Re: Kenroy Samuel
ORB File No: 7873/7983
Hearing held on: Friday, March 6, 2026
Place of hearing: Centre for Addiction & Mental Health
Pursuant to: Section 672.81(2) of the Criminal Code
Before:
Alternate Chairperson: Mr. C. Flanagan
Members: Dr. B. Sheppard
Dr. G. Nexhipi
Mr. D. Sandor
Mr. W. Apted
Parties Appearing:
Accused: Kenroy Samuel
Counsel: Mr. B. Irvine
The person in charge of hospital: Counsel: Ms. M. Warner
Attorney General of Ontario: Counsel: Ms. S. Malik
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION
(Dated May 12, 2026)
Introduction
Kenroy Samuel finds himself under the jurisdiction of the Ontario Review Board in respect of two offences. The first, a charge of assault causing bodily harm, led to a finding that Mr. Samuel was not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on April 9, 2021. The second led an identical finding of lack of criminal responsibility on December 6, 2021, in relation to a charge of manslaughter. Mr. Samuel is currently subject to a Disposition of the Ontario Review Board, dated August 15, 2025, detaining him at the Forensic Service of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (hereinafter referred to as “the Hospital”). That Disposition affords Mr. Samuel limited privileges, including that of having access to the Hospital and grounds, accompanied by staff or a person approved by the person in charge. It also subjects Mr. Samuel to certain conditions, including that of abstaining absolutely from the non-medical use of alcohol or drugs or any other intoxicant and that of submitting samples for the purpose of monitoring his compliance with the abstain condition.
On February 24, 2026, the Ontario Review Board received a request from the Hospital for an early hearing pursuant to section 672.81(2) of the Criminal Code. Accordingly, a hearing was convened on March 6, 2026, at the Hospital for the purpose of visiting the issue of whether Mr. Samuel’s sustained clinical stability, responsible use of privileges and demonstrated readiness for gradual progression within a structured forensic framework warranted an expansion of his privileges, having regard to the objectives set out in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code, the primary of which is the assurance of public safety. Mr. Samuel was present for the hearing, assisted by his lawyer, Mr. B. Irvine.
The record for the hearing included the Notice of Hearing, dated March 2, 2026, a letter confirming Mr. Samuel’s transfer to the Hospital from the Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care, Penetanguishene, the correspondence mentioned above dealing with the early hearing request before the Board and the most recent Disposition and Reasons for Disposition. On the consent of all parties, a Hospital Report, dated February 14, 2026, was entered into evidence as Exhibit 1.
The parties were canvassed for their initial positions at the beginning of the hearing. All agreed that Mr. Samuel continued to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public as that term has been defined in s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code and as it has been further explained by the Supreme Court of Canada in Winko v. British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute), 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625. The Hospital and counsel for Mr. Samuel took the position that an expansion of Mr. Samuel’s privileges was appropriate and proposed that the expansion grant Mr. Samuel the ability to exercise full Hospital and grounds privileges, and that he further be extended the privilege of being able to enter the community of the Greater Toronto Area, escorted, accompanied by staff or by an approved person, and indirectly supervised.
Ms. Malik, lawyer with the Office of the Crown Attorney, representing the Attorney General was largely ad idem with the proposal but indicated that she would require evidence supporting the conclusion that the safety of the public, the Board’s primary concern, could be assured where it is proposed that Mr. Samuel have access to the community that is only subject to indirect supervision. At the end of the hearing, Ms. Malik indicated that the evidence received had addressed her concerns such that the Board was met, ultimately, with a joint submission in accordance with the Hospital’s request.
For the reasons set out below, the Board agrees with the joint submission, has concluded that Mr. Samuel continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and that the objectives set out in s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code are satisfied by the detention disposition supported by the parties.
Evidence at the Hearing
The evidence for the hearing came from the Hospital Report mentioned above and the viva voce evidence offered by Dr. M. Kravtsenyuk, Mr. Samuel’s treating psychiatrist.
