Re: Kalib Dufty
ORB File No: 7140
Hearing held on: Tuesday, April 29, 2025
Place of hearing: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health 1001 Queen Street West, Toronto
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. B. Garrow Members: Dr. P.E. Cook Dr. H. Moulden Ms. C. Finley Mr. S. Duffy
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Kalib Dufty Counsel: Mr. A. Rai
The person in charge of hospital: Representative: Dr. T. Wilkie
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. D. Moskovitz
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated June 10, 2025)
Introduction
On April 24, 2017, Kalib Dufty was found not criminally responsible (NCR) on account of mental disorder on a charge of second degree murder, contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada. He is currently subject to a disposition of the Ontario Review Board (ORB/the Board), dated May 22, 2024, detaining him at the Forensic Service of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto (CAMH/the hospital), with the discretionary privileges up to and including the ability to reside in the community in accommodation approved by the person in charge.
On April 29, 2025, the Board convened to conduct the annual hearing of Mr. Dufty’s disposition pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Dufty did not attend the proceedings. His counsel, Mr. Rai, indicated that he had instructions to proceed in his absence. His request for Mr. Dufty to be excused from the proceedings pursuant to s. 672.5(10) was granted. The victim’s brother was in attendance at the hearing.
At the outset of the proceedings, all parties were canvassed as to their positions on the two issues to be determined by the Board: whether Mr. Dufty continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public, and if so, the necessary and appropriate disposition having regard to the criteria set out in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
Dr. Wilkie, on behalf of the hospital, submitted that Mr. Dufty continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and the necessary and appropriate disposition is a continuation of the current detention order with the same terms and conditions. Ms. Moskovitz, on behalf of the Ministry of the Attorney General, and Mr. Rai concurred in the hospital’s positions. Mr. Rai also indicated that Mr. Dufty was seeking a condition that would allow him to exercise passes within the province of Ontario for up to 72 hours, indirectly supervised. Thus, a joint recommendation was put before the Board save for this additional requested condition.
Findings
- For the reasons that follow, the Board finds that Mr. Dufty continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and the necessary and appropriate disposition is a continuation of the current detention order. The Board declines to include the expanded travel passes requested by Mr. Dufty.
The Evidence
- The evidence at the hearing consisted of the Hospital Report, dated April 6, 2025 (ex. 1), and the viva voce evidence of Dr. Wilke, Mr. Dufty’s treating psychiatrist. Given the parties’ positions, most of the evidence was focussed on Mr. Dufty’s request for indirectly supervised travel passes.
The Index Offences
- The circumstances of the index offences have been taken from last year’s Reasons for Disposition:
“Mr. Dufty was living with the victim in a basement apartment that was popular with crack cocaine users. On April 13, 2013, he and his roommate were at home with two others present when Mr. Dufty called the victim a “fucking pedophile” and, with a knife he had retrieved from the kitchen, stabbed the victim multiple times in the torso and head. A wound to the victim’s head caused his death.”
Background Information
The Hospital Report includes information about Mr. Dufty’s background and psychiatric history and need not be reviewed in these reasons beyond the following material facts. Mr. Dufty is a 35-year-old man who was born and raised in Scarborough. His parents separated when he was approximately four years old, after which he resided with his father and his paternal grandparents. Both of his parents were alcoholics. Both died by suicide, his father, in 2005, and his mother, in 2014.
Mr. Dufty was diagnosed with ADHD as a child. Significant behavioural issues were noted, resulting in a diagnosis of Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD). Mr. Dufty also was assessed as having an overall intellectual functioning in the limited/borderline range (3rd percentile). He began having trouble in school as early as Grade 4. Mr. Dufty’s education was interrupted due to charges and incarcerations as a young offender. He did not complete school beyond Grade 8.
During his teenage years Mr. Dufty engaged in petty theft and drug dealing. He has been inconsistent in reporting about his previous drug use. Collateral information suggests that Mr. Dufty has a significant history of alcohol, cannabis and crack cocaine use, starting when he was in his late teens. He also has a significant criminal record that includes convictions for violence, theft and failing to comply with court orders. Details of his criminal record can be found at pp. 6-7 of the Hospital Report.
