Ontario Review Board
Re: Kyle Sequeira
ORB File No: 8866
Hearing held on: Tuesday, February 17, 2026
Place of hearing: Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences 700 Gordon Street, Whitby
Pursuant to: Section 672.47(1) of the Criminal Code
Before: Alternate Chairperson: Mr. J. Weinstein Members: Dr. R. Wood Hill Dr. L.O. Lightfoot Hon. E. Kruzick Ms. K. Brisson
Parties Appearing: Accused: Kyle Sequeira Counsel: Mr. M. Bornfreund The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. J. Szabo (by video conference) Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. N. MacDonald
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated March 3, 2026)
Introduction:
On March 3, 2025, Mr. Kyle Sequeira was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, on two counts of second-degree murder, both contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada (“Criminal Code”). That finding was based on an assessment, and a related report, by Dr. Pallandi, dated May 22, 2024 (“NCR Report”).
The court did not make a Disposition and ordered that Mr. Sequeira appear before the Ontario Review Board (the “Board”) for an initial Disposition, pursuant to s. 672.47(1) of the Criminal Code.
Pursuant to a Warrant of Committal, dated October 16, 2025, the Court ordered that Mr. Sequeira be detained in custody until a bed becomes available at Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences (“Ontario Shores”).
On February 17, 2026, the Board convened a hearing at Ontario Shores to make an initial Disposition.
A Hospital Report, dated January 28, 2026 (the "Hospital Report"), was marked as Exhibit 1.
Mr. Sequeira was present at the hearing and was represented by his counsel, Mr. M. Bornfreund, who appeared virtually.
The issues at this hearing were whether Mr. Sequeira is a significant threat to public safety, as defined in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code, and, if so, what is the necessary and appropriate Disposition in the circumstances, bearing in mind the factors enunciated in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
For the reasons set out below and based on the expert evidence and opinions before us, the Board concluded that Mr. Sequeira represents a significant threat to the safety of the public. The Board found that the necessary and appropriate Disposition in the circumstances is a Detention Order, upon the terms and conditions set out in our formal Disposition. The highest level of privilege is to allow passes for up to 12 hours to enter the community within a 150-kilometre radius of Ontario Shores, accompanied by staff or a person approved by the person in charge.
Current Psychiatric Diagnoses:
- Schizophrenia Cannabis Use Disorder Alcohol Use Disorder
Position of the Parties:
Counsel for the hospital recommended that the appropriate disposition was a Detention Order within the Forensic Program at Ontario Shores, with the highest level of privileges being passes for up to 12 hours to enter the community within a 150-kilometre radius of Ontario Shores, indirectly supervised.
Counsel for the Attorney General joined the hospital in its recommendation of a Detention Order. However, she did not agree with the hospital’s recommendation for indirectly supervised passes to into the community.
Counsel for Mr. Sequeira joined the hospital in its recommendation. He advised that significant threat was not in dispute for the purposes of this hearing.
Index Offences:
- The circumstances of the Index Offences are accurately summarized in the Reasons for Judgment, dated March 3, 2025, as follows (with identifying information redacted):
“In the early morning hours of June 9, 2019, Kyle Sequeira stabbed his friend Mr. S 13 times with a knife, wounding him on his neck, the top of his head, chest, bicep, abdomen, back, buttocks, and legs.
Mr. Sequeira was arrested two hours later at the Scarborough Grace Hospital, while waiting to receive treatment for a cut to his right hand, which he sustained during his attack on Mr. S. He was charged with attempted murder, aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, and possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose.
On June 24, 2019, after a contested bail hearing, Mr. Sequeira was released on a strict house arrest bail to live with his two sureties, his mother and father.
On the night of August 13, 2021, Mr. Sequeira's mother called the Toronto Police Service (TPS) to report that Mr. Sequeira and his female friend (Ms. M) were arguing. She wanted Ms. M to be removed from the house. When TPS officers attended, they had a physical confrontation with Mr. Sequeira. They arrested Mr. Sequeira and charged him with assaulting both police officers, resisting arrest, and assault with a weapon. Ms. M was charged with obstructing police.
Mr. Sequeira was again released on a global bail on August 26, 2021, on the same terms as before - a strict house arrest under the supervision of his two parents, who continued as his sureties. There was a clause prohibiting contact with Ms. M.
The trial with respect to the attempted murder and related charges arising from the attack Mr. S was scheduled to start on September 7, 2021, immediately after the Labour Day weekend.
