His Majesty the King v. Rodney Melvin Nichols, 2026 ONSC 1963

CITATION: R. v. RODNEY MELVIN NICHOLS, 2026 ONSC 1963

COURT FILE NO.: CR-2023-08

DATE: April 2, 2026

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

– and –

RODNEY MELVIN NICHOLS

Accused

Louise Tansey, for the Crown

Laura Metcalfe, for the Accused

HEARD: March 30, 31, and April 1, 2026

HOLOWKA J.

reasons for decision

FITNESS TO STAND TRIAL

I. Overview

1Rodney Melvin Nichols is charged with the murder of Lalla Jewel Langford (née Parchman) between April 22 and May 3, 1975, in Russell County, contrary to section 218(2) of the Criminal Code. The section number specified corresponds to the Criminal Code as it existed during the specified timeframe in the indictment.

2No charges related to Ms. Langford's murder were filed until September 2022. For over 50 years, her family has awaited justice and closure.

3Mr. Nichols, born June 12, 1942, is presently 83 years old.

4Today’s proceedings offer some resolution. The evidence, expert opinion, impact statement, submissions, and the court's ruling for this fitness hearing are accessible to the public and media. This transparency helps the public understand the context of the hearing and the reasons behind the court’s decision.

5Several pre-trial motions were scheduled for January 2026, followed by a trial before a judge and jury in April 2026. However, the motion and trial dates were vacated in late December 2025, with some of the trial time being reallocated to the hearing of this motion to determine Mr. Nichols's fitness to stand trial.

6It is important to recognize that, at the core of this hearing and the associated reasoning for the decision, Mr. Nichols retains the presumption of innocence. He has neither been tried nor convicted of the serious offence with which he is charged.

7The crown and defence counsel jointly argue that Mr. Nichols is unfit to stand trial. They assert that a just resolution of his case requires finding that Mr. Nichols is unfit to proceed to trial. They emphasize that all experts involved agree that Mr. Nichols’ case is a complex one, but that it is clear that he has dementia.

8I accept the joint submission of the crown and defence counsel. For the reasons set forth below, I find Mr. Nichols unfit to stand trial.

II. Background facts and allegations

9Given the specific circumstances of this fitness hearing and the low likelihood that this matter will proceed to trial, the parties agreed that it would be appropriate to provide additional information regarding the context of the alleged offences, a step that would not typically be permitted. This procedure was conducted with the consent of the parties and with the understanding that the context was not central to the assessment of Mr. Nichols' fitness to stand trial.

10The background is derived from a PowerPoint presentation by Crown Counsel summarizing the investigation, along with excerpts from police interviews of Mr. Nichols and reports from forensic psychologists and psychiatrists, notably Dr. Julian Gojer's report dated January 20, 2026. Dr. Gojer's report was based on a police-generated summary of the investigation.

11This background information has not been tested in a trial, and the admissibility of some of the evidence on which these assertions rely was to be contested by Mr. Nichols at the anticipated pre-trial motions. This summary is only intended to provide context for this fitness hearing. Following the presentation of this background information, the defence was permitted to file additional material to ensure a balanced picture of the investigative context.

12On May 3, 1975, the remains of an unidentified female were discovered floating in the Nation River near the village of Casselman, Ontario, located 114 kilometres west of Montreal, Quebec. An autopsy determined that the cause of death was ligature strangulation. Her hands and feet were secured with men’s neckties.

13Over the years, the police employed various investigative techniques to determine the identity of the victim and potential suspects. The primary objective of the Ontario Provincial Police’s efforts was to conclusively identify the deceased person. During this period, both the media and the community referred to the individual, whose identity remained unknown, as the Nation River Lady.

14In March 2020, a significant breakthrough was achieved in the case when forensic DNA analysis identified the individual known as the Nation River Lady as Lalla Jewell Langford (née Parchman) from Tennessee, United States of America.

15Archived police reports from Montreal about Ms. Langford’s 1975 disappearance reveal she met Rodney Nichols in Miami in late 1974 or early 1975. Mr. Nichols was based in Montreal, while Ms. Langford lived in Jackson, Tennessee. They were in an intimate relationship, and she moved to Montreal in April 1975 to be with him. Her last conversation with her mother was on April 22, 1975. Following that, family and friends continually tried to reach her in Montreal.

16On June 6, 1975, Mr. Nichols gave a statement to Montreal police investigators. Mr. Nichols said that Ms. Langford had left for a trip across Canada. He mentioned that in early May, she called to say she was in Toronto, ON. In early June, she called again, saying she was in Vancouver, BC, and would be home for his birthday on June 12, 1975. After his birthday, Mr. Nichols told police he had not seen or heard from Ms. Langford.

