The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault and related offences, his dangerous offender designation, and his indeterminate sentence.
The appeal challenged the fairness of the trial due to the complainant's detention as a material witness and the assessment of her credibility.
It also contested the dangerous offender designation, arguing errors in defining "pattern" of behaviour and reliance on disputed facts, and the indeterminate sentence, asserting the trial judge erred by presuming indeterminate detention.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no miscarriage of justice or error in credibility assessment.
It upheld the dangerous offender designation.
While acknowledging the trial judge's error in principle regarding the indeterminate sentence by presuming it and conflating the designation and sentencing stages, the Court of Appeal re-sentenced the appellant and ultimately imposed the same indeterminate sentence, concluding that no lesser measure would adequately protect the public given the appellant's extensive criminal history, low prospects for treatability, and manageability issues, despite mitigating factors related to systemic anti-Black racism.