Dr. Paul Fedoroff

The parties separated when their child was 10 months old, and the mother unilaterally retained the child in Alberta while the father returned to Ontario.

The mother sought sole decision-making and supervised parenting time for the father, alleging he posed a risk of sexual harm to the child.

Following a 4-day trial and expert psychiatric evidence concluding the father posed no risk, the court dismissed the mother's claims of abuse.

The court ordered joint decision-making with divided tie-breaking authority, terminated the supervision requirement, and ordered that the child reside in Ontario with the father to maximize contact with both parents.

The appellant appealed convictions for sexual assault and sexual interference and an indeterminate dangerous offender sentence.

The appeal raised two grounds: an alleged s. 11(b) Charter breach due to delay in the dangerous offender hearing, and an error in the interpretation and application of s. 752.1 of the Criminal Code regarding assessor designation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no s. 11(b) infringement as it was a transitional case with exceptional circumstances (dangerous offender proceedings and Crown illness).

While the trial judge erred in applying a presumption for the Crown's proposed assessor under s. 752.1, this error caused no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice given the fairness of the proceedings and the overwhelming evidence supporting the dangerous offender designation.

The Crown brought a motion under s. 752.1(1) of the Criminal Code for an order remanding the offender for an assessment by a designated expert, Dr. Philip Klassen, for a dangerous offender application.

The offender consented to the assessment but requested that Dr. Paul Fedoroff conduct it instead.

The court held that while the defence may make submissions, the Crown is generally entitled to choose the assessor if the proposed candidate is qualified and available.

The court designated Dr. Klassen, noting concerns that Dr. Fedoroff's previously stated position on treatability could prematurely preclude a dangerous offender designation.

The offender pleaded guilty to two counts of possession of child pornography and one count of accessing child pornography.

The offender obtained approximately 616 electronic files containing child pornography depicting children aged 6 to 12 years old engaged in various forms of sexual exploitation and abuse.

The court imposed a sentence of 9 months imprisonment followed by 24 months probation, considering the gravity of the offence, the mandatory minimum jail term, the offender's guilty plea, positive pre-sentence report, low risk of reoffending, and rehabilitative potential, while emphasizing the objectives of denunciation and deterrence under section 718.01 of the Criminal Code.

Amicus counsel applied for an order under s. 672.11(b) of the Criminal Code directing a psychiatric assessment of the appellant to determine if he was exempt from criminal responsibility due to a mental disorder.

The application was opposed by both the self-represented appellant and the Crown.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, finding that the medical evidence did not demonstrate the necessity for an assessment and noting that the appellant would likely refuse to participate, rendering the assessment futile.