Court of Appeal for Ontario
Date: 2006-12-13 Docket: C41397
Re: Her Majesty the Queen (Respondent) – and – E.E. (Appellant)
Before: Labrosse, Weiler and Sharpe JJ.A.
Counsel: William Thompson, for the appellant Elise Nakelsky, for the respondent
Heard & Released Orally: December 11, 2006
On appeal from the sentence imposed by Justice Arthur C. Whealy of the Superior Court of Justice, sitting with a jury, on April 16, 2003.
Endorsement
1The appellant was convicted after a trial before a judge and jury of 16 counts of acts of violence and sexual aggression and related offences against his former wife, which occurred between 1992 and 1994. The appellant was designated as a dangerous offender and sentenced to an indeterminate period of imprisonment. He appeals that designation and the related sentence.
2During the four years that the appellant and his former wife lived together, he perpetrated vicious attacks against her, including rapes, beatings and cruel threats. The relationship ended when the appellant was sentenced to five years in the penitentiary for similar conduct of violence and sexually violent crimes involving another former spouse.
3The trial judge essentially accepted the evidence of the Crown’s expert. The appellant suffers from anti-social personality disorder, with additional co-morbid, prominent borderline and narcissistic personality traits. He is deceitful, impulsive, irritable and assaultive. He has a poor record in terms of counselling and treatment. He failed to abide by earlier parole conditions specifically related to these offences and has refused to accept responsibility for the offences.
4The trial judge rejected the appellant’s evidence. More specifically the trial judge rejected the appellant’s evidence that he had cured himself of his addiction to drugs and alcohol. The trial judge took this assertion as a sham meant only to persuade the court that he is a likely candidate for the long-term offender status and the treatment being recommended.
5Although the appellant submits that the trial judge’s decision was unreasonable, we disagree. In comprehensive reasons, the trial judge found that the evidence demonstrated that the appellant is in the very highest risk classification to re-offend violently in relationships with women. He also found that there was no reasonable possibility of eventual control of risk in the community. He declared that the appellant was a dangerous offender and sentenced him to a mandatory sentence of indeterminate imprisonment.
6In our view, the trial judge gave meaningful and proper consideration to all of the evidence and his conclusion is well supported by the evidence.
7The appeal is dismissed.
"J.M. Labrosse J.A."
"Karen Weiler J.A."
"Robert Sharpe J.A."