Turning first to the Hospital Report, it is appropriately detailed and comprehensive and provided the Board with significant details associated with Mr. Samuel’s history of struggles with major mental illness and corresponding involvement with the criminal justice system. It tracks his course while under the jurisdiction of the Ontario Review Board and provides helpful updates supporting the request being made for expansion of Mr. Samuel’s privileges.
The Hospital Report includes a summary of the index offences that brought Mr. Samuel under the Board’s jurisdiction. Regarding the first index offence – that of assault causing bodily harm – it reads as follows:
On Friday, December 6, 2019, at approximately 04:15 AM, the accused was in the area of Northcliffe Boulevard and Eglinton Avenue West. The victim was walking northbound on Northcliffe Boulevard, crossing the intersection on Eglinton. While proceeding, she was approached from behind and stabbed by the accused. She fled the area, going southbound back to Northcliffe Boulevard. The victim did not realize that she had been stabbed at first, as she was stunned by the encounter. She made her way to the hospital, where she was treated for her injury. The accused was later identified via follow-up on video surveillance and the assistance of witnesses in the area and arrested. The injuries experienced by the victim included a stab wound and soreness to the upper back between the spine and right shoulder blade requiring two stitches.
The Hospital Report notes, in relation to this offence, that Mr. Samuel had been noncompliant with recommended treatment for his major mental illness, had abused his medication as well as Tylenol 3’s and had been using cannabis in the periods leading up to the commission of the index offence. He was experiencing auditory hallucinations and paranoia that included his mother screaming for help and delusions that “they” would kill her if he did not stab someone.
Regarding the second index offence that brought Mr. Samuel under the jurisdiction of the Ontario Review Board, the charge of manslaughter, the Hospital Report indicates that:
On Sunday March 15, 2020, in the early hours of the morning, the accused, Kenroy Samuel was having an argument with his mother in their apartment. At this time, his mother contacted her other son, the victim Birchfield Matthews, who resides in the building in a different unit.
At approximately 6:00 AM, Matthews entered the unit and went to go speak to the accused in his bedroom. At this time, Samuel stabbed Matthews in the chest with a kitchen knife, causing Matthews to fall face down on the bedroom floor.
- The most recent Reasons for Disposition summarize Mr. Samuel’s history and psychiatric background and provide a helpful starting point for this hearing. It reads as follows:
“Personal Background
On December 6, 2019, Mr. Samuel stabbed a female victim from behind as she walked near Northcliffe Boulevard and Eglinton Avenue West in Toronto, fleeing immediately afterward. The victim sought hospital treatment for her injuries. Several months later, on March 15, 2020, during an argument at their shared residence, Mr. Samuel physically assaulted his mother and behaved inappropriately toward her. His older brother intervened to calm the situation and retrieved a knife Mr. Samuel had taken to his bedroom, but the confrontation escalated, culminating in Mr. Samuel fatally stabbing his brother.
Mr. Samuel was born in Toronto, and raised primarily by his mother, following his parents' separation when he was five. He witnessed domestic violence in childhood, and his father returned to St. Vincent after facing legal issues and deportation. Despite reportedly normal developmental milestones, Mr. Samuel exhibited significant behavioural problems, including aggression, vandalism, theft, gang involvement, and violence toward family members. His adolescence involved substance misuse, truancy, school suspensions, and expulsions, along with ongoing difficulties associated with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.
Academically, Mr. Samuel completed high school despite concentration difficulties and an identified learning disability. He briefly attended college but withdrew due to mental health struggles. His employment record includes various short-term positions, often terminated due to poor attendance or concentration problems.
Mr. Samuel’s substance use history includes regular alcohol consumption from a youthful age and daily cannabis use, along with the occasional misuse of his mother’s prescription opioid medication (Tylenol 3 tablets) when experiencing suicidal ideation. He has had limited intimate relationships, no marriages, and no children.
A check of the Canadian Police Information Centre database shows that Mr. Samuel does not have a criminal record – no criminal history prior to the index offences. Any conflicting information in the Hospital Report has been resolved, confirming no prior convictions.
Psychiatric Background
Mr. Samuel’s current psychiatric diagnoses are Schizophrenia, Cannabis Use Disorder and Major Depressive Disorder. He has been found capable of making decisions about his medical treatment, and capable of managing his finances. He is financially supported by the Ontario Disability Support Program.
