2 total
The court dismissed the applicant's application to reduce his parole ineligibility period due to the extreme violence of the murder and ongoing institutional misconduct.
The applicant, convicted of first-degree murder, sought a reduction in his 25-year parole ineligibility period under s. 745.6 of the Criminal Code.
The court, acting as a screening judge, applied the "substantial likelihood of success" test, considering the applicant's character, conduct during incarceration, the nature of the offence, and victim information.
While acknowledging significant rehabilitation efforts and positive changes, the court found these were insufficient to outweigh the extreme violence of the murder, the applicant's ongoing substance abuse issues, extensive institutional misconduct, and evolving, inconsistent accounts of the crime.
The application was dismissed, but the applicant was permitted to reapply after five years.
The court designated the accused a dangerous offender but imposed a determinate sentence with supervision.
The Crown brought a dangerous offender application against the accused following his conviction for assault causing bodily harm and three counts of breaches of a section 810.2 recognizance.
The court heard psychiatric evidence from both the Crown's expert (Dr. Mark Pearce) and the defence expert (Dr. Jeffrey McMaster).
Both experts agreed the accused met the statutory criteria for dangerous offender designation, but disagreed on the appropriate sentencing option.
The court declared the accused a dangerous offender but imposed a determinate sentence of ten years custody with a ten-year long-term supervision order rather than an indeterminate sentence, based on evidence of significant behavioral improvement during pre-sentence custody and the reasonable possibility of eventual control of risk in the community.
