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 dismissed Ms. Tsai’s appeal from a Review Board disposition, holding the Board reasonably found she remained a significant threat to public safety.
Sentencing for a father who pleaded guilty to sexually touching his young daughter over more than two years in breach of trust. The court imposed 4.5 years’ imprisonment plus ancillary orders.
The Court dismissed the appeal because the Board’s handling of the joint submission, taken in context with the objection letter from Providence Care and probing questioning, provided adequate notice and did not amount to procedural unfairness, and the Board’s detailed, evidence-based reasons for rejecting the transfer were within a range of reasonable outcomes entitled to appellate deference.
Source excerpt
The court allowed a bail review, set aside the detention order, and released Mr. Cluett on a recognizance with conditions including residence, curfew, and electronic monitoring.
The Board failed its inquisitorial duty by not probing whether the attending physician concern could be mitigated (for example by a cautionary flag or file notation) and by relying on OPIC's unexplained non-approval of residence contrary to treatment team evidence; because the Board did not adequately justify the restrictive disposition, the Court allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the Board for re-hearing on an expedited schedule with directions to address mitigation of the attending physician risk and the residence issue.
Source excerpt
The court found Mr. Jones to be a dangerous offender, but imposed an eight-year sentence and 10-year long-term supervision order instead of indeterminate detention.
The court dismissed the Crown’s request to direct a s. 752.1 assessor to restate risk opinions and refused a second assessment, finding the report sufficient.
Given the respondent's pattern of violent sexual offending, repeated failures to respond to treatment, cognitive limitations, active substance abuse and absence of presently available, suitably structured community resources capable of providing 24-hour supervised, clinically monitored care, the long term offender regime could not reasonably be expected to reduce his risk to an acceptable level; therefore the court must declare him a dangerous offender and impose an indeterminate sentence to protect the public.
Source excerpt
Explore more