17Police attended Ms. Langford and Mr. Nichols' shared residence in Montreal. They saw her belongings and car there. Mr. Nichols stated Ms. Langford was last seen on June 6, 1975.

18Following the breakthrough in the case in February 2022, law enforcement officials in Ontario and the United States worked together to locate Mr. Nichols. In February 2022, Mr. Nichols was interviewed by the Ontario Provincial Police. He admitted that the neckties securing the deceased body of Ms. Langford belonged to him. At that time, he consented to provide a DNA sample.

19In February 2022, the CFS released a report comparing Mr. Nichol’s DNA with a bloodstain on a green cloth wrapped around Ms. Langford’s head discovered at the location where her body was found. The cloth contained a partial male DNA profile. The CFS concluded that Mr. Nichol’s DNA cannot be excluded as the source of the DNA found on the item.

20An information charging Mr. Nichols with murder was laid on September 8, 2022. An indictment was preferred with the personal consent of the Deputy Attorney General for Ontario on November 24, 2023. Mr. Nichols made his first appearance in the Ontario Court of Justice on December 1, 2023.

21Defence counsel highlighted the following points to provide additional context to the Crown’s presentation regarding the allegations:

a. A comprehensive list of individuals of interest, identified by the police in the Nation River Lady investigation, was submitted to the court. The list details how many individuals were eliminated as persons of interest. Several individuals of interest were not excluded, and the status of other historical persons of interest remains uncertain. The defence had anticipated filing an application to admit evidence of other or alternate suspects.

b. The interview of Mr. Nichols in February 2022 was conducted after he had already been observed to experience cognitive decline. The admissibility of this statement would have been contested on grounds of voluntariness and the right to counsel. The veracity of the statement would have been contested.

c. The historical missing person investigation conducted in 1975 included summaries of interviews and statements rather than verbatim recordings. This distinction is significant when evaluating the accuracy of statements attributed to Mr. Nichols during that period. The admissibility of such statements would have been challenged.

III. Impact statement

22The Crown requested that a member of Ms. Langford’s family be permitted to provide or read impact statements as part of this hearing. Although there is no determination of guilt nor a finding of not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder in this case, I nonetheless agreed to receive the impact statement. I acknowledge that this represents an unconventional procedure.

23In the decision to permit this to take place, I have taken into account the following factors:

a. Most importantly, the consent of Mr. Nichols’ legal counsel to proceed with this exceptional measure is acknowledged. I express my gratitude to Ms. Metcalfe for her kind act.

b. The current fitness hearing and the jointly submitted position have entailed lengthy discussions and careful negotiations between Crown and defence counsel.

c. Contemporary legal developments concerning the conditions under which victim impact statements may be presented. For example, section 672.541 of the Criminal Code permits the reading or consideration of victim impact statements at the review board when the accused is found not criminally responsible. In addressing this matter, I acknowledge that the primary issue before the court concerns Mr. Nichols's fitness to stand trial, rather than any question of his lack of criminal responsibility owing to mental disorder.

d. The reality that individuals affected by the death of Ms. Langford may never have the chance to publicly express the impact of these circumstances underscores the importance of providing such an opportunity. The permission to undertake this procedure is motivated by compassion for Ms. Langford’s family, especially given that, in light of the current decision, it is unlikely that the charges against Mr. Nichols will proceed to trial.

24Rhonda Denise Parchman Chung, the niece of Ms. Langford, submitted an eloquent impact statement. She conveyed the deep love her family holds for Ms. Langford and articulated the ongoing grief and trauma experienced due to the uncertainty surrounding Ms. Langford's fate over those many years.

25Particular emphasis was placed on the profound impact this had on her grandmother, Ms. Langford’s mother. She described her grandmother dedicating all her financial resources to investigating the circumstances surrounding Ms. Langford’s disappearance, employing private investigators and even psychics. Ms. Chung observed that Ms. Langford’s mother and siblings all passed away without ever uncovering what had transpired with Ms. Langford.

26While only 10 years old at the time of Ms. Langford’s disappearance, she recalled Ms. Langford as bright, cheerful and full of life and that her steadfast support left a hole in her heart when she was lost.

27Ms. Parchman Chung’s impact statement concludes with a moving poem.