Mr. Samuel’s mental health concerns emerged in his late teens and early twenties, marked by agitation, paranoia, disorganized behaviour, exacerbated by repeated cannabis use. He had multiple emergency room visits and psychiatric assessments between 2009 and 2013, often triggered by aggression toward his mother or threats of self-harm. During this period, he was variously diagnosed with substance-induced psychosis, personality disorder, and possible schizophrenia. Despite intermittent improvement with antipsychotic medication, he was frequently non-compliant with treatment, declined addiction services, and was often lost to follow-up.
From 2015 onward, Mr. Samuel experienced more sustained psychiatric stabilization following hospitalization with antipsychotic medications and regular psychiatric follow-ups. While some improvement was noted – particularly when compliant with treatment – he continued to demonstrate poor insight into his condition, cannabis dependence, and a pattern of deterioration when non-adherent to medications.
Leading up to the index offences, Mr. Samuel had again reduced or discontinued his medication. He was reported to be subdued at the time of the assessment and unclear about his compliance, and he described assaulting someone due to a mistaken belief tied to his delusions. He was restarted on antipsychotic medication. His long-standing psychiatric history has been characterized by recurring psychotic episodes, poor insight, treatment noncompliance, and persistent cannabis use.
Evidence at the Hearing
Dr. C. Hudson [Mr. Samuel’s treating psychiatrist while at the Waypoint Centre] gave evidence at the hearing. Mr. Samuel has been under his care since December 2024. Mr. Samuel is currently first on the Waypoint waitlist for transfer to CAMH, having moved up from fourth place since the previous year. Although a specific transfer date is unknown, staff confirmed he is next in line. Alternative options, such as Ontario Shores, were discussed with Mr. Samuel, but he prefers to wait for his transfer to CAMH, as it is closer to his mother, and he perceives the wait to be reasonable.
Clinically, Mr. Samuel is considered optimally treated with his current medication regimen, which includes Risperidone and other supportive treatments. He is not exhibiting active psychotic symptoms and has demonstrated improved insight into his mental illness and substance use. He is participating in structured therapy and vocational rehabilitation. Hospital staff believe he would be able to identify early signs of relapse and seek support if needed. Substance use, particularly cannabis, remains a key risk factor, and its
management will become more complex in a less secure setting where exposure and access are more likely. His insight into the consequences of cannabis use has improved, although concerns remain about relapse and the impact on his mental stability.
Mr. Samuel has not been physically aggressive during his current hospitalization and is not socially disruptive, although he remains reserved. His past non-compliance with medication is acknowledged, and staff stressed that continued adherence will be essential, particularly in a less structured environment. Switching back to a long-acting injectable antipsychotic is under consideration as he transitions to a less secure setting.
There was general agreement among the clinical team that Mr. Samuel has responded well to treatment, especially compared to others with similar diagnoses. He has shown some acceptance of responsibility for past behaviour and appears motivated to engage in programs that support his recovery. His mother remains an important and positive source of support.”
The Hospital Report’s update begins at page 21 following mention of Mr. Samuel’s transfer from Waypoint in October 2025. It explains that since his transfer, Mr. Samuel has demonstrated “sustained clinical stability, exemplary engagement in treatment, and rapid, incident-free advancement in privileges. He has consistently met treatment team expectations. He continues to benefit from strong family support, which is noted to be a protective factor. He has participated meaningfully in structured programming, including on-unit fitness programs, Focus Forward, Mental Health and Recovery programming, and Shared Support Meetings. He has performed impressively in available unit employment opportunities. His work ethic, reliability and sense of responsibility have been emphasized by Occupational Therapy as indicating readiness for broader vocational and rehabilitative steps. He is goal oriented and exploring options for schooling. He is medication compliant and expresses guilt, shame and emotional distress associated with the index offences, wishing he could “go back.” His insight globally shows improvement.
