The appellant, a dangerous offender, appealed an indeterminate sentence imposed for breaching his long-term supervision order (LTSO).
The breach involved pursuing a young woman without reporting contact, a behaviour similar to his past criminal harassment.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge properly considered the principles of proportionality and mitigating factors, and reasonably concluded that an indeterminate sentence was necessary for public protection given the appellant's high risk of recidivism and history of non-compliance with treatment.
The court did, however, set aside a victim surcharge in accordance with R. v. Boudreault.