IV. Evidence of fitness to stand trial

28The evidence in this fitness hearing consists of the following:

a. The reports of forensic psychiatrist Dr. Claire Harrigan from the Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health, dated February 9, 2024, February 29, 2024, April 5, 2024, and May 1, 2024;

b. The report of forensic psychologist Angela M. Carter, Ph.D, dated April 28, 2024; and

c. The reports of forensic psychiatrist Dr. Julian Gojer, dated August 24, 2024, and January 20, 2026.

29The initial reports by Dr. Claire Harrigan characterized this case as complex. Although a Major Neurocognitive Disorder was considered a possibility due to evident cognitive decline, malingering could not be excluded without neuropsychological testing, given certain discrepancies observed in his clinical assessments and the potential strategic benefit of being deemed unfit to stand trial rather than facing incarceration. The likelihood that Mr. Nichols might be exaggerating the severity of his cognitive impairments could not be dismissed.

30Mr. Nichols was referred to forensic and neuropsychologist Angela Carter for assistance with respect to diagnostic clarification and ruling out the possibility of malingering of his cognitive deficits. Dr. Angela M. Carter noted that

the differential diagnosis between moderate/severe dementia and malingering/symptom exaggeration can be a challenging one, particularly when there are suggestions that both conditions may be co-existent. Such was the case in the present evaluation. Mr. Nichols has demonstrable, objective evidence of significant atrophy and microangiopathy, as per his 2021 and 2024 brain MRIs. Although the clinical history is far from complete or clear, it would also appear that he was diagnosed with dementia prior to being identified as the subject of the present criminal proceedings. Unfortunately, however, a careful analysis of his self-reporting, his cognitive/neuropsychological test scores (including performance validity testing), and the pattern of his responses during testing strongly suggests that he has likely misrepresented his cognitive abilities. He meets DSM-5 criteria for Malingering...

31Ultimately, Dr. Angela M. Carter concluded that it was not possible to reliably determine the true nature of Mr. Nichols’ current cognitive functioning, nor to rely on his self-report or behaviour as representative of his best abilities.

32Dr. Harrigan’s opinion in May 2024, incorporated the assistance of Dr. Carter’s report. She noted that this case was complex and opined:

In summary, while there is very likely some genuine cognitive decline contributing to Mr. Nichols’ clinical presentation, results from neuropsychological testing are compelling for the simultaneous presence of malingering. Given that, according to Dr. Carter, Mr. Nichols’ self-report and behaviour is unreliable as representative of his best abilities, my clinical opinion at this time is that, based on the totality of the information that has been made available to me and, on the balance of probabilities, Mr. Nichols would currently meet the legal threshold for being fit to stand trial.

33Dr. Harrigan concluded her written opinion by stating that her evaluation of Mr. Nichols’ fitness to stand trial was as of April 30, 2024. She recommended conducting serial fitness assessments, and if there are significant changes in his clinical condition or a prolonged delay before the trial begins, it would be advisable to repeat his brain imaging and contemplate another formal independent assessment of his fitness closer to the trial date.

34More recently, on January 20, 2026, Dr. Gojer released a further report addressing Mr. Nichols’ fitness to stand trial. His opinion can be summarized as follows:

a. Mr. Nichols has a documented history of cognitive impairment dating back to 2021. He also has a history of hypertension, and recent MRI findings suggest a loss of brain volume along with ischemic changes. An EEG performed recently indicated mild to moderate cerebral dysfunction.

b. Mr. Nichols exhibits significant frailty and has recently sustained bilateral hip fractures and pressure ulcers. Although he is capable of self-feeding, he requires nursing assistance with toileting activities. His medical history encompasses cerebrovascular ischemic conditions, including transient ischemic attacks (TIA) and episodes of acute confusion. During Mr. Nichols’ residency at Ontario Shores, neurosyphilis was suspected and subsequently treated.

c. He presents with Moderate Neurocognitive Disorder, also known as dementia. His EEG results are consistent with issues related to delirium, dementia, traumatic brain injury, cerebrovascular disease, and systemic illnesses. Clinically, these findings suggest cerebrovascular problems, delirium, and dementia in Mr. Nichols. Additionally, MRI results support the diagnosis of dementia and ischemic cerebrovascular conditions.

d. Psychology and neuropsychology testing indicated possible dementia issues, but inconsistent responses may suggest malingering.

e. It was Dr. Gojer’s professional opinion that Mr. Nichols exhibits symptoms consistent with dementia. His responses to inquiries tended to fluctuate depending on the interviewer and the timing of the interview, with indications that he occasionally either refrained from attempting to answer or provided responses that were inaccurate. Nonetheless, there have been instances in which he has answered questions appropriately and accurately.

