The appellant challenged the constitutionality of Criminal Code dangerous offender provisions, arguing overbreadth under s. 7 and gross disproportionality under s. 12 of the Charter.
The majority held s. 753(1) permits considering future treatment prospects at designation and that s. 753(4.1) does not create an unconstitutional presumption of indeterminate detention.
The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld both provisions as constitutional, with a partial dissent that would have struck down s. 753(4.1) and ordered a new sentencing hearing.
