Dr. Gray

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed J.E.'s appeal from his designation as a dangerous offender and the imposition of an indeterminate sentence.

The court found no reversible error in the sentencing judge’s assessment of the evidence, including expert psychiatric testimony regarding the appellant’s risk and treatability.

The court held that the sentencing judge was entitled to conclude that J.E. posed a high risk of recidivism and that available controls and treatments would not adequately manage his risk to the public.

The court, following guilty pleas and a joint submission from counsel, found Darren James Gaspe to be a Dangerous Offender and imposed a total determinate sentence of seven years and three months, less time already served, followed by an eight-year Long Term Supervision Order.

The decision was informed by expert and Gladue reports, as well as the input of both counsel and the offender.

The court recommended that Mr. Gaspe be considered for a Correctional Service Canada Healing Lodge or a facility offering the Pathways Program, given his Indigenous identity.

The sentence aims to balance punitive and restorative objectives to protect society and support the offender’s rehabilitation.

The Respondent brought a motion to set aside a final uncontested child support order, including substantial arrears, arguing lack of actual notice and an arguable defense.

The court found the Respondent's claims of non-receipt of documents and lack of awareness lacked credibility, noting his history of non-disclosure and sophisticated litigant status.

While acknowledging a potential triable issue for prospective support based on his retirement, the court dismissed the motion to set aside the fixed arrears, emphasizing the Respondent's willful non-disclosure and its negative impact on the administration of justice.

The court directed the Respondent to bring a new motion to change for future support with proper financial disclosure.

The applicant, Corey Hurren, brought a motion under s. 684 of the Criminal Code for state-funded counsel to assist with his sentence appeal, citing financial impecuniosity and mental health issues.

The Crown opposed, arguing the appeal lacked merit.

The motion judge dismissed the application, finding that while the applicant met the financial eligibility, the proposed sentence appeal was devoid of arguable merit.

The judge concluded that the sentencing judge's findings regarding the political motivation of the offences were reasonable and that any error in considering lack of remorse as an aggravating factor did not impact the fitness of the six-year sentence, given the egregious nature of the crimes.

The court also determined that the appeal could be effectively argued without counsel.

Nikolas Jergovic appealed a conditional discharge order from the Ontario Review Board (ORB), seeking an absolute discharge or a new hearing.

He was found not criminally responsible (NCR) for arson in 2010 and has been under ORB supervision.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario reviewed the ORB's decision for unreasonableness, a wrong decision on a question of law, or a miscarriage of justice.

The Court found that the ORB applied the correct "significant risk" test and that its conclusion, based on evidence of potential relapse into drug abuse leading to unlawful conduct, was reasonable and supported by the record.

The appeal was dismissed, upholding the conditional discharge.

The appellant, convicted of multiple robberies and severe assaults, appealed her dangerous offender designation and the determinate sentence of ten years (consecutive to a prior five-and-a-half-year sentence) followed by a ten-year long-term supervision order.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario reviewed the sentencing judge's findings regarding the appellant's high risk of violent recidivism and the application of the totality principle.

The Court found no error in the sentencing judge's apprehension of the evidence, analysis, or conclusion that the appellant met the criteria for a dangerous offender designation, nor in the determination of the sentence, including the rejection of a "spree" characterization for the planned offences.

The appeal was dismissed.