Kenrick William Abbott

The Crown applied to have Jean-Claude Breton declared a dangerous offender under section 753 of the Criminal Code, seeking an indeterminate sentence.

Breton had been convicted of eight charges, including forcible confinement and assault.

The court considered psychiatric evidence, including reports from Dr. Treena Wilkie and testimony from Dr. Amil Joseph, as well as Breton's extensive criminal history and institutional conduct.

Despite defence arguments regarding treatability and the unreliability of some assessments, the court found that Breton met the criteria for a dangerous offender, exhibiting a pattern of repetitive and aggressive behaviour and a high likelihood of future violent recidivism.

The court concluded there was no reasonable expectation that a lesser sentence would adequately protect the public.

At a preliminary inquiry, the defendant was charged with attempted murder under s. 239 of the Criminal Code for an alleged assault on the complainant on August 18, 2014.

The Crown presented evidence of a brutal beating with a wooden board that resulted in serious injuries including a lacerated liver, broken ribs, broken arm, and head injury requiring a three-and-a-half-week coma.

The defendant did not testify but called one witness.

The central issue was whether there was sufficient evidence to establish the specific intent to kill required for attempted murder, or whether the evidence only supported a committal on the lesser charge of aggravated assault under s. 268 of the Criminal Code.

The accused was charged with criminal harassment contrary to section 264(2)(b) of the Criminal Code for conduct occurring between March 5 and March 27, 2011.

The complainant, his estranged wife, alleged that the accused repeatedly communicated with her directly and indirectly, causing her to fear for her safety.

The conduct included emails, appearing near her vehicle, leaving a broken guitar with a note on her car, and arranging for flowers to be delivered.

The court found that while the accused engaged in the conduct alleged, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused knew or was reckless as to whether the complainant was harassed, or that her fear was reasonable in all the circumstances.

The accused was acquitted of the criminal harassment charge but ordered to enter into a recognizance to keep the peace and not communicate with the complainant.