Dr. Louis Morissette

The appellant, a prolific child sex offender diagnosed as a psychopath, appealed his dangerous offender designation and indeterminate sentence.

He argued the sentencing judge conflated risk reduction with risk elimination and sought to introduce fresh expert evidence suggesting psychopaths can be effectively treated.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentencing judge properly applied the long-term offender criteria and correctly concluded the appellant's risk could not be safely managed in the community.

The fresh evidence application was also dismissed as it merely offered a concurring opinion to evidence already rejected at trial and lacked sufficient probative value to affect the outcome.

A police officer appealed a decision of the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services (OCCPS) upholding his termination.

The officer had pleaded guilty to eight disciplinary offences related to purchasing and stealing cocaine while on duty, which he attributed to a cocaine addiction.

He argued the police service had a duty to accommodate his disability.

The Divisional Court held that while the OCCPS must be correct in its legal interpretation of the duty to accommodate, its application of that duty to the penalty was reviewable on a reasonableness standard.

The Court found the OCCPS reasonably concluded that accommodating the officer would cause undue hardship given the egregious nature of his misconduct and the destruction of his usefulness as a police officer.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Crown appealed a sentence reduction entered by the intermediate appellate court after the accused had been convicted of sexually assaulting his young daughter and making, distributing, and possessing child pornography.

The Supreme Court held that appellate courts must show substantial deference to sentencing judges and may intervene only where a sentence is demonstrably unfit or affected by reviewable error.

It further held that a maximum sentence is not reserved for a hypothetical worst offence committed in the worst circumstances, but may be imposed where proportionality, gravity of the offence, and offender blameworthiness justify it.

The Court also held that a long-term offender supervision order serves a distinct protective function and must not be taken into account in determining the appropriate custodial term.

The trial sentence and long-term offender disposition were restored.