The appellant appealed his dangerous offender designation and indeterminate sentence, arguing he should have been designated a long-term offender.
He also sought to adduce fresh evidence regarding his post-sentence treatment.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge correctly interpreted s. 753.1(1)(c) of the Criminal Code as requiring a reasonable possibility that the risk posed by the offender will be controlled within the duration of the long-term sentence.
Given the appellant's pedophilia, cognitive limitations, and need for life-long pharmacological treatment, the trial judge did not err in concluding this criterion was not met.
The fresh evidence was not admitted as it would not have affected the result.
