Ari Goldkind

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.