Re Andre D. Knight, 2026 CanLII 21145

Re: Andre D. Knight

ORB File No: 7866

Hearing held on: Monday, February 2, 2026

Place of hearing: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health

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

Before:

Alternate Chairperson: Mr. M. Segal

Members: Hon. N. Kozloff

Dr. G. Chaimowitz

Dr. H. Moulden

Mr. S. Duffy

Parties Appearing:

Accused: Andre D. Knight

Counsel: Mr. K. Vakili

The person in charge of hospital: Representative: Dr. P. Darby

Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. C. Coughlan

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION

(Dated March 10, 2026)

Introduction

1. On February 11, 2021, Andre Knight was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on a charge of attempt murder, contrary to the Criminal Code.

2. Mr. Knight is currently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board (“Board” and “ORB”) dated February 13, 2025, at which it was ordered that he be discharged subject to conditions.

3. On February 2, 2026, a panel of the Board convened a hearing at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (“CAMH”) to review Mr. Knight’s current disposition pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Knight was present and represented by counsel, Mr. K. Vakili.

4. The issues to be determined are whether Mr. Knight continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public and, if so, the necessary and appropriate disposition to manage that risk having regard to the criteria set out in s. 672.54.

5. Dr. P. Darby (on behalf of the hospital), counsel for the Attorney General, and counsel for Mr. Knight jointly submitted that Mr. Knight no longer represents a significant threat to the safety of the public and should therefore be absolutely discharged.

6. For the following reasons, the Board finds that Mr. Knight is not a significant threat to the safety of the public and orders that he be absolutely discharged.

Background History

7. The details of Mr. Knight’s personal, legal, and psychiatric history are set out in detail in the Hospital Report, which was filed as Exhibit 1 at this hearing, and are briefly summarized below.

8. Mr. Knight is currently 40 years of age. He is single and has no children. He works part-time and is supported by ODSP.

9. He was raised in Mississauga, Ontario, primarily by his mother and stepfather. He did not do well in school and has a limited employment history of mostly odd jobs.

10. At the time of the index offence, Mr. Knight was residing in an apartment in Toronto with his mother, the victim of the index offence, and his 24-year-old maternal half sister. He was then unemployed.

11. Mr. Knight has a long psychiatric history with numerous admissions to hospital for mental health treatment. These are set out in detail in the Hospital Report. They date back to 2006 and include an admission to Oakville Trafalgar Memorial Hospital in May 2009 when Mr. Knight shot himself in the temple with a pellet rifle and continue until Mr. Knight’s last hospital admission (prior to the index offence) in 2016. During that period Mr. Knight was intermittently compliant with various prescribed antipsychotic medications. His last documented appointment with his psychiatrist was in October 2019, some eleven months before the commission of the index offence. He presented as stable and reported that he was doing well and keeping busy.

12. Mr. Knight had no criminal record predating the index offence, albeit one of his hospital admissions was in Windsor, Ontario following the theft of his mother’s car in December 2010; in addition, he was incarcerated from March to May of 2016 after he assaulted his paternal grandfather. That charge was resolved by mental health diversion.

13. Mr. Knight’s long time and current diagnosis is schizophrenia.

Index Offence

14. The circumstances of the index offence are extracted from last year’s Reasons for Disposition and are as follows:

"On September 12, 2020, the accused was in the residence with the victim, who was sleeping in her bedroom, at approximately 3:08 p.m. The accused placed his right leg and body weight on top of the victim in an attempt to prevent her from escaping, waking up the victim. The accused then stated that "I have to kill you... you have to die" and pulled her hair in an attempt to expose her neck. The victim grabbed the knife, sustaining lacerations to her hand in the process. The victim then suggested that the accused kill the neighbours instead, in an attempt to distract him. The accused agreed and got up and left the residence with the victim and began walking down the hall. The victim quickly went to the neighbour's apartment next door and secured herself inside.

The accused then walked out to the park, talking to the 911 call taker, where he was arrested by Police at 3:41 p.m. for Utter Threats Cause Death. The accused was read rights to counsel and cautioned all to which he indicated he understood."

Course of Treatment After the Index Offence

15. Mr. Knight’s course of treatment since the index offence is set out in detail in the Hospital Report, beginning with records obtained from Maplehurst Correctional Complex (September 13 to November 25, 2020) and continuing with his admission to CAMH on March 4, 2021, following the NCR finding.

16. The entries for his course during the past year are set out below:

"Physical Health

Mr. Knight did not experience any significant physical health concerns over the last year. He is cooperative with all physical health interventions.

Mental Health

Mr. Knight’s mental status remained stable over the course of this reporting period. He always presents as calm, cooperative, and polite. There have been no significant incidents over the last year. He presents with no safety or management concerns. Mr. Knight denies any ideation or intent to become violent toward himself or others. Mr. Knight also denies the presence of any visual or auditory hallucinations. Mr. Knight is organized and coherent during conversation with no overtly delusional thought content voiced.