Mr. Dufty stated that he began experiencing symptoms of schizophrenia when he was 15 years old. A consultation in 2009 by Dr Siu of Scarborough Hospital indicated that Mr. Dufty had voiced concerns regarding “hurting his grandmother and feeling bored/stressed”. He was also noted to be experiencing auditory hallucinations. It was Dr. Siu’s view that Mr. Dufty suffered from a psychotic disorder, not otherwise specified. Dr. Siu also queried various substance abuse disorders.
Following his arrest on the index offence, Mr. Dufty was found unfit to stand trial and admitted to CAMH pursuant to a Treatment Order. After being found fit to stand trial, he was found NCR in April 2017 and returned to CAMH pursuant to a Warrant of Committal. He eventually was discharged into the community to Regeneration House on November 24, 2021.
Mr. Dufty was readmitted to hospital on three occasions between February 2022 and February 2023, each of which followed urine drug screens showing positive for substances including cannabis, cocaine and methamphetamine. In the fall of 2023, Mr. Dufty provided urine drug samples that showed positive for cocaine, MDA, cannabis and methamphetamines. On October 17, 2023, he was found unresponsive, apparently because of an overdose on substances contaminated with fentanyl. Unbeknownst to CAMH, he was discharged against medical advice. A month later, he was once again found unresponsive and taken to hospital. After that second admission, the treatment team was notified. This time, Mr. Dufty was transferred to CAMH.
The Hospital Report includes the following observation about Mr. Dufty’s insight following his readmission to CAMH, at p. 32:
“Mr. Dufty has not demonstrated a realistic appraisal of own risk of relapse or reoccurrence re: problem behaviors. He has negative attitudes towards the system and perceived injustices of the system towards patients with substance use histories. He continued to maintain that he did not have a substance use problem. His history is significant for a prior history of heavy alcohol, cannabis, and crack cocaine use, which contributed to worsening of his psychotic symptoms, relationship difficulties and functional impairment. Because Mr. Dufty views his substance use as isolative incidents, it can limit his ability to see future use as something that may occur. His psychology report, documented by Dr. Tyagi noted that Mr. Dufty presents as "rigid, lacking in capacity for adaptation and overly self-assured. This might impair his ability to develop insight in the future.”
Course Since the Last Disposition
Mr. Dufty’s current diagnoses are Schizophrenia, Polysubstance Use Disorder, in remission, Antisocial Personality Disorder and Intellectual Developmental Disorder (borderline). He has suffered from symptoms of psychosis, which have included bizarre and grandiose delusions, auditory hallucinations, and disorganized behaviour during periods of acute illness. He continues to have residual delusions related to aliens, and technology however these topics arise only when he is asked directly about them.
Mr. Dufty continued to meet regularly with Dr. Pauls, his addiction specialist, and the unit social worker for substance relapse prevention (SRP) and counseling. When Dr. Pauls left CAMH in November 2024, Mr. Dufty was placed on a waitlist for another counsellor, on which he currently remains. He declined to participate in any SRP groups, repeatedly stating that he was ‘not an addict”. His integration of skills was described as limited, and his relapse prevention plan relied on “will power”. At times, he expressed being overwhelmed by the process of moving forward with his life in a pro-social manner.
Mr. Dufty was discharged back to his residence at Regeneration House on October 22, 2024. He has been compliant with his medication, which is directly supervised by housing staff. Mr. Dufty has maintained contact with his 18-year-old daughter and also with the mother of his two-year old daughter.
Mr. Dufty has discussed the index offence on several occasions over the course of the clinical year in review. On October 29, 2024, he said that the incident was an “accident”, and that the victim had been a friend. In January 2025, he engaged a legal services clinic to pursue an appeal of his NCR finding. He believed that his then-lawyer had fabricated evidence and that promises had been made to him if he agreed to an NCR defense which were not true. No steps in that regard have been taken to date.
