Alberta serial romance scammer fights court ruling keeping him in prison indefinitely

A fraudster Romeo who bilked five Alberta women of thousands of dollars by faking a lavish lifestyle, brain cancer, seizures and fathering a child with at least one of them, is appealing his dangerous offender designation.

Jeffrey Kent’s lawyer says he has filed a notice of appeal challenging the ruling and his client’s indeterminate sentencing by an Edmonton judge last month.

“The decision raises significant legal concerns with national implications,” Jeinis Patel said in a statement this week.

Canada’s dangerous offender law is for a narrow class of violent offenders who are an ongoing threat to public safety, Patel said.

“The appeal will argue that Mr. Kent does not fall within that category.”

Justice Melanie Hayes-Richards said in her June 27 decision that dangerous offender status is the only way to adequately protect the public from Kent.

“He is a predator who targeted vulnerable single women, some of whom were recently separated, and some of whom had young children,” the judge wrote.

“Using lie upon lie, he inserted himself into his victims’ lives, promising a bright and secure future.

“Instead, he wreaked havoc.”

Kent’s romance scams started in April 2016, said the judge, and over the next 1 1/2 years he developed romantic relationships with the victims he met online.

He had recently finished a five-year sentence for convictions that included fraud against several other intimate partners. Those offences dated back to the 1990s.

Hayes-Richards said the latest scams were elaborate. Kent used fake names and identities — he was a lawyer, a doctor or a businessman with multiple properties. He toured luxury locations with the women and realtors.

He took them window shopping for wedding rings. He manipulated them in investing in real estate opportunities. He used their credit cards for expenses.

He ruined their relationships with their families and children, and had a baby with one.

He defrauded some of a few thousand dollars, and left one woman with a $300,000 debt. He used their money to support his lavish lifestyle and gambling addiction.

“When his excuses stopped working, he told some of the women that he had brain cancer or a seizure disorder to further manipulate the victims out of their money,” Hayes-Richards said.

In 2022, Kent pleaded guilty to five counts of fraud. About a year later, Crown prosecutors asked for him to be declared a dangerous offender, and a hearing was held in April.

Hayes-Richards said in her decision that the Criminal Code allows an offender to be labelled a dangerous offender if the crime causes a “serious personal injury” and the offender threatens the “life, safety, or physical or mental well-being” of his victims.

She rejected the defence argument that the damage caused was economical and not a serious personal injury offence, adding the victims still struggle with debilitating depression, shame, humiliation and thoughts of suicide.

A psychologist also told Kent’s hearing it would be difficult to treat him.

“It will take decades, not years, to change his behaviour, if even possible,” the judge said.

“Left untreated, Mr. Kent is likely to engage in the same behaviour again, which is likely to cause severe psychological damage to any person who becomes a target.”

Patel said in his latest statement that Kent’s future risk was overstated by the psychologist and the man has expressed remorse.

“For greater clarity, Mr. Kent nor I take the position that the complainants in his matters did not experience significant harm,” Patel said.

He added the judge’s designation of non-violent, fraudulent conduct as serious personal injury offence is unprecedented.

“Indeterminate detention is the most severe sanction available under Canadian law and must be reserved for the most exceptional and demonstrably violent cases,” Patel said.

“We anticipate that several of the legal issues raised may ultimately require clarification at the appellate level.”

Lawyer Vincent Larochelle, who has also co-authored a book called “Dangerous Offender Law”, says he, too, was surprised by the judge’s designation that since the 1950s has been parsimoniously used for violent offenders and sexual predators.

“The obvious example is someone who keeps escalating in their behaviour and it’s getting worse and worse….and then someone tells you, ‘Well, look, this person is not treatable,’” said the Whitehorse-based expert.

He said the Supreme Court of Canada or the Alberta Court of Appeal will be interested in Kent’s case.

“It’s clear that this type of decision does broaden the scope of what type of behaviour can trigger a dangerous offender,” he said.

“When you put someone in jail and indeterminately, you toss away that key. It’s a very dangerous thing to do.”

&copy 2025 The Canadian Press