The appellant appealed his designation as a dangerous offender following convictions for attempted murder and aggravated sexual assault, arguing he should have been designated a long-term offender.
He submitted the trial judge erred by restricting his expert's testimony and rejecting the expert's opinion on his prospects for controlling his alcoholism.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly qualified the expert and was entitled to prefer the Crown expert's evidence that the appellant's prospects for treatment were extremely poor.