Mr. Dufty has expressed conflicting views on his desire to use cannabis. On the one hand, he does not accept that cannabis use would lead to a change in his mental status, thereby increasing his risk and potentially leading to using other substances. In his view, cannabis would help him be more social. At other times, however, he acknowledged the risks of associating with people who use substances, and the historical impact of substance use on his mental status. He does not want to be admitted to hospital. On those occasions his stated intent is to remain abstinent.
In March 2025, Mr. Dufty identified that one of his goals was to take his oral medication independently so that he could travel or stay over at a friend’s home. The team discussed this with him and presented various scenarios to see how Mr. Dufty would manage without the support of the staff at the residence or the treatment team. He had some difficulty engaging in such a discussion about how he would behave. Mr. Dufty reportedly said that he was not an informant and would not seek help in any situation.
Dr. Wilkie testified before the Board. She has been Mr. Dufty’s most responsible psychiatrist since November 2021. She noted that Mr. Dufty was discharged from the hospital most recently in October 2024 and has spent the last seven months in the community. By way of update, Dr. Wilkie reported that Mr. Dufty had recently obtained a dog. Pets are very important to him and represent a significant incentive for Mr. Dufty to remain in the community. Additionally, Mr. Dufty advised the treatment team that he was considering asking that his disposition allow for cannabis use, though after discussions he decided that he was not going to make the request. (Of note, he did not in fact make that request to the Board.) This is indicative of the ambivalence that Mr. Dufty continues to express about cannabis use.
In terms of Mr. Dufty’s request for travel passes, Dr. Wilkie testified that in February 2025, Mr. Dufty attended a celebration of life for a step-brother. While there, he reunited with members of his extended family. In particular, he spent time with a woman who was a former partner of his father and whom he refers to as his stepmother. She apparently resides in Lindsay, Ontario. Dr Wilkie indicated that the team is not aware whether there has been further contact or of any clear information about their relationship and her engagement.
Dr Wilkie testified that Mr. Dufty currently takes his medication under the direct supervision of the housing staff. One of Mr. Dufty’s goals is to independently administer his oral medication which would allow him, for example, to spend a night at his ex-partner’s residence. In the doctor’s opinion, a realistic goal that the team would support, would be for Mr. Dufty to develop a protocol or an understanding to be able to take his medication independently within the context of indirect oversight. This would mean that initially Mr. Dufty would be provided his medication which he would self-administer. He would be required to remain in the residence for a period of time to ensure compliance.
In response to questions from Ms. Moskovitz, Dr. Wilkie indicated that to date, Mr. Dufty has not gone anywhere in the community overnight save his current residence. Dr. Wilkie would have concerns should Mr. Dufty be away from his residence for 72 hours and fail to take his medication, given he continues to experience residual psychotic symptoms. Dr. Wilkie agreed that substance use continues to be a dynamic risk factor for Mr. Dufty.
In response to questions from Mr. Rai, Dr. Wilkie agreed that Mr. Dufty has been compliant with his medications and the last positive urine drug screen was a year ago. She agreed that before exercising a pass to visit his stepmother, Mr. Dufty would have to submit a detailed itinerary to the treatment team for approval. The team would be able to assess his mental status and contact his stepmother if necessary, before providing their approval. Dr. Wilkie indicated that there would have to be both an expected plan and a crisis plan that would cover an unforeseen event, including available supports in the Lindsay area.
In response to questions from the panel, Dr. Wilkie testified that the treatment team has been clear with Mr. Dufty that, should he return to using substances, an intervention by way of a readmission to hospital likely would take place. Those external controls have been important in managing his risk. Mr. Dufty wants to remain in the community.
Dr. Wilkie testified that over the last year, Mr. Dufty has been a little more forthcoming about his previous substance use. However, it is difficult to say right now that he has developed any sort of relapse prevention plan outside of external controls.
Dr. Wilkie testified that over the next year, the team will be working with Mr. Dufty on increased engagement in structured activities. To that end, he has been doing work at his residence and is hoping to engage in some landscaping work over the course of this summer. These are all positive steps. In addition, Mr. Dufty has goals to spend time away from his apartment and to spend with family. Dr. Wilkie testified that these goals are tied to the administration of Mr. Dufty’s medication and the trust that the team has around his ability to independently take his medication.