Mr. Samuel is diagnosed with schizophrenia and cannabis use disorder. He has a prior diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder and Cluster B traits that include elements of anti-sociality and narcissism. It should also be noted that Mr. Samuel has been diagnosed with a neurocognitive disorder secondary to a head injury sustained in 2008. Neurocognitive assessment has identified deficits in memory, attention, and executive functioning. This is a key factor to bear in mind when considering the issue of disposition and the objective of ensuring that Mr. Samuel’s mental health and other needs are met.
The Hospital Report’s Composite Assessment of Risk places the risk he poses to the public in the context of both his historic risk factors and his current clinical stability, treatment engagement, and protective supports. Actuarial measures, the appropriateness of which were not challenged over the course of this hearing, indicate that he represents a moderate risk of physical violence absent a disposition. It says that while “Mr. Samuel’s historical risk factors remain fixed,” his clinical and risk management factors lead to the conclusion that that the dynamic risk is well-managed within a structured forensic setting. Continued treatment compliance, maintenance of structured supports and the gradual progression of privileges is “essential” to ongoing risk mitigation and safe community planning.
In her evidence to the Board, Dr. Kravtsenyuk echoed the information contained in the Hospital Report. She explained that Mr. Samuel agreed to move to a long-acting injectable anti-psychotic medication without hesitation. He has been cooperative and insightful into his need for this treatment. He has never questioned doses and has tolerated the change well. This, together with his level of participation in programming as noted supports the conclusion that Mr. Samuel is on a “very positive trajectory.”
Dr. Kravtsenyuk highlighted the Hospital Report’s assertion that “gradual progression of privileges” is “essential” to Mr. Samuel’s ongoing risk mitigation. She confirmed that the changes being sought to the reigning Disposition are to provide the Hospital with the flexibility and responsiveness needed to manage Mr. Samuel in a context of increasing engagement with incentives that support the exercise of his insight. She confirmed that Mr. Samuel’s mother continues to be supportive and will become an approved person once the disposition is granted. Any progress into the community will be measure, protective, and will entail approved itineraries and differing levels of shadow support depending on Mr. Samuel’s continued progress. Safety of the public being the primary objective, Dr. Kravtsenyuk confirmed that all increases in privileges will be gradually implemented.
In light of the decisions of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Re Kelly, 2014 ONCA 269, and Re Alexander 2023 ONCA 176, the panel asked Dr. Kravtsenyuk whether Mr. Samuel’s progress was such that it was reasonably likely that he could be eligible to move towards 24/7 supervised accommodations in the community and should have that further flexibility in the proposed disposition, having regard to waitlist that could otherwise slow down the consistent progress he has been making. Dr. Kravtsenyuk responded that Mr. Samuel’s circumstances align themselves more with what the Ontario Court of Appeal observed in Re Alexander. Mr. Samuel is doing well, but it is necessary to place him on a general unit at the Hospital first, to build trust and therapeutic alliance. Though waitlists are lengthy, what is being proposed is tailored to helping the Hospital develop a clinical data set that will aid in determining exactly what type of housing will be appropriate for Mr. Samuel as that time comes.
Dr. Kravtsenyuk testified that it will be more advantageous (and the panel would add “more appropriate”) to ultimately place Mr. Samuel on the appropriate waitlists following the informed process recommended by the Hospital, as opposed to crafting a disposition that would allow him to be placed on what could be any number of waitlists that could ultimately be ill-suited for his circumstances. Though in these circumstances such issues should be canvassed, the Board appreciates that dispositions that simply grant community living privileges on the basis of trust in a hospital’s protective use of discretion in managing the disposition or based on a desire to amplify the workings of the ultimate objective set out in s. 672.54 bears certain risks. Doing so would decrease housing-provider confidence in what Board dispositions granting the privilege are communicating. Waitlists would unnecessarily get longer. Such an approach would stray from the primary objective and the principled approach that ought to be employed in the making of patient-specific dispositions.
Submissions, Analysis and Conclusion
As mentioned above, by the completion of Dr. Kravtsenyuk’s evidence, all of the parties agreed that Mr. Samuel continued to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public but that a material change in circumstances had arisen since the making of the last disposition justifying the changes sought by the Hospital, given the objectives set out in section 672.54 of the Criminal Code.
