Anik Morrow

The Crown brought a dangerous offender application against the offender following his convictions for aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, and breaches of probation.

The offender had a lengthy, violent criminal record spanning two decades and was diagnosed with severe antisocial personality disorder and substance use disorder.

The court found the offender met the criteria for a dangerous offender designation, noting his pattern of persistent aggressive behaviour and high likelihood of harmful recidivism.

However, at the penalty stage, the court found a reasonable expectation that the offender's risk could be managed in the community given his recent commitment to treatment and the availability of intensive cognitive behavioural therapy.

The court imposed a determinate sentence of 8 years (with 18 months remaining after pre-sentence custody credit) followed by a 10-year long-term supervision order.

The Crown brought a dangerous offender application against the offender following his convictions for aggravated assault and related offences.

The offender had a lengthy criminal record and a severe substance use disorder.

The court reviewed extensive psychiatric and psychological evidence, including risk assessments using the PCL-R, VRAG, and HCR-20.

The court found that the predicate offence was reactive rather than instrumental, and therefore did not form part of a pattern of persistent aggressive behaviour required for a dangerous offender designation.

However, the court found the offender met the criteria for a long-term offender designation.

The offender was sentenced to a further 12 months in custody followed by a 6.5-year long-term supervision order.

The Crown sought to qualify Dr. Mark Pearce as an expert forensic psychiatrist to provide opinion evidence on the respondent's risk of offending or reoffending in a dangerous offender proceeding.

The court conducted a voir dire, examining Dr. Pearce's extensive qualifications, training, and experience, including his specialization in forensic psychiatry and use of actuarial instruments for recidivism risk assessment.

The respondent challenged the scope of expertise.

The court found Dr. Pearce highly qualified and accepted him as an expert in the assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of psychiatric disorders in both clinical and forensic contexts, specifically qualified to opine on the respondent's risk of offending or reoffending.

The Crown sought a s. 752.1 assessment order following convictions for aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, possession of a weapon dangerous to the public peace, and breach of probation.

The court held that the assessment stage is a summary proceeding within the sentencing process and that the statutory threshold is low: whether there are reasonable grounds to believe the offender might be found to be a dangerous offender or long-term offender.

The court rejected the respondent’s submissions that the 2008 amendments enhanced the judicial gatekeeper role or required a higher evidentiary standard, and further held that the offender’s lengthy violent record could support a qualifying pattern under s. 753(1)(a)(i) or (ii).

Leave to file additional Crown materials was granted, and the assessment order was issued.

The Crown applied to have the offender designated a dangerous offender following a conviction for assault with a weapon.

The court reviewed extensive evidence of the offender’s criminal history, including 89 prior convictions and numerous violent offences demonstrating a persistent pattern of aggressive and repetitive violent behaviour.

Psychological assessments placed the offender in high‑risk categories for violent recidivism but indicated potential manageability through intensive supervision and treatment in the community.

The court concluded the statutory criteria for dangerous offender designation under ss. 752 and 753 of the Criminal Code were met.

However, satisfied that long‑term supervision could adequately protect the public, the court imposed a two‑year sentence (time served) together with a ten‑year long‑term supervision order rather than an indeterminate sentence.

The defendant, a long-term offender subject to a long-term supervision order (LTSO) requiring him to remain within the City of Toronto, was charged with breaching the conditions of his release by being found outside Toronto in Pickering.

The Crown alleged the defendant knowingly violated the territorial restriction.

The defendant testified that he was a passenger in a vehicle driven by his common-law spouse, who became lost while searching for a significant home and inadvertently crossed the Toronto boundary.

The court found the defendant not guilty, holding that being a passenger who took no action to place himself outside the city, and ending up in Pickering as an accident, constituted a reasonable excuse under section 753.3(1) of the Criminal Code.

The appellants were convicted of first degree murder.

During the investigation, an undercover police officer posed as an Obeah spiritual advisor and obtained incriminating statements from two of the appellants.

The appellants appealed, arguing that the undercover operation violated their Charter rights to freedom of religion and equality, constituted a 'dirty trick', and that the statements were protected by common law religious privilege.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, finding that the appellants' participation was motivated by a desire to obstruct the justice system rather than sincere religious belief, and that the police conduct did not shock the conscience of the community.

The court also upheld the trial judge's decisions regarding an in camera hearing and the refusal to sever the trial of the third co-accused.

The appellant was convicted in two separate trials of assault causing bodily harm, criminal harassment, and drug trafficking offences.

He received a 5-year sentence for the assault and an 8-year sentence for the drug offences, resulting in a global sentence of 13 years.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found that the second sentencing judge failed to adequately consider the totality principle.

The appeal was allowed, and the sentence for the drug offences was reduced to 5 years consecutive, resulting in a global sentence of 10 years.

The appellant hospital appealed a decision of the Ontario Review Board granting an absolute discharge to an individual found not criminally responsible for first degree murder.

The Board had previously adjourned the hearing to obtain an independent psychiatric assessment regarding the individual's past criminal involvement.

Despite the assessment failing to resolve these concerns, the Board's majority granted the absolute discharge.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the Board's decision unreasonable due to an unexplained gap in its reasoning regarding the relevance of the past criminal conduct and its failure to address inadequacies in the proposed treatment plan for monitoring medication compliance.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their application to quash their committal for trial.

They argued a denial of natural justice regarding the preliminary inquiry judge's use of hearsay evidence.

The Court of Appeal found no denial of natural justice, noting that counsel had the opportunity to make submissions on the issue and that the absence of a voir dire did not constitute jurisdictional error.

The court also found sufficient evidence of knowledge and control of a gun to warrant committal, based on the location of the child, the car seat, and the visibility of the gun.

The appeals were dismissed.

The appellant appealed the sentence imposed by the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting that the sentence fell within the parameters of the joint submission put forward by counsel.

The court found the joint submission to be a fair reflection of the seriousness of the offence and the appellant's serious, related, and lengthy criminal record.

The appellant appealed the sentence imposed by the trial judge.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge was justified in noting the difference between the two accused persons, specifically the use of a weapon while prohibited, and increasing the sentence on that account.

The appeal was dismissed.