and he appreciated their concern.
When cross-examined by Ms. Barney, Mr. Mowat testified that the routine of taking his medication is something he has to remember to do, and that from a scientific perspective they balance chemicals such as serotonin and dopamine in his brain.
On cross-examination by members of the Panel, Mr. Mowat agreed that the medication have an influence on his thought process, and he conceded it was possible that when he doesn’t take his medication, he is delusional.
When the Alternate Chair asked Mr. Mowat what he thought has been the most helpful to him in his treatment and support over the past year, Mr. Mowat replied:
I think it just gives me time to think. Think about my life and appreciate things. And, like, I don't want to get preachy, but there's a scripture that I realize that Jesus has taken the burden of all our sins on himself. Like, I've been a Christian for a while, but I realize even if there's so called evil in the world or whatever, and people are acting out things, whatever, he's taken that burden off them. Even the effects of sin, he's taken on upon it himself. So it's kind of like I have nothing to worry about, I guess, is what I'm trying to get at. None of us do, really. In some respects, none of us have anything to worry about because of what he did on the cross for us. Yeah.
- At the conclusion of the evidence, all parties maintained their initial positions.
Analysis and Conclusions
Having heard and considered the entirety of the evidence as well as the submissions from the parties, the Board finds that Mr. Mowat does meet the threshold for significant threat to the safety of the public and finds that a continuation of the existing Detention Order Disposition is the least onerous and least restrictive, necessary and appropriate Disposition in the circumstances.
The Panel has come to this decision after a careful review of the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in Ramos (Re), 2025 ONCA 820. While the facts in Ramos differ significantly from that of the present case, the ratio decidendi is relevant to all cases that the Board hears.
In summary, the case of Ramos requires the Board to:
Remain attentive to constitutional protections and avoid the influence of stereotypes or prejudice;
Give thoughtful weight to the reasonable wishes and preferences of NCR individuals, while still prioritizing community safety;
Undertake a careful, individualized assessment that avoids assuming permanent or inherent dangerousness and instead evaluates the person’s present clinical and social circumstances;
Keep the legal thresholds distinct from hospital preferences or institutional rule compliance, recognizing that clinical convenience cannot substitute for the legal test and conducting a holistic assessment which acknowledges strengths and improvements;
Exercise its own independent judgment when reviewing professional opinions; and
Approach hearsay evidence with care, ensuring that any reliance on such information is fair, balanced, and consistent with the Board’s dual role of protecting both individual rights and public safety.
A significant threat to the safety of the public cannot be speculative. It must entail a real risk of serious physical or psychological harm arising from conduct that is both serious and criminal in nature.
In determining whether Mr. Mowat represents a significant threat to the safety of the public, the Board has carefully analyzed the evidence as it relates to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Winko, 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625 and the definition of the term in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code.
Mr. Mowat suffers from a psychotic disorder which is largely treated by his current medication regimen and the structure and supports of the forensic mental health system. When unwell, Mr. Mowat has suffered from intense delusions which led to not only the index offences, but a shocking act of violence in 2012 when he beheaded a horse.
Mr. Mowat continues to exhibit a rigid and intense religious devotion, which has made it difficult for the treatment team to determine where the line between psychosis and religious devotion can be drawn.
Historically, when Mr. Mowat was unwell, he had fasted to the point of malnourishment because he was purported awaiting “an answer from God”. He subsequently donated a large sum of money to his Church and sold all his possessions. While volunteering at a local farm, he beheaded a horse and placed the severed head of the horse in his co-worker’s truck to “send a message.” According to his father, he showed no remorse for this and felt justified in his actions because he thought the horse was in poor health. He told family members that “God had taken over” and that when he killed the horse he “was not fully there”.
Despite antipsychotic treatment and psychotherapy, Mr. Mowat remains religiously preoccupied. He continues to devote a substantial amount of time to researching, writing and interpreting religious texts and scriptures. He reports that he finds this comforting and that it serves as his primary coping mechanism. While the treatment team is helping him build more functional and practical coping strategies through psychotherapy, this remains a work in progress.
This religious preoccupation and rigidity in thinking is of great concern because, as Dr. Prat testified at the hearing, when Mr. Mowat is unwell, he appears to feel compelled to follow his delusional beliefs.
Mr. Mowat’s insight into his mental illness remains limited. This much was evident from his testimony at the hearing, which was not convincing. He could not articulate what symptoms he was experiencing at the time of the index offence and in fact, downplayed his behaviour as “foolishness.” When asked about how his medications help him, he gave a high-level textbook medical explanation rather than linking the medication to an abatement of his symptoms but did agree that the medication helps with this thinking.
The rigidity in his thinking and his extreme religious preoccupation were both evident from his answer to the Alternate Chair’s question about one factor that Mr. Mowat thought was most helpful to his treatment over the past year. He could have discussed the benefits of his medication, or psychotherapy, or support of his mother, or the support of the treatment team, but instead he simply returned to the Bible and his religious preoccupation. In particular, his testimony regarding future risk, “that none of us have anything to worry about because of what Christ did for us on the cross”, demonstrates an external locus of control and passivity, preventing meaningful engagement in risk prevention and active problem solving.
The most concerning aspect of Mr. Mowat’s testimony however was the fact that his testimony was virtually identical to what he told the Panel last year. The following is excerpted from paragraph 21 of last year’s reasons:
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.
