Nathaniel Smith

The Crown applied for a psychiatric assessment of Lionel Brian Williams under s. 752.1 of the Criminal Code, on reasonable grounds that he might be found a dangerous offender or long-term offender due to a serious personal injury offence (assault with a weapon).

The court reviewed extensive evidence including police synopses, CPIC records, and transcripts, noting Mr. Williams' long history of violent and non-violent offences, his marginalized status, and patterns of repetitive and persistent aggressive behaviour.

The court found the low threshold for ordering an assessment met, emphasizing the procedural nature of s. 752.1 and the importance of protecting public safety.

The application for psychiatric assessment was granted.

Lonelle Timothy Price pleaded guilty to three counts of assault.

The court delivered reasons for sentence, considering aggravating factors such as the sexualized nature and persistence of the assaults, targeting of young women, and significant victim impact.

Mitigating factors included the guilty plea, lack of prior criminal record, family support, and diagnosis of schizophrenia and cannabis use disorder, which diminished moral culpability.

The court balanced denunciation and deterrence with rehabilitation and the collateral consequences of deportation for the non-citizen offender.

A DNA order was also considered and granted.

The Crown brought a Dangerous Offender application following the offender's convictions for multiple violent offences against his intimate partner, including assault causing bodily harm, choking, and forcible confinement.

The court reviewed the offender's extensive criminal record, which included 134 convictions, many involving violence against domestic partners and strangers.

Relying on psychiatric evidence and risk assessments indicating a very high risk of violent reoffending and intractable behaviour, the court found that the offender met the criteria for a Dangerous Offender designation under s. 753(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

Concluding that a determinate sentence followed by a Long-Term Supervision Order would not adequately protect the public, the court imposed an indeterminate sentence.