Re: Kevin Kelford, 2026 CanLII 15158

Ontario Review Board

Re: Kevin Kelford

ORB File No: 3188

Hearing held on: Thursday, November 27, 2025

Place of Hearing: Brockville Mental Health Centre

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

Before: Alternate Chairperson: Mr. P. Capelle Members: Dr. P. Darby Dr. A. Gibas Ms. M. Chamberlain Ms. R. Chopra

Parties Appearing: Accused: Kevin Kelford Counsel: Mr. M. Bird The person in charge of hospital: Representative: Dr. S. Gulati Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. K. Schultz

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated February 24, 2026)

Introduction

1. On July 19^th, 2000, the accused, Kevin Kelford, was found not criminally responsible (“NCR”) on account of mental disorder on two counts of sexual assault and one charge of breach of probation contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada.

2. Mr. Kelford is currently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated December 18^th, 2024, which detains him in the secure forensic unit of the hospital with privileges up to and including living in the community in 24 hour a day supervised accommodation approved by the person in charge.

3. On November 27^th, 2025, the Ontario Review Board convened a hearing at the Brockville Mental Health Centre, hereinafter referred to as the hospital, to conduct Mr. Kelford’s annual review hearing pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Kelford was present at his hearing and represented by his counsel, Mr. M. Bird. A hospital report dated September 25^th, 2025, was entered as Exhibit 1 and Appendix “B” as Exhibit 2.

4. The issues for this hearing are whether Mr. Kelford meets the threshold for significant threat to the safety of the public and, if so, to determine the Disposition that is necessary and appropriate in all the circumstances.

Without Prejudice Position of the Parties

5. Dr. Gulati advised on behalf of the Hospital that a conditional discharge for Mr. Kelford is recommended with the terms and conditions as set out in Exhibit 2, completed in advance of this hearing and reproduced below:

6. Reside at 10 Byng Ave., Brockville, Ontario, Canada.

7. Report to the person in charge of the facility or his or her designate not less than once per month.

8. Abstain absolutely from the non-medical use of alcohol or drugs or any other intoxicant.

9. Submit samples of his/her urine and/or breath to the person in charge of the facility for the purpose of analyzing whether the accused has ingested alcohol, drugs, or any other intoxicant (person in charge will be ordered to require the accused to submit samples of urine and/or breath).

10. Refrain from having in his possession any firearm, ammunition, or other offensive weapons, or being in the company of any person possessing a firearm other than a peace officer.

11. Refrain from having in his/her possession any incendiary device or materials.

12. Refrain from driving a motor vehicle.

13. Advise the person in charge or his/her designate, in advance, of any absence from his residence of 24 hours or more.

14. Notify, in writing, the person in charge of the facility or his/her designate and the Ontario Review Board 24 hours in advance of any change of existing address or telephone number.

15. Participate in the rehabilitation program created for him by the person in charge or his/her designate.

16. Mr. Schultz, as well as Mr. Bird, joined in the Hospital’s recommendation. The hearing therefore proceeded by way of a joint position.

Index Offences

7. The details of the index offences are set out in last year’s Reasons and are as follows:

“In April 1, 2000, at approximately 1120 hours, Mr. Kelford was said to be in the area of Carling Avenue and Grenon Street where he approached a bus stop and grabbed the buttocks of a 13-year-old female girl. This assault was apparently witnessed by the victim's brother. Soon afterwards, Mr. Kelford approached a 9-year-old girl and 13- year-old girl in the area of Michel Drive and Grenon Street where he pushed the 9-year- old face down on the ground and got on top of her and started to "hump her." Apparently the 9-year-old female girl's pants were torn as a result of the incident. Mr. Kelford then apparently left the area afterwards. Following this he was observed to be touching the groin area of a little boy who was sitting on a bench at the Grenon Street bus stop. While the child's mother was nearby, the boy apparently did not react, as if he was uncertain as to what had occurred. No complaint was made to the police about this incident as the child and the mother did not stay in the area.

Mr. Kelford had been placed on a probation order by Perth Judge Injer Hansen on February 15, 2000, for sexual assault. This probationary order was to run out on February 14, 2002. It required Mr. Kelford to be not in the presence of any persons under the age of 14 years except if accompanied by another adult.”

Current Diagnoses

• Delusional Disorder, Paranoid Type
• Pedophilia, heterosexual non-exclusive type - in remission
• Cocaine, Cannabis, Alcohol Use Disorder, moderate - in sustained remission in a controlled environment
• Borderline Intellectual Disability

Background

8. The Board admitted into evidence the Hospital Report dated September 25^th, 2025, as Exhibit 1. The document provides a great deal of information concerning Mr. Kelford’s personal history, mental health history as well as his course in hospital and in the community both prior to and subsequence to the index offences. As the Hospital Report was made an Exhibit, it is unnecessary to reproduce the entirety of the information contained therein in these Reasons.

9. Briefly, Mr. Kelford is now 60 years old. He was adopted prior to his third birthday and developed close bonds with his adoptive family. He attended schools intended for students with special educational needs. Later, he took vocational training in industrial cleaning. His work experience includes cleaning jobs, working at parking lots, and construction work. Because he earned very little money, he also received social assistance.

10. Since January 2020, Mr. Kelford has lived in his own apartment with support services paid for by Developmental Services Ontario (“DSO”). When he first moved in, support staff were available 24 hours every day. In 2022, this was reduced to 12 hours per day with no staff present overnight.

