The appellant, A.S., appealed a dangerous offender designation and indeterminate sentence imposed for multiple sexual and child pornography offences involving her minor children.
The appeal raised two arguments: that the sentencing judge failed to consider the appellant’s future treatability at the designation stage (a "Boutilier error") and erred by not considering a less restrictive sentencing option.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the sentencing judge had properly applied the principles from R. v. Boutilier, deeply engaged with the psychiatric evidence regarding treatability and intractability, and correctly concluded that a lesser sentence would not adequately protect the public given the appellant's lifelong risk and the unlikelihood of rehabilitation within a determinate period.