At some point during that weekend, Mr. Sequeira attacked and killed both his parents, essentially beating them to death with a golf club.
For reasons unknown to me, the murder charges in relation to the parents came on for trial before me on their own, and before the attempted murder and related charges involving Mr. S were heard, even though the parents were killed two years after the attack on Mr. S.
In the course of hearing that evidence, it became clear to me that the two sets of charges were inextricably interwoven. To determine whether Mr. Sequeira was not criminally responsible for killing his parents, I would need to review his entire mental health history, including the period of time before and during his attack on Mr. S. Mr. Sequeira planned to enter the same NCR plea to the charges involving the stabbing of Mr. S, and the same two psychiatrists would be providing expert evidence in that case. I was of the opinion that it was contrary to the interests of justice for the two sets of charges to be severed in the manner they had been. With the agreement of counsel, I directed that they be joined.
Accordingly, the charges relating to the attack on Mr. S also proceeded before me. The Crown did not seek to prove attempted murder, but accepted a plea to the charge of aggravated assault, and Mr. Sequeira entered a plea of NCR on that charge.”
Personal Background, Legal History, Psychiatric History and Substance Abuse History:
- Mr. Sequeira’s personal background, legal history, substance abuse history and psychiatric history are set out in detail in the Hospital Report, and they can all be summarized as follows:
Personal Background
a) Kyle Sequeira was born in Abu Dhabi and moved to Canada at the age of two. He was born prematurely and spent a month in the neonatal intensive care unit because of a scalp abscess and immature lungs. He grew up in Scarborough, Ontario, with his parents and sister, who is ten years his senior. His parents were supportive and provided a stable home environment.
b) He attended school at age five and performed well academically, earning a spot on the honour roll in high school. He was active in sports, including basketball, soccer, and karate and was named MVP in basketball during Grade 10. After graduating high school in 2013, he attended Ryerson University but dropped out after one semester because of poor grades, which he attributed to excessive cannabis use. He worked intermittently in various jobs, including at the golf club where his father worked, but struggled to maintain employment because of his substance use and lack of motivation.
Legal History
c) In 2014, Mr. Sequeira was arrested for possession for the purpose of trafficking after high school graduation. This charge was dropped after he completed 40 hours of community service. Approximately six months later, he was arrested again for possession of marijuana. This charge was also dropped.
d) In 2015, Mr. Sequeira was charged with assault and fail to comply with probation after an incident involving a female acquaintance. He reportedly grabbed her wrist when she refused to drive him home. This charge was dropped after he attended counselling for anger management.
e) In 2015, Mr. Sequeira was charged twice for possession of marijuana (June 3 and December 12). Both charges were handled federally and were presumed to have been diverted.
f) In 2019, he was arrested on June 9 for Attempted Murder, Assault with a Weapon, Possession of a Weapon, and Aggravated Assault after stabbing Christopher Smith 13 times. He was released on strict house arrest bail with his parents as sureties.
g) In 2021, Mr. Sequeira was arrested on August 13 for Obstruct Peace Officer, Assault Peace Officer (x2), and Assault with a Weapon after an altercation with police at his parents' home. He was released on bail on August 26, 2021, again under strict house arrest with his parents as sureties. These charges remain outstanding.
Psychiatric History
h) Mr. Sequeira has never been identified with a mental health diagnosis, nor has he received treatment for same. He has no psychiatric family history.
Substance Abuse History
i) Cannabis: Mr. Sequeira began using cannabis at the age of 17. He progressed to heavy daily use around the age of 20, at times exceeding one ounce per day. When using cannabis, Mr. Sequeira reported experiencing paranoia, anxiety and occasional hallucinations. He continued to use cannabis while under house arrest.
j) Alcohol Use: Mr. Sequeira began drinking alcohol at the age of 17 (2012), initially to cope with stress. By 2016, he drank twice a week, often to the point of intoxication. Mr. Sequeira increased alcohol consumption in 2019, drinking three to four beers three to four times a week.
k) Cocaine Use: Mr. Sequeira reportedly tried cocaine a few times, including the night of the June 19 stabbing incident.
Course Subsequent to NCR Finding:
- Mr. Sequeira’s course since the NCR finding is outlined in detail in the Hospital Report, and the following extracted paragraphs are relevant:
“On November 24, 2025. Mr. Sequeira was transferred from the TEDC and admitted to Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences (Ontario Shores) to the secure Forensic Assessment Unit (FAU) pursuant to a Form 49 (Section 672.57) Warrant of Committal, to await his Initial Hearing before the Ontario Review Board (ORB).
