Ari Goldkind

Following the defendant's conviction for sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, and sexual assault, the Crown applied for a dangerous offender assessment under section 752.1 of the Criminal Code.

The court appointed a psychiatrist to prepare the assessment report.

The Crown sought the right to cross-examine the psychiatrist at the dangerous offender hearing, claiming the assessor was a court-appointed witness.

The defence objected, arguing that permitting Crown cross-examination would undermine the adversarial system and give the Crown an unfair advantage.

The court ruled that both Crown and defence had the right to cross-examine the assessor, distinguishing the nature of dangerous offender proceedings from traditional adversarial trials.

The accused was charged with assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm after striking the complainant on the head with a broomstick during a confrontation inside a residence.

The defence argued that the accused acted in self-defence, asserting that the complainant possessed a pocket knife and posed a threat.

The trial judge rejected this version of events, finding the defence witness unreliable and concluding there was no credible evidence that the complainant had a weapon or acted aggressively.

Applying the principles governing self-defence and the air of reality test, the court found that none of the essential elements of self-defence were supported by the evidence.

The Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused intentionally struck the complainant with the broomstick, causing bodily harm.

The Crown applied to have the offender designated a dangerous offender following his conviction for assault causing bodily harm and breaches of a recognizance.

The offender had a lengthy criminal record involving violence and sexual assault, and suffered from schizophrenia and antisocial personality disorder.

Three expert witnesses agreed the offender was a high risk to reoffend violently and sexually, but disagreed on whether his risk could be managed in the community.

The court found that the offender met the criteria for a dangerous offender and that his risk could not be adequately controlled in the community under a long term supervision order due to his history of non-compliance with medication and court orders.

The offender was designated a dangerous offender and sentenced to an indeterminate period of detention in a penitentiary.

The accused was sentenced for breaching two terms of an eight-year Long Term Supervision Order (LTSO): failing to reside at a designated correctional centre and entering a prohibited county.

The court imposed a six-year sentence, finding the breaches serious given the accused's extensive criminal history, pattern of non-compliance with release conditions, and the link between the breaches and risk of re-offence.

The court applied principles from R v Ipeelee, balancing public protection, rehabilitation, and deterrence while emphasizing that compliance with LTSO terms is essential for both objectives.

The Crown applied to have the offender declared a dangerous offender under s. 753 of the Criminal Code following convictions for sexual assault and forcible confinement.

The court reviewed the offender’s extensive criminal history, repeated sexual offences, psychiatric assessments, and risk assessments including PCL‑R, SORAG, and STATIC‑99 scores, all indicating an extremely high risk of sexual and violent recidivism.

Although the defence argued that the risk could be managed through a long‑term offender designation, supervision, age‑related risk reduction, and anti‑androgen medication, the court found there was no reasonable possibility that the offender’s risk could be controlled in the community.

Evidence of persistent non‑compliance, malingering, untreated sexual deviance, and high psychopathy scores supported the conclusion that community supervision would be inadequate.

The court therefore designated the offender a dangerous offender and imposed an indeterminate sentence.

The offender pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine, heroin, and Oxycodone, each for the purpose of trafficking.

He was arrested in January 2009 after police surveillance observed approximately 25 persons visiting his central Toronto apartment within a four-hour period.

A search warrant yielded significant quantities of various drugs, drug paraphernalia, scales, baggies, and a debt list.

The offender, a 50-year-old first-time offender with no prior criminal record and no substance dependencies, had complied strictly with bail conditions for nearly three and a half years.

The Crown proposed a two-year reformatory sentence, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court rejected the conditional sentence, finding that general deterrence and denunciation were the paramount sentencing objectives, and imposed an 11-month custodial sentence followed by one year of probation with community service requirements.

The accused pleaded guilty to robbery, wearing a disguise with intent, and failing to comply with probation.

On November 1, 2011, the accused and a co-accused robbed a pharmacy of narcotics valued at approximately $14,329.

The co-accused was armed with a knife while the accused herded employees.

Both wore disguises and escaped in a stolen vehicle.

The accused was arrested at the co-accused's residence where police found the disguises and stolen narcotics.

The accused admitted involvement during police investigation.

The court imposed a sentence of 20 months for robbery, 15 months concurrent for wearing a disguise with intent, and 5 months for failing to comply, less pre-trial custody, followed by two years probation with conditions including substance abuse counseling, a lifetime firearms prohibition under section 109, and a DNA order.

The Crown applied for a dangerous offender designation following the accused’s conviction for sexual assault and sexual interference involving a young child.

The defence conceded that the statutory criteria for dangerous offender status were met but argued that a determinate penitentiary sentence followed by a ten‑year long‑term supervision order would adequately protect the public.

The court reviewed extensive expert psychiatric and psychological evidence, actuarial risk assessments, and the offender’s lengthy history of sexual offences against children.

Applying the post‑2008 Criminal Code framework under s. 753(4.1), the court held that an indeterminate sentence must be imposed unless there is a reasonable expectation that a lesser measure would adequately protect the public.

The evidence established only a speculative hope of successful treatment and demonstrated that the offender would require lifelong structure and supervision to manage risk.