Marie L. Dufort

The Crown applied to designate the respondent a dangerous offender following his convictions for sexual assault causing bodily harm, choking, and unlawful confinement.

The court reviewed the respondent's extensive criminal history, institutional behavior, and psychiatric assessments.

The court found that the respondent met the criteria for a dangerous offender designation due to a pattern of repetitive and persistent aggressive behavior.

However, noting some recent improvements and the possibility of managing his risk in the community, the court imposed a determinate sentence of 15 years and 9 months, followed by a 10-year long-term supervision order, rather than an indeterminate sentence.

On a dangerous offender application following guilty pleas to numerous sexual offences against children, the court held that the luring, invitation to sexual touching, sexual interference, and extortion offences constituted serious personal injury offences under s. 752 of the Criminal Code.

The evidence established a lengthy pattern of repetitive and persistent sexual offending, repeated breaches of court orders, minimization, and failure to respond to supervision and treatment, creating a threat to the life, safety, and mental well-being of others under s. 753(1)(a).

Applying the sentencing regime in ss. 753(4) and 753(4.1), the court found no reasonable expectation that a determinate sentence with long-term supervision would adequately protect the public.

An indeterminate sentence was imposed.

À la suite de condamnations pour introduction par effraction, agression sexuelle causant des lésions corporelles, voies de fait et menaces de mort, la Couronne a demandé que le délinquant soit déclaré délinquant dangereux en vertu de l’art. 753 du Code criminel.

La preuve démontrait un long historique criminel comprenant plusieurs agressions sexuelles, violences conjugales et manquements à des ordonnances judiciaires, ainsi qu’un refus constant d’assumer la responsabilité de ses actes ou de participer à des traitements.

La Cour a conclu que les critères des al. 753(1)(a) et (b) étaient satisfaits, notamment la répétition d’actes violents et l’incapacité de contrôler ses impulsions sexuelles.

Elle a également déterminé qu’il n’existait aucune possibilité réelle de contrôler le risque dans la communauté au moyen d’une ordonnance de surveillance de longue durée.

Une peine indéterminée a donc été imposée afin d’assurer la protection du public.