Following his admission to the hospital Mr. Sequeira has remained on the Forensic Assessment Unit (FAU) at Ontario Shores. Mr. Sequeira has, overall, been settled, stable and pleasant. Mr. Sequeira has not endorsed or evidenced mood or psychotic symptoms during his hospital stay, although he did report that he used to hear voices. Mr. Sequeira reports being pleased to be at Ontario Shores. Mr. Sequeira has remained compliant with his medications and has been tolerating his treatment well. He has gotten along well with his peers.”
Evidence at the Hearing:
- The Board had available to it the evidence and documents forming the Record, the Exhibits, and oral evidence from Dr. Alioglou, a PGY-6 Clinical Fellow in Forensic Psychiatry, working under the supervision of Dr. Andrew Wang. Dr. Alioglou co-authored the Hospital Report, and she testified as follows:
a) The Hospital Report was incorrect in stating that Mr. Sequeira was not endorsing mood, or psychotic, symptoms. Mr. Sequeira has exhibited psychotic symptoms, including visual hallucinations.
b) His medication regimen has been changed to injectable antipsychotics.
c) The team is monitoring his symptoms and side effects, and his condition is currently stable.
d) Mr. Sequeira is considered capable.
e) Mr. Sequeira is on a waiting list for cognitive behaviour therapy for psychosis (CBT-p), psychoeducation groups, and a concurrent disorders program.
f) The plan is to keep him on a medium secure unit, with a gradual introduction of privileges, starting with hospital and grounds, and possibly moving to indirectly supervised community passes, depending on Mr. Sequeira’s progress.
g) Privileges are reviewed individually and are based on weekly assessments of each patient’s mental state and progress. The clinical team recommends privilege changes to the hospital administration for approval. Privileges are introduced cautiously and gradually and can be revoked if there are incidents or changes in mental status.
h) A formal risk assessment by the hospital’s psychologist is pending.
i) There are concerns about Mr. Sequeira’s insight, particularly regarding the relationship between his substance use and the Index Offences. His understanding of this connection is unclear, as his answers about it change over time.
j) He accepts his diagnosis of cannabis and alcohol use disorders and claims to have been sober for seven years. However, his insight into the link between substance use and risk for reoffending is superficial.
k) The treatment team is still optimizing Mr. Sequeira’s medication regimen. He is presenting as stable but continues to endorse some symptoms.
l) Mr. Sequeira has limited contact with one sister who lives out of the country and this is mostly through phone calls.
- In response to questions from the panel, Dr. Alioglou testified:
a) The clinical team has not yet completed a comprehensive risk assessment by a psychologist, but ongoing clinical risk assessments are performed using tools like the HCR-20.
b) The team acknowledges that these are still early days, with them having only a few months of observation of Mr. Sequeira. A full understanding of his risk to the public has not yet been established.
c) There are concerns about antisocial personality traits, but no formal diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder has been made, neither by the team nor in previous assessments. The team noted some antisocial behaviours in the past, but they cannot definitively link them to his current risk.
d) Mr. Sequeira is on waiting lists (of up to 12 months) for cognitive behavioural therapy for psychosis and concurrent disorder programs. Participation in these programs is considered important before granting greater privileges, but there are long delays in starting them.
e) The team is also seeking a formal psychological assessment for malingering because of inconsistent reporting and atypical symptoms.
f) Mr. Sequeira’s self-report cannot be relied upon.
g) There are no current concerns about depression or self-harm.
h) The team is not aware of any requests for no-contact provisions from victims or others.
i) Mr. Sequeira has only been at Ontario Shores for two and a half months; these are very early days, and the treatment team really does not know him very well yet.
j) Despite the abundant lack of information, and the seriousness of the Index Offence, the treatment team is recommending indirectly supervised passes as Mr. Sequeira has been presenting as relatively stable, and the hospital is obligated to recommend a Disposition that is the least onerous and least restrictive option.
k) There were no specific reasons as to why Mr. Sequeira would need 12-hour indirectly supervised passes or where he wished to go. He did indicate that he would like to go to a restaurant or a grocery store. It is true that these wishes could be satisfied with his existing accompanied privileges.
l) The team’s concern about Mr. Sequeira engaging in impression management or malingering is not just based on previous assessments, but on their own observations and interactions with him.
