Canada Case Law

R. v. Erstikaitis

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The sentencing judge’s finding that there was no reasonable expectation a determinate sentence (with or without an LTSO) would adequately protect the public was supported by the record given the appellant’s extensive violent history, treatment-resistant personality disorders, and very high violent risk assessments; therefore s.753.01(5) required imposition of an indeterminate sentence and the appeal is dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Indeterminate sentence under s.753.01(5)
• Long-term supervision order
• Risk assessment
• Proportionality of sentence

Read case analysis

R. v. Jessup

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Sentencing on manslaughter and indignity to human remains arising from the death of Katherine McAdam, with a dangerous offender application under s. 753.

• Manslaughter
• Offering an indignity to human remains
• Dangerous offender designation
• Long-term offender
• Ancillary orders
• Dna sample order

Read case analysis

R. v. Whynder

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The court found the s.753(1) criteria satisfied: manslaughter is a serious personal injury offence and the offender demonstrated a pattern of persistent aggressive behaviour and intractability supported by criminal and institutional records and forensic psychiatric opinion, warranting dangerous offender designation. However, on the evidence as a whole (forensic report, IRCA, institutional conduct, resources and joint recommendation) the court was satisfied there was a reasonable expectation that a determinate custodial term of four years followed by a ten-year Long Term Supervision Order woul…

Source excerpt

• Dangerous offender designation
• Long-term supervision order
• Remand credit calculation
• Joint recommendation on sentence
• Ancillary orders (firearms prohibition, dna)
• Irca/gladue-type social context reports

Read case analysis

R. v. W.H.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court dismissed a dangerous offender application, declared W.H. a long-term offender, and imposed an 18-year determinate sentence for child sexual offences.

• Dangerous offender designation
• Long-term supervision order
• Sentencing for child sexual offences
• Child sexual exploitation material
• Risk assessment and treatability
• Psychiatric expert evidence

Read case analysis

R. v. Bourdon

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Court held the trial judge correctly applied Gladue/Ipeelee by considering systemic and background factors and reasonably found they did not diminish the appellant's moral blameworthiness; the dangerous offender designation and imposition of an indeterminate sentence were justified on the evidence, including expert opinion of high recidivism risk and lack of rehabilitative potential; and the proposed post‑sentencing AICPM materials failed the Palmer test and were properly excluded as fresh evidence.

Source excerpt

• Gladue and ipeelee application
• Dangerous offender designation
• Indeterminate sentence vs determinate + ltso
• Admissibility of post‑sentencing fresh evidence
• Publication restriction (criminal code)

Read case analysis

R. v. McLean

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The appeal is dismissed because the sentencing judge did not err in declining Duncan credit: the lockdown conditions did not transcend the ordinary hardships of incarceration, the appellant's health was not shown to be impacted by lockdowns, and the award of 7 years' credit for PSC (at 1.5:1) adequately reflected pre-trial custody; the discretionary decision is entitled to deference.

Source excerpt

• Pre-sentence custody credit
• Duncan credit
• Lockdown conditions
• Sentencing deference

Read case analysis

R. v. Snowden

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The sentencing judge erred by requiring that the accused be the direct or root cause of victims' severe psychological damage to qualify child pornography offences as SPIOs; SPIO analysis under s.752(a)(ii) must consider whether the accused's conduct inflicted or was likely to inflict severe psychological damage in the factual context and the presumption in s.753.1(2) must be applied accordingly. The appropriate remedy is to set aside the sentence and order a new Part XXIV hearing for full factual assessment.

Source excerpt

• Serious personal injury offence (spio) definition
• Causation
• S.753.1 interpretation
• Assessment orders under s.752.1
• Victim impact evidence
• Publication restriction

Read case analysis

R. v. Francis

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The guilty pleas stood because the facts used in the dangerous offender proceeding were part of the agreed statement of facts read at the OCJ plea and the appellant was informed that Superior Court matters would inform the dangerous offender application; s.725 does not bar consideration of those facts in a dangerous offender proceeding; the sentencing judge’s reasons, read as a whole, addressed treatability consistent with Boutilier and, even if a Boutilier error occurred, the curative proviso applies because the evidence overwhelmingly supported designation.

Source excerpt

• Guilty plea validity
• Dangerous offender designation
• Treatability
• Double punishment (s.725)
• Long-term supervision order
• Fresh evidence

Read case analysis

R. v. Norris

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Although the sentencing judge misstated the onus of proof in one passage, she applied the correct Boutilier analytical framework, properly considered the psychiatrist's evidence and Correctional Services Canada evidence in the context of the appellant's extensive violent history and non-compliance, and reasonably concluded that only an indeterminate sentence would adequately protect the public; appeal dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Indeterminate sentence
• Long-term supervision order
• Onus of proof
• Psychiatric evidence
• Correctional supervision
• Parole

Read case analysis

R. v. Ahmed

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Court dismissed the appeal: the sentencing judge's reasons, read in context and against the record, were sufficient to support designation under ss. 753(1)(a)(i),(ii) and (b); there was no legal error in transposing penalty-stage findings to the designation stage given the record; the judge did not impose an evidentiary burden on the appellant to prove eventual control in the community; and although trial amicus's performance was imperfect, it did not cause actual prejudice or an appearance of unfairness so serious as to amount to a miscarriage of justice, therefore the dangerous offender…

Source excerpt

• Dangerous offender designation
• Indeterminate sentence
• Long-term supervision order
• Amicus curiae duties
• Treatability and intractability
• Sufficiency of reasons

Read case analysis