In a dangerous offender rehearing following appellate intervention, the court addressed whether a long term offender designation and supervision order could adequately control community risk under the Criminal Code.
The responding party conceded the statutory dangerous offender criteria, leaving the residual discretion analysis focused on realistic risk management, treatment compliance, and evidentiary reliability rather than optimism or speculation.
The court found persistent non-participation in treatment, conditional commitment to medication, entrenched institutional history, and expert evidence indicating a continuing high risk of sexual recidivism absent intensive custodial management.
The court concluded that community-based controls, including long term supervision, could not reduce risk to an acceptable level at the time of decision.
A dangerous offender designation with indeterminate detention was therefore imposed.