Mr. Mowat’s answers to the questions he was asked seemed superficial – he said as little as possible while still directly answering the questions he was asked, but his answers revealed a total lack of insight into the index offence, and poor insight and appreciation for the need for medication and how it helps to prevent a reemergence of his delusional thinking and psychotic symptoms.
The testimony of Mr. Mowat reflected the concerns of the hospital and Dr. Prat – Mr. Mowat’s level of education and intelligence have enabled him to understand exactly what to say in response to certain questions as a means of impression management. The fact that Dr. Prat was unsure whether Mr. Mowat is experiencing more delusional thinking than he is letting on was quite telling and is one reason why the Panel feels that Mr. Mowat continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public.
The main concern vis-à-vis the hospital – and one that the Panel shared – is Mr. Mowat’s lack of coping skills that do not involve looking to the Bible. Dr. Prat testified about an instance where Mr. Mowat became frustrated with his mother and his first thought was hitting her with a shovel. This incident was recounted by his mother to the treatment team and is discussed in detail at page 46 of the Hospital Report.
Of note in that paragraph, it appears that Mr. Mowat’s mother was afraid of being forthcoming with the treatment team because she did not want to be blamed if the Board did not grant Mr. Mowat an absolute discharge. In fact, the conversation was terminated abruptly by the mother because Mr. Mowat had returned, which suggests that she harbors some fear of him.
The Panel’s concerns in these aspects are strongly supported by the following passages from the Hospital Report, at pages 56-57:
The forensic outpatient team had contact with Mr. Mowat’s mother (Ann Reid), father (Joel Mowat), Sister (Kaylee Mowat), and brother (Robert Reid) in November 2025. His family expressed the opinion that he appears to be doing well at this time and reported no concerning incidents within the past reporting year. However, it is important to note that “sometime in the last year or year and a half” Mr. Mowat asked a family member what their thoughts were regarding contacting the victim of his index offence.
To their knowledge, Mr. Mowat has been medication adherent. Family members reported that he consumes “a few” alcoholic beer or cider throughout the week but denied awareness of any other substance use. They believe that while he remains religiously preoccupied, his “religious delusions have improved.” They feel as though sometimes it remains difficult to determine whether or not he is expressing delusional thoughts. He continues to tell his family members that he “does not need to worry” about past delusional thought content because “God is protecting me now.” He continues to ask his family members, primarily his mother, to pray throughout the day, but he has been more receptive to her boundaries regarding the frequency of prayer throughout the day.
Although the family expressed satisfaction that things appear to be going well at this time, they unanimously voiced concern that they would be fearful should Mr. Mowat receive an Absolute Discharge. They stated that the thought of this would make them “uneasy”, “uncomfortable” and “concerned.” They expressed worry that Mr. Mowat would stop taking his medications and would decompensate quickly. Some family members expressed worry about his mother’s safety should he stop taking his medications. They stated that this stems from how he can have short patience with her and based on historical comments of harm directed towards her. They believe that civil mental health follow-up would not be equipped to support Mr. Mowat and that he requires on-going forensic level support(s). In addition to this, they believe that forensics provides a “safety net” for external control over medication adherence.
If granted an Absolute Discharge, Mr. Mowat has no real support in the community. He is too high functioning for assignment to an ACT team, and he has no physician that Dr. Prat is aware of who can promptly take over his primary care. While the Schizophrenia Outpatient Clinic is a viable option for community-based support, his engagement with them is voluntary.
Similarly, while Mr. Mowat has agreed to a CTO at this time, the CTO is also voluntary. The Panel is mindful of Dr. Prat’s testimony that at the last annual hearing, Mr. Mowat expressed an openness to switching from oral medication to an LAI but then became disinterested not long after the annual hearing.
Realistically, at this time Mr. Mowat’s mother is his only support in the community.
All of these concerns must then be viewed in light of Mr. Mowat’s poor insight into his mental illness, his lifelong need for medication, signs of his mental status decompensation and a lack of appreciation for the risk that he poses to others when he is unwell.
Given the concerns of Mr. Mowat’s family about his treatment and medication compliance if discharged absolutely, and especially their concerns about the mother’s safety, the Panel agrees with Dr. Prat’s evidence – that absent the external controls of the Board, Mr. Mowat would likely disengage from treatment, cease his medication and would decompensate rapidly.
This would cause his risk to the public (his family included) to escalate to moderate to high range and when coupled with a reemergence of psychotic symptoms (or an exacerbation of his current residual delusional beliefs) would likely lead to behaviour similar to that of either the index offence, or the horse incident in 2012 which was shocking and violent.
While Mr. Mowat is to be commended for his progress over the past year, achieved chiefly through his work with his therapist, for the reasons set out above the Panel is of the view that he remains a significant threat to the safety of the public and therefore an Absolute Discharge is not appropriate at this time.
In consideration of all the evidence, the submissions of the parties, the wishes of Mr. Mowat and the criteria set forth in s. 672.54, the paramount consideration being the safety of the public, in addition to the mental condition of Mr. Mowat, his reintegration into society and her other needs, the Panel finds that a continuation of the existing Conditional Discharge Disposition with no changes to its terms and conditions is the necessary and appropriate Disposition.
DATED this 14th day of April 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Mr. D. D’Intino
Legal Member
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board