The Board agrees in all respects. Turning first to the threshold issue of significant threat, the Board does not make this determination lightly notwithstanding the joint submission presented by the parties. The threshold question has been described as “important” and “weighty.” It imposes no burden upon a patient to prove that they are “not” a threat to public safety. In this inquisitorial setting, the Board must always satisfy itself that the threat posed to the public by an individual is articulable. Factors considered such as major mental illness, seriousness of the index offence, existence or non-existence of social supports, continuation of symptoms or insight or the lack thereof are tied to a risk of serious physical or psychological harm that is more likely than not to happen absent a disposition.
In Mr. Samuel’s case, this finding is driven by his major mental illness, historic use of substances, and need for supports. All of these played a factor in the commission of the index offences. Combined, their presence at that time, though historic, obliges the Board to consider their continued existence at this time. Mr. Samuel suffers from a major mental illness for which treatment by way of a long-acting injectable antipsychotic medication is proving effective. This treatment is still at initial stages and while positive must continue to be monitored. Mr. Samuel has long-standing substance use issues that aggravate his psychotic symptoms. While he has not used substances over the course of this or the last review periods, it is noted that this has been in highly controlled and structured settings. It remains to be seen whether he will continue to abstain as he is given exposure to other less controlled areas of the Hospital and the community.
Mr. Samuel is increasing in insight. Coupled with that increase are the real stresses associated with feelings of shame and regret that will require the support of both his family and the treatment team. In our view, there is a real likelihood that, absent a disposition, Mr. Samuel will experience a deluge of stresses and regrets that will aggravate his symptoms, risk a return to substance use in the community and lead to noncompliance with treatment. These latter factors contributed directly to the commission of both index offences. Coupled with coping challenges driven by his memories of the index offences, this would, in our view, certainly lead to further serious criminal activity on his part that would cause the public significant psychological or physical harm. Accordingly, the threshold question of significant threat, as described in Winko, has been met.
Turning then to the issue of disposition, there is no doubt that a material change in circumstances affecting the s. 672.54 objectives has taken place. At the time of the last hearing, Mr. Samuel was receiving oral medications. While some improvement had been made, he continued to show difficulties associated with the primary and secondary symptoms of his major mental illness. He was in the process of being transferred from Ontario’s highest secure forensic facility to the Hospital, entailing a need to set dispositional parameters in a way that supported an approximation of the security provisions and structures that Mr. Samuel experienced while at Waypoint. It had to be seen how Mr. Samuel would respond to the change and whether he would engage in the programming and opportunities opened up to him at the Hospital.
Mr. Samuel promptly engaged with his new treatment team and is developing a good therapeutic alliance with them. He undertook a change in his treatment to a long-acting injectable antipsychotic medication without hesitation and has tolerated that change well. He has engaged to exemplary degrees with group programming. His family, and particularly his mother, continue to communicate important levels of understanding and emotional support, offering thereby an important protective factor for the upcoming period of review. He has engaged with occupational therapy and has done well in the Hospital’s token economy notwithstanding the neurological challenges described in the Hospital Report.
While the index offence and the factors noted in determining the threshold issue are serious, we agree that the order being sought ensures the safety of the public while moving Mr. Samuel cautiously towards the ultimate objective of community reintegration. While the disposition will provide some increase in privileges, the Hospital’s plan in terms of realization of those privileges is gradual and will be driven by how well Mr. Samuel does following small, cautious incremental increases in his liberty. The supportive plan proposed by the Hospital controls the pace of Mr. Samuel’s next steps such that the Board is confident that the disposition proposed satisfies all of the objectives set out in section 672.54, the primary of which is the assurance of the safety of the public.
As a result, it is our conclusion that Mr. Samuel continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public. It is further our conclusion that a detention disposition with conditions as supported by the parties is necessary and appropriate under the circumstances. An order will issue accordingly.
The Board thanks all who attended and assisted with this hearing, congratulates Mr. Samuel for his work and progress, and encourages him in the next steps he will be undertaking over the course of the next review period.
DATED this 12th day of May, 2026, at the City of Toronto, in the Toronto Region.
Mr. D. Sandor
Legal Member
Office of the Registrar
Ontario Review Board