Canada Case Law

R. v. Hope

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The appeal was dismissed because the jury charge, although not exhaustive, was proper and left the single issue of intent to the jury; the trial judge reasonably found intractability and a repetitive pattern based on the appellant's extensive violent history and expert risk assessment; and the sentence of seven years plus a ten-year LTSO was fit and within the judge's proper discretion.

Source excerpt

• Assault causing bodily harm
• Dangerous offender designation
• Long term supervision order
• Jury charge adequacy
• Conviction appeal
• Risk assessment in sentencing

Read case analysis

R. v. McManus

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Court upheld the sentencing judge's finding that the Crown proved dangerous offender criteria beyond a reasonable doubt based on serious predicate robberies, extensive criminal and institutional history, psychiatric diagnoses showing high risk of violent recidivism, and the appellant's refusal/abandonment of treatment; the Court further held an indeterminate sentence was justified because there was no reasonable expectation a lesser measure would adequately protect the public.

Source excerpt

• Dangerous offender designation
• Indeterminate sentence
• Intractability
• Violent recidivism
• Burn out
• Long term supervision order

Read case analysis

R. v. A.S.

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Court found no legal error: the sentencing judge expressly considered treatability and intractability in accordance with Boutilier, permissibly weighed and rejected aspects of expert opinion, properly considered and rejected less restrictive sentencing options on the evidence, and reasonably concluded that only an indeterminate sentence would adequately protect the public; appeal dismissed and designation and sentence affirmed.

Source excerpt

• Dangerous offender designation
• Indeterminate sentence
• Future treatability
• Boutilier error
• Long-term supervision order
• Weight of expert evidence

Read case analysis

R. v. Groves

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The trial judge properly considered both the appellant's extensive prior conduct and the expert risk assessment addressing future risk, accepted Dr. Pallandi's opinion that absent agreement to long‑acting sex drive‑reducing medication the appellant posed an unacceptable risk in the community, any procedural omission to invite further submissions caused no prejudice, and the imposition of an indeterminate sentence was within a reasonable range of outcomes and is therefore upheld.

Source excerpt

• Dangerous offender designation
• Indeterminate sentence
• Risk assessment
• Procedural fairness
• Burden of proof
• Publication restrictions

Read case analysis

R. v. Terriak

Court

Nova Scotia Provincial Court

The court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused met the dangerous offender criteria under s.753(1)(a)(i), s.753(1)(a)(ii) and s.753(1)(b) based on a decades-long pattern of alcohol-related violent and sexual offending, failure to restrain behaviour when intoxicated, and a demonstrated likelihood of future harm including failure to control sexual impulses; however, applying s.753(4.1) and the sentencing objectives in ss.718-718.2, the court concluded there was a reasonable expectation that a determinate custodial sentence of five years followed by a ten-year long-term supervision or…

Source excerpt

• Dangerous offender designation
• Indeterminate sentence
• Long-term supervision
• Sexual assault
• Gladue factors
• Risk assessment

Read case analysis

R. v. R.S.

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The sentencing judge gave adequate notice and reasons for declining to follow the joint submission; the evidence (serious sexual history, pedophilia, inability to ensure treatment compliance and lack of community supports) demonstrated no reasonable expectation that a determinate sentence would adequately protect the public under s.753(4.1), therefore the indeterminate sentence was properly imposed and the appeal is dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Dangerous offender designation
• Indeterminate sentence
• Joint sentencing submission
• Risk assessment
• Long-term supervision order

Read case analysis

R. v. Last

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The trial judge’s findings that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt a pattern of repetitive behaviour, a failure to restrain behaviour creating a likelihood of harm, and that the risk could not be controlled through a determinate sentence or long-term supervision were open on the record and entitled to deference; therefore the dangerous offender designation was upheld and the appeal dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Dangerous offender designation
• Long-term offender
• Section 753
• Section 753.1
• Pattern of repetitive behaviour
• Failure to restrain behaviour

Read case analysis

R. v. L.E.B.

Court

Nova Scotia Court of Appeal

Even though at least one arguable issue was identified (admission of similar fact evidence), the appellant demonstrated sufficient familiarity with the record and ability to present his arguments; therefore it was not desirable in the interests of justice to assign counsel under s.684(1), and the motion for state-funded counsel was dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Appointment of counsel under s.684
• Interests of justice test
• Similar fact evidence
• Dangerous offender designation s.753
• Publication restriction s.486.4

Read case analysis

R. v. D.J.S.

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown’s appeal in a dangerous offender case, set aside determinate sentences, and imposed an indeterminate penitentiary sentence.

• Indeterminate versus determinate sentencing
• Reasonable expectation under s.753(4.1) of the criminal code
• Long term supervision order (ltso)
• Expert risk assessment and manageability
• Standard of review for mixed fact and law
• Dangerous-offender

Read case analysis

R. v. Bobbitt

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court found David Wesley Bobbitt to be a dangerous offender and imposed indeterminate incarceration, plus ancillary orders and concurrent determinate sentences on remaining counts.

• Dangerous offender designation
• Sexual assault
• Unlawful confinement
• Uttering threats
• Expert psychiatric evidence
• Risk assessment

Read case analysis