The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that his guilty pleas were uninformed, and his dangerous offender designation, asserting that the sentencing judge failed to consider his treatment prospects at the designation stage.
The Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals.
The Court found that the appellant's guilty pleas were informed, as the facts underlying the Superior Court charges were part of the agreed statement of facts in the Ontario Court of Justice and the Crown had explicitly stated these matters would inform the dangerous offender application.
The Court also rejected the argument that using Superior Court facts in the dangerous offender proceeding constituted double punishment under s. 725 of the Criminal Code, clarifying that a dangerous offender hearing is not a "further proceeding" for that purpose.
Regarding the sentence appeal, the Court held that the sentencing judge's reasons, read as a whole, were consistent with the principles of considering treatability at the designation stage, as articulated in R. v. Boutilier.
Furthermore, the Court concluded that even if there was an error, the curative proviso would apply given the overwhelming evidence of the appellant's untreatability and high risk of recidivism.