Dr. Duncan Scott

The Crown applied for an order remanding the defendant, Gregory Eze, for an assessment under s. 752.1(1) of the Criminal Code, to determine if he might be declared a dangerous or long-term offender.

The court found that the predicate sexual assault offences qualified as "serious personal injury offences" under s. 752(a).

The court then assessed whether there were reasonable grounds to believe Eze might be found to be a dangerous or long-term offender, applying a low threshold of "real possibility." Reviewing Eze's extensive criminal record, including multiple aggravated assaults and other violent offences, the court found a pattern of repetitive and persistent aggressive behaviour involving significant violence and physical control over victims, coupled with a lack of remorse and insight.

The court concluded that the Crown met the burden under s. 752.1(1), allowing the application for a 60-day assessment.

A young person pleaded guilty to a historical sexual assault committed at age 17 against a very young child.

The sentencing court was required to determine whether the offender should receive a youth or adult sentence under s. 72 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

Applying the presumption of diminished moral blameworthiness and considering the seriousness of the offence, the offender’s age at the time, and intervening circumstances, the court held that a youth sentence could adequately hold the offender accountable.

The court also found the offence constituted a violent offence under the YCJA because psychological harm could be inferred from the degrading nature of the conduct against a child.

A custodial youth sentence was imposed.

In a child protection motion under the Child and Family Services Act, the society sought orders restraining the father from contacting the mother and suspending his access to the child due to domestic violence, substance abuse concerns, and threatening conduct.

Evidence included numerous police incidents involving domestic violence and a forensic psychiatric assessment indicating a high risk of future spousal assault.

The mother had separated from the father and relocated to an undisclosed location for safety.

The court held that the child’s best interests required placement with the mother under the society’s supervision and suspension of the father’s access until specified conditions were met.

The decision emphasized the relevance of domestic violence and parental conduct toward a partner when assessing child protection risks and access.