Medication

Mr. Knight is compliant with his scheduled Paliperidone Trinza depot injection, which he receives every 12 weeks. Mr. Knight’s benztropine was changed to regular dosage as Mr. Knight was requesting this on a daily basis. Mr. Knight reports no further side effects from his medication.

Substance Use

There have been no concerns this reporting period with respect to substance use. Mr. Knight cooperated and provided urine weekly for UDS, which have all resulted negative. During each visit enquires were made regarding substance use and he has always denied craving or substance. Mr. Knight does not smoke.

Concerning Behaviours

There have been no concerns in regard to Mr. Knight’s behavior. There have been no significant incidents over the last year. He presents with no safety or management concerns.

Self-Care

Mr. Knight is independent in managing his ADL’s. SHIP staff report his unit is always clean and tidy. He is able to do his laundry, his own grocery shopping and cook his own meals.

Mr. Knight is capable of managing his finances and has reported no difficulty in managing his money.

Structured Activity

Mr. Knight engage well with recreational activities organized by his housing. He also attended a number of groups at CAMH, including CBT and IMR.

Family/Social Support

Mr. Knight is supported by ODSP and is presently working at a factory in Brampton. He works 8hrs per day 3x per week. He lives in a structured high support housing. He is visited weekly by FOPS teams and communicates by phone when needed. He has regular check in with housing clinical staff.

Mr. Knight social support is with FOPS staff, SHIP clinical team and his family, especially his mother. He is seen by housing staff daily and FOPS weekly with regards to managing any risk, is supervised and monitored regarding any changes in his mental status, and with administering his IM injection.

Mr. Knight had spent overnights visit during holidays. He goes out for dinner or lunch with his mother and sister. Mr. Knight report he has a very good relationship with his family and they support him well.

Mr. Knight has a very good and therapeutic relationship with his support staff both from FOPS and SHIP."

17. The details of Mr. Knight’s current mental status and risk assessment are set out in the Hospital Report. The salient entries are set out below:

"Mental Status Examination

Mr. Knight is casually dressed and kempt. He remains calm and cooperative. He has good eye contact. There has been no evidence of any psychomotor abnormalities. He does not display any signs of agitation or aggression. His speech is of normal rate, rhythm, and volume. His mood is generally reported as “good” and his affect has been euthymic, though somewhat restricted. His thought process is coherent, linear, and goal directed. He has not been observed responding to internal stimuli and does not endorse any perceptual disturbances. He denies paranoia or delusional thought content. He denies any suicidal or homicidal ideation. His insight and his judgment are fair.

Mr. Knight acknowledges his diagnosis of schizophrenia, although he is somewhat less clear on the relationship of his illness to the index of fence. He acknowledges that the medication is helpful in making him "think clearer" and "not get into trouble". He is emphatic that he would continue with follow-up if it was recommended and would continue to take medication as long as he was advised to do so. Were he to receive an Absolute Discharge, he indicates he would continue to reside at SHIP.

18. The following appears under Composite Assessment of Risk:

"Given Mr. Knight’s good response to treatment, his trajectory under the Board, his stability in the community and his commitment to ongoing follow-up, the clinical team believes that Mr. Knight no longer meets the threshold for significant threat as defined in Section 672.5401 of the Criminal Code."

Team Review of Recommendation

19. The recommendation of the treatment team is set out in the Hospital Report and reads as follows:

"The treatment team believes that Mr. Knight no longer represents a significant threat to the safety of the public. Should Mr. Knight be granted an Absolute Discharge, the clinical team would continue to provide care until transition to a non-forensic team in the community can be organized."

Evidence at the Hearing

20. Dr. P. Darby is Mr. Knight’s treating psychiatrist, and the author of the hospital report dated January 14, 2026.

21. Dr. Darby testified on behalf of the hospital at the hearing. No other evidence was adduced at the hearing.

22. Dr. Darby began by stating that Mr. Knight had “another good full year in the community.” He described it as a “faultless course.” Dr. Darby reported that Mr. Knight was compliant, consumed no alcohol or drugs, had a good relationship with his treatment team, engaged well in programming, and had a good relationship with his mother.

23. Dr. Darby briefly set out the reasons for the recommendation of an Absolute Discharge. He stated that the team had considered Mr. Knight’s long psychiatric history - including the index offence, which he described as very serious – as well as his history of substance use.

24. The doctor stated his belief that Mr. Knight is committed to taking his medication and remaining abstinent.

25. In response to questions from Counsel for the Crown, Dr. Darby said that Mr. Knight would continue to reside in SHIP housing, which he described as permanent. He said that Mr. Knight was “content there” and well regarded by staff. He had expressed no desire to move back to live with his mother.

26. Dr. Darby acknowledged Mr. Knight’s long history of non-compliance with various antipsychotic medications albeit he was apparently on a long-acting injectable medication at the time of the index offence. He noted that Mr. Knight has been stable “since his discharge and previously.” He said it was difficult to say why Mr. Knight was decompensating at the time of the index offence.

