Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The Court of Appeal of Yukon dismissed the Crownâs dangerous-offender appeal and allowed J.J.P.âs appeal only to correct pre-sentence custody credit.
The sentencing judge did not err: the evidence established the appellant's risk is significant, continuous and intractable, anti-androgen treatment was speculative due to non-compliance, the appellant does not meet the reasonable-possibility criterion in s.753.1(1)(c) for an LTO, and s.810.2 cannot substitute for satisfying the LTO criteria; therefore the dangerous offender designation and indeterminate detention are upheld.
Source excerpt
The court held that robberies involving a handgun and imitation firearm were serious personal injury offences and ordered a 60-day remand for assessment.
The trial judge did not err in admitting or relying on the CSC reports as factual institutional history and did not misapprehend them; the updated Dr. Bradford report was properly refused as fresh evidence because it would not reasonably be expected to affect the outcome, and therefore the dangerous offender designation and indeterminate detention were upheld.
Source excerpt
Appeal dismissed because all parties agreed the original dangerous offender designation was appropriate, the post-sentencing psychiatric report did not establish that the appellant presently met the LTO standard, numerous interventions would be required before reconsideration, and the Parole Board is a more suitable forum to assess readiness for community reintegration; ordering a new dangerous offender hearing after many years would pose practical problems and risk retraumatizing victims.
Source excerpt
The court found the accused was not a dangerous offender, but a long-term offender, and imposed one year imprisonment plus ten years of supervision.
The Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the dangerous offender designation and indeterminate sentence because the fresh evidence would not reasonably have altered the outcome under R. v. Palmer and the appellant failed to demonstrate a reasonable possibility of eventual control under s.753.1(1)(c); the trial judge's finding that the appellant would not take meaningful steps to accept treatment was supported by the evidence.
Source excerpt
Explore more
