Unnamed psychologist

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.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her counterclaim for intentional infliction of mental distress, negligence, and other claims following a summary trial.

The dispute arose from a history of conflict between neighbours, including previous vandalism by the respondent.

The Court of Appeal found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings, including his rejection of the appellant's psychological evidence.

The court also upheld the trial judge's discretionary decision not to grant a permanent injunction.

The appeal was dismissed.