f. His interviewing history indicated that he likely possesses knowledge and the capacity to retain information regarding the roles of various court officials and the nature of a trial. This is presumably linked to his prior education and knowledge. Additionally, he has occasionally acknowledged that he is facing a charge of murder.

g. His MRI and EEG findings were authentic and could not be fabricated. The cognitive impairment he exhibits spans a spectrum that would impede his ability to sustain attention and engage effectively in assessments. Mr. Nichols becomes easily frustrated, often responding randomly or relinquishing attempts.

h. Even if one accepts that he comprehends what Dr. Gojer refers to as the static or limited cognitive capacity components of the fitness criteria, it remains probable that he will be unable to maintain attention and focus sufficiently to engage in discussions with counsel, follow court proceedings, or meaningfully participate in his trial. He is medically unfit to stand trial.

i. While not central to the determination of the question before me today, Dr. Gojer observed that it is highly unlikely that his medical conditions will reverse or be treatable.

II. Applicable law and principle

35Section 672.22 of the Criminal Code provides that an accused person is presumed to be fit to stand trial unless the court is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the accused is unfit to stand trial.

36Section 2 of the Code defines the term unfit to stand trial as follows:

“unfit to stand trial” means unable on account of mental disorder to conduct a defence at any stage of the proceedings before a verdict is rendered or to instruct counsel to do so, and, in particular, unable on account of mental disorder to

(a) understand the nature or object of the proceedings,

(b) understand the possible consequences of the proceedings, or

(c) communicate with counsel.

37Either the Crown, the defence, or the court itself may apply to have the issue of the accused's fitness tried. Section 672.23(1) of the Code outlines the requirements:

672.23 (1) Where the court has reasonable grounds, at any stage of the proceeding before a verdict is rendered, to believe that the accused is unfit to stand trial, the court may direct, of its own motion or on application of the accused or the prosecutor, that the issue of fitness of the accused be tried.

38In instances where an accused individual is to be tried by a court comprising a judge and a jury, the matter of fitness must be determined by the jury, in accordance with section 672.26 of the Code. In this case, the accused has, with the Crown's consent, elected to proceed to trial before a judge sitting without a jury.

39R. v. Taylor (1992), 1992 7412 (ON CA), 77 C.C.C. (3d) 551 (Ont. C.A.) is the recognized authority for interpreting the fitness test. In R. v. Morrissey 2007 ONCA 770, the Ontario Court of Appeal reaffirmed this test and held that the test for fitness “requires only a relatively rudimentary understanding of the judicial process — sufficient, essentially, to enable the accused to conduct a defence and to instruct counsel in that regard. It is in that sense that the accused must be able “to communicate with counsel” and relate the facts concerning the offence.”

40The test must be applied in a functional and purposive way. The court in Morrissey stated at para. 36, “ An accused must be mentally fit to stand trial in order to ensure that the trial meets minimum standards of fairness and accords with principles of fundamental justice such as the right to be present at one’s own trial and the right to make full answer and defence [cites omitted]. Meaningful presence and meaningful participation at the trial, therefore, are the touchstones of the inquiry into fitness.”

41In R. v. Bharwani, 2023 ONCA 203, at paragraph 167, the Ontario Court of Appeal reaffirmed the standard Taylor test and offered additional guidance as follows:

To sum up, the following principles should inform all fitness assessments:

1. There is one fitness test for all accused, whether represented by counsel or not. This test is applied contextually.

2. The test for fitness is set out in the statutory definition of “unfit to stand trial” in s. 2 of the Criminal Code.

3. A person is unfit to stand trial if, on account of mental disorder, the person is unable to conduct a defence or to instruct counsel to do so.

4. The purpose of the s. 2 fitness test is to ensure that the accused can be meaningfully present and meaningfully participate at their trial. These touchstones inform a purposive interpretation and application of the s. 2 fitness test and do not themselves constitute a stand-alone test.

5. The Taylor test questions are not a sufficient surrogate for assessing fitness but are helpful in providing insights into an accused’s abilities in relation to the s. 2 criteria. Applying the fitness test is more nuanced than the questions recognize.

6. The accused must have a reality-based understanding of the nature and object and possible consequences of the proceedings.

7. The accused must have the ability to make decisions. This involves the ability to understand available options, the ability to select from those options, the ability to understand the basic consequences arising from those options, and the ability to intelligibly communicate to either counsel or the court the decision arrived upon.