- No other evidence was called.
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. Sequeira is a significant threat to the safety of the public. The appropriate and necessary Disposition is a Detention Order at Ontario Shores.
In Winko, the Supreme Court outlined that, in coming to the conclusion on the issue of significant risk, a Review Board should closely examine a range of evidence, including: the circumstances of the original offence; the past and expected course of the accused’s treatment; the present state of the NCR accused’s medical condition; the NCR accused’s own plans for the future; the support existing for the NCR accused in the community; and most importantly, the recommendations provided by experts who examined the NCR accused. In coming to our conclusion in this matter, the Board relies on the uncontroverted expert evidence of Dr. Alioglou, in addition to the documentary evidence before us.
Mr. Sequeira remains symptomatic and continues to experience auditory and visual hallucinations. His insight into his cannabis and alcohol use disorder is markedly limited, and his appreciation of the role of substance use in previous behavioural dysregulation is superficial.
Mr. Sequeira has only a partial understanding of the benefits of antipsychotic medication. While he has stated that he wishes to continue medication, he has also expressed confidence that he would be able to prevent further violent behaviour and maintain control even without it. This confidence reflects an overestimation of his capacities when unwell.
In particular, the Board relies on the following extracted paragraphs from the Hospital Report:
“If Mr. Sequeira were to return to the community, he would likely not have easy or immediate access to professional services, particularly psychiatric care. This could result in discontinuation of treatment, particularly if he did not have a provider to continue prescribing medication and provide ongoing monitoring.
Mr. Sequeira’s future living situation remains unclear, which raises concerns regarding housing stability. Additionally, it is uncertain how accessible his family physician would be should he live independently in the community.
Mr. Sequeira is also known to have limited personal support, with a small social network and minimal meaningful interpersonal relationships. As a result, emotional, material, and problem-solving supports would likely be inadequate. Taken together, the uncertainty regarding housing, financial supports, and access to care suggests that his living situation would be highly stressful, and that he would be at risk of using maladaptive coping strategies and experiencing difficulty managing frustration.
Overall, Mr. Sequeira‘s risk for reoffending flows primarily from his underlying major mental illness and substance use disorders. He committed the index offence in the context of an untreated major mental disorder, alongside cannabis and alcohol use disorders. He has remained clinically stable while consistently receiving treatment in custody. The historical nature of index offence, and its highly violent character, underscores the extent to which he is capable of engaging in serious violence when unwell which is concerning from a risk management perspective.
Cannabis and alcohol use have likely contributed to previous decompensations. While Mr. Sequeira has stated that he does not wish to engage in future substance use due to financial reasons and has superficially acknowledged that substance use has been associated with behavioral problems, he does not hold a coherent understanding of this diagnosis. His current highly supervised environment limits the ability to assess how he would function in an unsupervised community setting. Although he has shown a positive response to treatment, his care continues to require further optimization.
Absent an ORB disposition, Mr. Sequeira would likely disengage from psychiatric treatment and supervision and resume alcohol and cannabis use. In that context, he would be expected to deteriorate rapidly and would be at high risk of engaging in violent acts, with the potential to cause serious harm to others in the setting of paranoia, auditory hallucinations, and disorganization of thought and behaviour.”
In light of the Board’s finding of significant threat, it is charged with shaping a Disposition for the coming year. The Board agrees with the joint recommendation and that on the evidence Mr. Sequeira represents a significant threat to public safety and that a Detention Order is the necessary and appropriate Disposition. Mr. Sequeira requires a further period of stabilization and monitoring in the hospital before his risk can be safely managed in the community. Once he is stable enough to be managed in the community, the hospital will need to retain the ability to approve his housing, to ensure that it meets his needs for psychiatric oversight and provides enough structure and support to manage his risk to public safety. The hospital will also require the ability to readmit Mr. Sequeira immediately if he decompensates as the result of nonadherence with medications, substance use, or other stressors or destabilizers.
The Board notes that the Hospital Report is not recommending that Mr. Sequeira be granted the privilege of living in the community at this time, and it agrees.
The sole remaining issue before this panel was the privilege of passes. The hospital recommended passes for up to 12 hours to enter the community within a 150-kilometre radius of Ontario Shores, indirectly supervised. Counsel for the Attorney General recommended restricting those passes to accompanied by staff or a person approved by the person in charge.