In response to a question from the panel, Dr. Wilkie testified that she could not say what the impact would be on Mr. Dufty’s mental status and his risk to the community should he miss taking medication. He continues to experience residual symptoms of his illness. Of particular note, given the circumstances of the index offence, is that Mr. Dufty has reported concerns about people being sexual offenders. The doctor indicated that it would be hard to make a clinical assessment of the level and nature of those psychotic symptoms in the event of missed doses of medication.
To date, Mr. Dufty has not been able to be away from his residence because of the supervision of his oral medication. As a result, he has not utilized any time away from his current residence even within the GTA. Dr. Wilkie testified that it would be premature to include indirectly supervised passes outside of the GTA. In her opinion, he would not be utilizing such a privilege in the upcoming year. When asked about the possibility of the team making some preliminary investigations about potential travel outside of the GTA in the future, Dr. Wilkie testified that would be giving mixed messages. She does not believe that the hospital would be able to manage Mr. Dufty’s risk should he exercise indirectly supervised overnight passes outside of the GTA. She is clear that the work this year will be focussed on Mr. Dufty achieving his goal of taking his medication independently.
The Hospital Report includes the following re-offence scenario, as found at p.39:
“If Mr. Dufty were to reoffend, it would likely occur in the context of medication noncompliance and/or substance use, resulting in the re-emergence of acute psychotic symptoms. Destabilization of his mental illness, combined with his personality structure and antisocial attitudes, will likely result in disinhibition, impulsivity and aggression. Fear and agitation in the context of psychosis would likely result in violence as a means of protecting himself, or perhaps out of anger and an inability to rationally appraise the situation and act accordingly.”
- All parties maintained the joint submission. The only disagreement related to the request for the inclusion of indirectly supervised passes for up to 72 hours within the province of Ontario.
Analysis and Conclusion
The Board has carefully considered the Hospital Report and the evidence of Dr. Wilkie and unanimously concludes that Mr. Dufty remains a significant threat to the safety of the public. Mr. Dufty’s risk flows from his diagnosis of Schizophrenia. Notwithstanding compliance with medication, Mr. Dufty continues to experience symptoms of his psychosis. His diagnosis of Polysubstance Use Disorder arises from his long history of problematic substance use which has contributed to the worsening of his psychotic symptoms, leading to fear, agitation and violence, as demonstrated in the index offence. He has had a number of readmissions in the last three years due to problematic substance use which remains a significant risk factor for him. He has only been back in the community for seven months. As such, he remains a significant threat to the safety of the public.
Having found that Mr. Dufty continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public, the panel must consider the necessary and appropriate disposition taking into consideration the criteria set out in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code, which includes the need to protect the public from dangerous persons, the mental condition of the accused, the integration of the accused into society and the other needs of the accused.
The panel unanimously agrees with the joint submission that the necessary and appropriate disposition is a detention order. The hospital requires the ability to approve Mr. Dufty’s accommodations to ensure that he has the critical support and supervision that he requires. In addition, the hospital requires the ability to intervene quickly in the event that Mr. Dufty uses substances in order to manage his risk in the community. His readmission in such circumstances has been required on four occasions within the past three years.
The panel declines to include a provision allowing for indirectly supervised passes for up to 72 hours in the province of Ontario. Mr. Dufty has only been in the community for seven months. He has yet to spend any time away from his residence given the requirement that he receive his oral medication from the staff at the residence under supervision. The panel accepts Dr. Wilkie’s evidence that, realistically, Mr. Dufty would not be utilizing such passes within the next clinical year.
The focus over the next year will be to support Mr. Dufty in his goals for increasing amounts of time away from his residence, more structured activities, contact with his family, and slowly building trust with the team to allow for independent administration of his oral medication.
Accordingly, the Board orders that Mr. Dufty continue to be subject to a detention order with the same terms and conditions as his existing order.
DATED this 10th day of June, 2025, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.
Ms. C. Finley Legal Member
__________________ Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board