11. Mr. Kelford has a criminal record. In 1988, he was convicted of sexual assault for touching a child under 14 years of age. The Hospital Report indicates that at the time of the index offences he had been on probation since February 15^th, 2020, for sexually assaulting a minor.

12. The Hospital Report details Mr. Kelford’s history of psychiatric treatment, specifically for his sexual attraction to children. He has been involved with mental health services since 1984. He has participated in special programs designed to help him avoid reoffending sexually. He was actively involved in these programs when he committed the index offences.

13. At Mr. Kelford's 2022 annual review hearing, the Board changed his legal status from that of a Conditional Discharge, to a Detention Order which has been maintained to the present day. Mr. Kelford's mental state had worsened such that his behavior had become strange and unpredictable. A few days before the hearing, he broke into a staff office, apparently trying to find loose change for cigarettes. He was discharged from hospital on July 28^th, 2023.

Evidence

14. Dr. Gulati advised that Mr. Kelford has had a very good year. He has neither eloped nor approached any children under the age of 16. He continues to receive Lupron injections. He is employed picking up cigarette butts around hospital property.

15. In August of 2025 Mr. Kelford changed his residence and now lives with two other individuals with whom he gets along well. His new residence is staffed 24-hours a day and alarmed.

16. Over the past reporting year Mr. Kelford has not had any delusions or hallucinations. His urine drug screens have all been negative and he has expressed no interest in alcohol consumption. Overall, he is doing very well. He is both treatment capable and treatment compliant.

17. Following his mother’s death, Mr. Kelford inherited sufficient funds to meet his financial needs.

18. Responding to questions from Mr. Schultz, Dr. Gulati advised that the Mental Health Act is deemed sufficient to return this patient to hospital if need be. Unlike past years, Mr. Kelford has not been observed leaving his residence at night to go look for cigarettes.

19. Historically, Mr. Kelford has had difficulty coping with stress. He has begun using a nightly PRN to address this.

20. An absolute discharge was considered; however, Mr. Kelford still requires the oversight from a forensic team that know him well and can intervene when needed. Dr. Gulati advised that Mr. Kelford’s mental decompensations can last from weeks to months. In the event the Board were to grant an absolute discharge to Mr. Kelford, the treatment team would continue to support him for up to a one-year period. However, the concern remains that he may wander about leading to serious incidents. Further, to transition a patient from a detention disposition to an absolute discharge would constitute too much of a leap. Additionally, there is no ACTT currently in place for Mr. Kelford.

21. Responding to questions from Mr. Bird, Dr. Gulati agreed that when Mr. Kelford decompensates he clearly needs to be returned to hospital.

Closing Observations

22. Dr. Gulati indicated he had nothing to add.

23. Mr. Schultz submitted that the evidentiary basis substantiating the ongoing presence of significant threat is made out as is the rationale for a conditional discharge. Mr. Bird noted that his client had made good progress and was stable in the community.

Analysis and Decision

(a) Significant Threat

24. Ongoing 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 a criminal offence.

25. In determining whether Mr. Kelford continues to represent 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.

26. The Board relies on the Hospital Report and the evidence that Mr. Kelford suffers from a major mental illness. An excerpt from pages 83-84 of the Hospital Report is reproduced below as it addresses the rationale as to why this patient continues to present a significant threat to public safety.

Mr. Kelford has a long history and chronicity of symptoms, which can manifest in form of affective instability, low tolerance to frustrations, breakthrough paranoid beliefs. In the past (2023), he had to be admitted to hospital as a result of decompensation in his mental health. He was placed back on detention order with the added clause for him to reside in 24-hour supervised housing to manage risk to public. However, in the reporting period, he has not needed to be admitted to the hospital and there have been no major concerns in managing patient in the community. He is complaint with medication and care.

27. Given the foregoing, this panel of the Board unanimously determines that Mr. Kelford continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public. In arriving at this determination, the Board considered the joint position of the parties and accepted the uncontroverted evidence of Dr. Gulati.

(b) Necessary and Appropriate

28. Flowing from the Board’s finding that Mr. Kelford continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public it must shape a Disposition for the year ahead. Its paramount consideration in doing so must be the safety of the public while also considering Mr. Kelford’s needs pursuant to s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.

29. The joint recommendation to cascade Mr. Kelford from a Detention Order to a Conditional Discharge recognizes that he has had a very good year. To his credit:

• no elopements;
• has not approached any children under the age of 16;
• remains employed;
• no reported delusions or hallucinations;
• urine drug screens have all been negative;
• no expressed interest in consuming alcohol;
• treatment capable;
• treatment compliant (Lupron);
• utilizing a nightly PRN for stress.

30. Given the foregoing, this panel of the Board unanimously determines that the necessary and appropriate Disposition required to manage the threat Mr. Kelford poses to the safety of the public while still meeting his needs, is a Conditional Discharge Disposition as described above.

Conclusion

31. In making this Disposition, the Board carefully considered the positions and submissions of the parties and the evidence of Dr. Gulati and is satisfied that this determination is both necessary and appropriate. The Board reviewed the provisions of s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code and carefully considered the need to protect the public from dangerous persons, Mr. Kelford’s mental condition and his reintegration into society and other needs.

DATED this 24^th day of February, 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.

Mr. P. Capelle Alternate Chairperson

Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board