This panel has no difficulty in concluding that granting Mr. Sequeira indirectly supervised passes into the community for any period of time would fail to meet its obligation of public safety being the paramount consideration. The Board is aware of its obligation to craft a Disposition that is the least onerous and least restrictive. However, the Board finds that indirectly supervised passes into the community are premature; in fact, so many issues and unknowns need to be addressed and resolved before this Board would be comfortable granting any indirectly supervised passes. We note that the following list of our reasons for this conclusion is not exhaustive, but the following matters in particular cause us grave concerns:
a) These are still very early days, and the treatment team does not know the full extent of Mr. Sequeira’s mental health issues. In her evidence, the doctor testified that they do not have a full understanding of his risk to public safety.
b) The doctor confirmed that schizophrenia is just a working diagnosis. Accordingly, the treatment team needs to clarify the diagnosis to be able to properly treat Mr. Sequeira and to fully understand how to manage his risk to public safety.
c) The treatment team is concerned that Mr. Sequeira is engaging in impression management; he has claimed to be experiencing visual hallucinations, which are atypical for someone suffering from schizophrenia, and he responded too quickly to his medication regimen. The doctor agreed that the team cannot rely on his self-report.
d) The team still needs to optimize Mr. Sequeira’s medication regimen.
e) Mr. Sequeira has been referred to assessment for impression management, which has not yet been done. He needs to engage in cognitive behavioural therapy for psychosis as well as a concurrent disorders program, but it will take months before spots open and he can complete them. Even once the programs are completed, the team will need to evaluate whether Mr. Sequeira has properly engaged in these programs and assess his takeaways from them.
f) As set out in the Hospital Report, Dr. Alioglou agreed that Mr. Sequeira’s previous records document a history of other antisocial behaviours, with aggressive conduct leading to interpersonal and legal difficulties. While Mr. Sequeira has not received a formal diagnosis of an antisocial personality disorder, prior assessments have noted antisocial behaviours, including a past offence of substance possession.
g) Collateral information indicates that Mr. Sequeira had engaged in physically violent behaviour towards others prior to the Index Offences. We note that the Index Offences involved a severe level of violence.
h) Mr. Sequeira has a history of regular cannabis and alcohol use and demonstrated limited insight into his risk associated with substances. Substance use was noted to have contributed to behavioural problems in the past. He also continued to use cannabis after being charged with the Index Offences.
i) Anger is a recurring theme in Mr. Sequeira’s history, self-report and clinical assessments. It has been identified as a significant factor contributing to his violent behaviour, particularly in the 2019 stabbing and 2021 murders. Anger management has been recommended in previous assessments as part of his treatment plan to address this issue. We note the Hospital Report has not designated anger management as one of Mr. Sequeira’s required programs. The Board would want to see it completed before it would consider indirectly supervised passes into the community for Mr. Sequeira.
j) In particular, we note Dr. Pallandi’s assessment that Mr. Sequeira’s anger and resentment were contributing factors to his violent behaviour, alongside his major mental illness and substance use. Dr. Pallandi described Mr. Sequeira’s violence as “excessive and frenzied.”
k) Dr. Ramshaw’s assessment highlighted Mr. Sequeira’s overcontrolled anger, which eventually manifested as extreme violence. She noted that his motivation for the murders was strongly reality-based, with animus towards his parents that had been exacerbated by alcohol and stressors.
l) Mr. Sequeira’s own counsel conceded that the chances of him being able to access indirectly supervised passes into the community were “slim to none” in the coming reporting period. The Board agrees that the chances are quite unrealistic. The doctor was unable to provide any compelling reason why such passes were necessary, other than that they represented the least onerous and restrictive Disposition. At best, Mr. Sequeira would be ready for indirectly supervised passes into the community towards the end of this reporting period. The hospital can request an Early Hearing if Mr. Sequeira were to reach the ceiling of his privileges and all the above concerns were addressed before his next annual review.
We agree with the hospital that the fact that there is an outstanding application for a High-Risk Accused’s Assessment is irrelevant to these proceedings. The Board makes its decision based on Mr. Sequeira’s presentation and the facts before us, as outlined above.
In consideration of all the evidence, submissions of the parties and criteria set forth in s. 672.54, the paramount consideration being the safety of the public, in addition to the mental condition of Mr. Sequeira, his reintegration into society and his other needs, the necessary and appropriate Disposition is a Detention Order, upon the terms set out in our formal Disposition.
DATED this 3rd day of March 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Region of Toronto.
Mr. J. Weinstein Alternate Chairperson Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board