8. The accused need not have the capacity to engage in analytic thinking in the sense that the accused need not be capable of making decisions in their own best interests.

42In R. v. Bharwani, 2025 SCC 26, the Supreme Court of Canada granted leave and took the opportunity to interpret the definition of “unfit to stand trial" under section 2. The Court provided this comprehensive definition at para. 6 :

[A]n accused is fit to stand trial when they are able to make and communicate reality-based decisions in the conduct of their defence or instruct counsel to do so. Conducting a defence includes making decisions that an accused must always make personally and those which relate to the exercise of their right to full answer and defence, such as decisions about pleas, the mode of trial, selection of counsel, whether to testify, whether to call or cross-examine witnesses, and closing submissions, among others. The capacity required to make those decisions is a reality-based understanding of the nature or object of the proceedings and their possible consequences, an ability to understand the available options and their consequences, and an ability to select between those options when making decisions. Fitness to stand trial does not require an accused to make decisions in their best interests. Rather, it requires making decisions based on an understanding of reality that is not overwhelmed by delusions, hallucinations, or other symptoms of their mental disorder. Transient mental health symptoms do not necessarily compromise an accused’s ability to conduct a defence. The focus is always on assessing the extent to which an accused’s mental disorder impairs their understanding of reality when making and communicating decisions in their defence.

III. Analysis

43The Crown and defence agree that the court should conclude that Mr. Nichols is unfit to stand trial based on the uncontroverted evidence of Dr. Julian Gojer.

44The testimony of Dr. Gojer establishes, on the balance of probabilities, that Mr. Nichols suffers from a disease of the mind, Moderate Neurocognitive Disorder, also known as dementia. This condition impairs Mr. Nichols' mind and its functioning.

45The main question in this case is whether Mr. Nichols's mental disorder prevents him from conducting a defence or instructing his lawyer. Specifically, the issue is whether the mental disorder renders him unable to understand the nature or purpose of the trial, comprehend the possible consequences, or communicate effectively with his lawyer.

46The evidence provided by Dr. Gojer indicates that Mr. Nichols may meet the criteria for the limited cognitive capacity components of the fitness assessment. Mr. Nichols demonstrates an adequate understanding and the capacity to retain information regarding the functions of various court officials and the nature of a trial. Furthermore, he has, on occasion, admitted to facing a charge of murder.

47Despite the probability that he meets these limited cognitive capacity components, in my view, the evidence establishes, on the balance of probabilities, that Mr. Nichols is unfit because he will be unable to sustain adequate attention and focus to engage effectively in discussions with counsel, follow court proceedings, or participate substantially in his trial. These impairments will inevitably impede Mr. Nichols' understanding of the trial circumstances and evidence, effectively undermining his ability to make and communicate decisions regarding his defence throughout what would likely be a lengthy and complex trial. Mr. Nichols’ meaningful presence and meaningful participation at the trial are essential touchstones of the inquiry into fitness.

48While I acknowledge that Mr. Nichols was likely initially malingering or exaggerating his symptoms, I believe his condition has deteriorated over the period during which experts have been assessing, and counsel have been discussing his fitness for trial. All of the experts agree that Mr. Nichols has dementia. It is clear that he had dementia before he was contacted by the police in 2022. I accept Dr. Julian Gojer's evidence that Mr. Nichols is unfit to stand trial, given that his ability to make or communicate decisions about his defence is severely compromised due to the significant impairments caused by his dementia.

IV. Disposition

49I find that Mr. Nichols is unfit to stand trial.

50I accept the recommendation that Mr. Nichols be transferred to the Royal Ottawa Hospital. Pursuant to s. 672.46(2) of the Criminal Code, an order is issued to take the accused in custody and convey him to the Royal Ottawa Hospital as soon as a bed is reasonably available. This order authorizes Mr. Nichols’ continued detention in a jail, including the Ottawa-Carleton Detention Centre, until a hospital bed is reasonably available; if no bed is available by April 15, 2026, both Crown and defence counsel are to be advised. A date may be arranged for Counsel to appear before me to discuss the next steps, if necessary.

51Pursuant to s. 672.45(2) of the Criminal Code, a copy of the transcript of this fitness hearing, along with all exhibits, shall be sent to the Ontario Review Board.

52I thank the Crown and defence counsel for their hard work, dedication, and collaboration in this matter.

The Honourable Justice Brian Holowka

Released: Orally April 1, 2026

In writing April 2, 2026

CITATION: R. v. RODNEY MELVIN NICHOLS, 2026 ONSC 1963