Re: Daniel Kent
ORB File No: 3428
Hearing held on: Tuesday, October 28, 2025
Place of hearing: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. B. Garrow
Members: Dr. B. Sheppard Dr. L.O. Lightfoot Ms. J. Ferguson Mr. S. Duffy
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Daniel Kent Counsel: Mr. A. Rai
The Person in charge of Hospital: Counsel: Ms. M. Warner
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Mr. R. Mushlian
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated February 4, 2026)
Introduction
On September 14, 2001, Daniel Kent was found not criminally responsible (“NCR”) on account of mental disorder on a charge of aggravated assault, contrary to the Criminal Code, (the “Code”).
Mr. Kent is currently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board, (the “Board”), dated October 23, 2024, detaining him at the General Forensic Unit of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, (“CAMH”/the “hospital”), with discretionary privileges up to and including the ability to reside in the community in supervised accommodations.
On October 28, 2025, the Board convened a hearing, pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Code to conduct the annual review of the current Disposition. Mr. Kent was represented by counsel but did not appear himself. He was excused from attending the hearing pursuant to s. 672.5(10) of the Code.1
The issues before the Board are whether Mr. Kent continues to pose a significant risk to the safety of the public, and if so, what is the necessary and appropriate disposition to manage that risk having regard to the criteria set out in s. 672.54 of the Code.
The parties jointly submitted that there be no change to Mr. Kent’s current Disposition. The issue of Mr. Kent’s significant threat was not contested.
For the reasons that follow, the Board finds that Mr. Kent continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public and that his care should continue on the same terms as his current Disposition.
Evidentiary Record
- Dr. Valoo co-authored the Hospital Report dated October 6, 2025, Exhibit 1, and testified on behalf of the hospital. No further evidence was adduced at the hearing.
Background
Mr. Kent’s personal and psychiatric history, including the details of his mental disorder and treatment since being found NCR, are described in detail in the Hospital Report. Briefly, Mr. Kent is 53 years of age, single with no dependents. He graduated from the University of Toronto with a Bachelor of Science degree in 1995. He first became ill in or about 1996, displaying both mood and psychotic symptoms. Mr. Kent was first discharged into the community in 2004. Since that time, he has had multiple readmissions to hospital in the context of substance use with corresponding deteriorations in his mental state. In August 2011, he attempted suicide by jumping in front of an oncoming subway train. He suffered severe injuries resulting in bilateral below-knee leg amputations. Mr. Kent lives in COTA supportive housing. He is unemployed and financially supported by Ontario Disability Support Program (“ODSP”). He is capable of consenting to psychiatric treatment and managing his personal property. He is followed by the Expanded FOPS team under the care of Dr. Valoo.
Mr. Kent was last discharged to the community and his current residence in September 2021. Since that time there have been multiple positive urine drug screens for cannabis, including the reporting period. He has been readmitted to hospital on five separate occasions, most recently in May 2025, due to relapses in cannabis use.
Mr. Kent’s current diagnoses are schizoaffective disorder, which treatment resistant, and cannabis use disorder. He is treated with clozapine and other medications.
The circumstances surrounding the index offences are reproduced from the most recent Reasons for Disposition:
“At the time of the index offence, Mr. Kent was living in an apartment with his brother, Steven Kent. Steven Kent reported that his brother had become more aggressive and provocative. On the day of the incident, he described his brother as “foaming and intense.” He was speaking of Allah, God and “the Judger of Gods.” He also spoke of grandiose themes, such as owning various nightclubs in Toronto. The accused did have a knife on his person; however, his brother was largely unconcerned for his own safety, feeling that he was familiar enough with Mr. Kent’s behaviour to know whether he was at risk of being harmed. On June 12, the accused approached his brother, who was sleeping. He stabbed his brother in the left upper back. The knife entered the chest cavity and the victim’s lung eventually collapsed. Daniel Kent continued to stab his brother, striking him in the left side of his neck and across the left eyelid. His brother was able to escape the apartment and call police.”
Course Since Last Annual Review
Mr. Kent remained on a detention order while living in the community in approved housing, except for a period of hospitalization from May 7 through June 12. He saw his EFOPS manager once per month, and his psychiatrist every two to four weeks.
According to the Hospital Report and confirmed by Dr. Valoo Mr. Kent generally reports his mood as stable, though he continued to experience residual psychotic symptoms. He voiced ongoing chronic religious and grandiose delusions, including describing himself to be a prophet with a special relationship with God. However, he did not voice any suicidal, homicidal, or violent ideation.
Mr. Kent does not believe he has schizoaffective disorder or any other psychiatric illness. Nor does he think he requires medication for mental illness. He says that he only takes medication because he is forced to. He has also said that he would no longer take his medication if he was released from the Board’s supervision. Mr. Kent has poor insight into the impact of cannabis on his mental illness and risk for violence. He frequently says he will likely use cannabis if he is not under the ORB.
On a positive note, there have been no positive screens for substances since Mr. Kent was discharged back to the community on June 12. Moreover, he has expressed intent to remain abstinent from cannabis for the foreseeable future, though not indefinitely.
As reported, the treatment team is unanimous in their opinion that Mr. Kent remains a significant risk to the public:
“Mr. Kent continues to suffer from residual delusional symptoms secondary to Schizoaffective Disorder. The presence of these symptoms speaks to the treatment-resistant nature of his illness and his increased risk for future violence, especially in the context of substance use or medication non-compliance. This risk is further enhanced by his limited insight and his external motivation for medication compliance and abstinence.”
Further, Dr. Valoo confirmed that in the opinion of the treatment team, a conditional discharge is premature. Mr. Kent has a long history of requiring readmission to hospital to manage his risk of violence in the context of reemerging psychotic symptoms and cannabis use. The treatment team requires the ability to continue to intervene rapidly in response to signs of deterioration in his mental state. And Mr. Kent would be unlikely to agree to return to the hospital voluntarily in the event of relapse of cannabis use or a deterioration in his mental state.
Dr. Valoo confirmed that the treatment team is of the opinion that a detention order with community living in approved accommodation is necessary and appropriate in the circumstances. A detention order is necessary to ensure that Mr. Kent can be rapidly returned to the hospital should he begin to decompensate or engage in substance use. It also allows the treatment team to determine the appropriate level of structure and supervision in housing that will allow Mr. Kent to be successful in the community.
Analysis and Conclusions
Having considered all of the evidence and the joint submission presented by the parties, the Board finds that Mr. Kent continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public and that his care should continue under the terms of his current Disposition.
We agree with Dr. Valoo and the treatment team that a detention order is necessary and appropriate to maintain Mr. Kent’s current treatment plan. We encourage Mr. Kent to maintain his abstinence from cannabis use and to participate in recreational and/or vocational activities which can provide him with structure and prosocial activities. The evidence supports the finding that Mr. Kent does well when he adheres to his treatment plan and maintains his abstinence from substances. We urge him to stay that course as he continues to work towards reintegration into the community.
An issue surrounding the removal of the no contact clause arose during the hearing. While there was no objection per se, we agree with counsel for the Attorney General that the victim’s family should be notified of this development before the matter is considered further.
In coming to these conclusions, the Board has considered its responsibility pursuant to s. 672.54 of the Code to make a disposition that is necessary and appropriate in the circumstances, taking in to account the safety of the public, which is the paramount consideration, the mental condition of the accused, his reintegration into society, and his other needs.
DATED this 4th day of February, 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Mr. B. Garrow Alternate Chairperson
Office of the Registrar Ontario Review Board