Deborah Marla Bloomberg

Following guilty pleas to manslaughter and four counts of assault causing bodily harm arising from a series of random attacks, the Crown applied to have the offender declared a dangerous offender under s. 753 of the Criminal Code.

The court found that while the offender demonstrated a pattern of repetitive violent behaviour, the evidence did not establish a likelihood of future violence under s. 753(1)(a)(i).

However, the court held that the offender’s conduct showed a substantial degree of indifference to the reasonably foreseeable consequences of his actions under s. 753(1)(a)(ii).

The offender was therefore designated a dangerous offender.

Instead of an indeterminate sentence, the court imposed a determinate sentence of ten years’ imprisonment followed by a ten‑year long‑term supervision order, concluding there was a reasonable expectation that such a regime would adequately protect the public.

The accused was convicted after a summary trial of three counts of assault, one count of forcible confinement, one count of threatening bodily harm, and one count of failing to comply with probation.

All offences occurred on May 4, 2012, and involved a series of altercations between the accused and his wife.

The accused had a lengthy criminal record documenting predisposition for violence towards intimate partners, with four prior domestic violence convictions since 2004.

The court imposed an 18-month jail sentence, the maximum available, along with three years of probation with strict conditions including no contact with the victim, mandatory counselling for substance abuse, anger management, and domestic violence, and a strong recommendation for residential treatment.

The Crown brought a motion at a preliminary inquiry seeking an order to admit evidence of ten separate attacks on nine victims as similar act evidence on the question of identification against the accused.

The attacks occurred in the Parkdale area of Toronto between December 2009 and April 2011.

The accused was charged with two counts of assault, seven counts of assault causing bodily harm, and one count of second-degree murder.

The court granted the Crown's application, finding that the ten attacks demonstrated sufficient cumulative similarities to warrant admission as similar fact evidence, despite some dissimilarities in witness descriptions.

The court applied the test from R. v. Arp and R. v. Handy, examining proximity in time, similarity of detail, number of occurrences, and the balance of probative value against prejudicial effect.