27. Dr. Darby said that SHIP would continue to “assist with medication” after the transition.

28. He opined that Mr. Knight has been “quite stable” for a number of years, and that in the event he was to become unstable the Mental Health Act was “sufficient to respond.” Dr. Darby stated that he did not believe Mr. Knight was “masking symptoms.”

29. Counsel for Mr. Knight had no questions.

30. In response to questions from the panel, Dr. Darby said that the plan was for Mr. Knight to transition to a community team. He acknowledged that it was often a challenge to source such a team, especially in Brampton, and that there was no guarantee when or if he will be connected. The doctor added that “we will continue to care for him until a community team is in place.”

31. Dr. Darby was asked about his comment at last year’s hearing that Mr. Knight needs to develop further insight into the symptoms of his illness ands his risk of violence He replied that Mr. Knight’s insight is “better now” although there are intellectual limitations. He posited that it is difficult for Mr. Knight to acknowledge his actions at the time of the index offence.

32. Asked about Mr. Knight’s motivation to stay on his medication and remain abstinent from substances, the doctor responded that “he likes his current lifestyle which now includes employment.”

33. Asked about his confidence in Mr. Knight going forward, the doctor responded that his external supports – including SHIP and the treatment team - won’t change. The removal of ORB support will be the only change.

34. Dr. Darby said that the frequency of his contact with Mr. Knight won’t change. “The case worker and I are both there (at SHIP) every two weeks and I will continue to see him (after his Absolute Discharge).

35. Regarding Mr. Knight’s employment, Dr. Darby said that he works as a material specialist in a factory and that he very much enjoys it. He has been working eight-hour shifts on Wednesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays for three months.

36. In response to a follow up question from counsel for Mr. Knight, Dr. Darby confirmed that he has “dealt well with stress.”

Final Submissions

37. Counsel for the Attorney General, Dr. Darby on behalf of the hospital, and counsel for Mr. Knight jointly submitted that the evidence supports an Absolute Discharge. Implicit in that joint submission is an acknowledgement that Mr. Knight no longer represents a significant threat to the safety of the public.

Analysis and Conclusion

38. The central issue is whether Ms. Knight is a significant threat to the safety of the public.

39. The relevant legal principles to be applied to the evidence with respect to the issue of significant threat are summarized in the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Marmolejo (Re), 2021 ONCA 130 at paras 34-37:

…the role of the Board is first to determine whether an NCR accused represents a significant threat to public safety. If the answer to that question is "no" or uncertain then the NCR accused must be discharged absolutely: Winko v. British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute), 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625, [1999] S.C.J. No 31, at pp. 659-61, 669 S.C.R. If the NCR accused does present a significant threat, the Board must either conditionally discharge or detain the individual: Winko, pp. 662, 669 S.C.R.

It is important to bear in mind that the Board's responsibility to grant an absolute discharge is non-discretionary in the event that it harbours any doubt about whether the NCR accused represents a significant threat: Carrick (Re), [2018] O.J. No. 4878, 2018 ONCA 752, at para. 16. As the majority of the Supreme Court emphasized in Winko, at pp. 652-53 S.C.R.: "Once an NCR accused is no longer a significant threat to public safety, the criminal justice system has no further application."

Individuals with mental disorders are not inherently dangerous: Winko, at p. 653 S.C.R. There is no presumption of dangerousness and no burden on the NCR accused to prove a lack of dangerousness: Winko, at pp. 660-61, 662 S.C.R. Rather, the legal and evidentiary burden of establishing significant threat rests on the Board or the court: Winko, at p. 663 S.C.R.

The threshold for significant risk is "onerous": Carrick (Re) (2015), 128 O.R. (3d) 209, [2015] O.J. No. 6524, 2015 ONCA 866, at para. 17. A significant threat to the safety of the public means a foreseeable and substantial risk of physical or psychological harm to members of the public: R. v. Ferguson, [2010] O.J. No. 5138, 2010 ONCA 810, at para. 8. The conduct must be of a serious criminal nature: Ferguson, at para. 8. A very small risk of grave harm will not suffice, nor will a high risk of trivial harm: Ferguson, at para. 8. The threat must be more than speculative in nature; it must be supported by evidence: Winko, at p. 665 S.C.R.; Pellett (Re) (2017), 139 O.R. (3d) 651, [2017] O.J. No. 5025, 2017 ONCA 753, at para. 21.

40. Upon a consideration of all of the evidence, the Board is unable to conclude that Mr. Knight continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public. Accordingly, the Board orders that he be absolutely discharged.

41. We would add that the commitment of Dr. Darby to ‘stay on the case’ is both commendable and comforting.

DATED this 10^th day of March, 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.

Hon. N. Kozloff

Legal Member

Office of the Registrar

Ontario Review Board