COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
Doherty, Laskin and Gillese JJ.A.
BETWEEN
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
and
Christopher Russell Ward
Appellant
Daniel J. Brodsky, for the appellant
Amy Alyea, for the respondent
Heard and released orally: January 26, 2011
On appeal from the conviction entered on October 31, 2003 and the sentence imposed on October 14, 2005 by Justice G. Patrick Smith of the Superior Court of Justice, sitting without a jury.
ENDORSEMENT
1In October 2005, G.P. Smith J. declared the appellant, Christopher Ward to be a dangerous offender and sentenced him to an indeterminate sentence in a penitentiary. The sentencing judge, in his words, could not "conclude that the public threat that Mr. Ward poses can be reduced to an acceptable level through either a determinate period of detention or a determinate period of detention followed by a long-term supervision order."
2Mr. Ward appeals the finding that he is a dangerous offender. In his factum, he seeks either a determinate sentence for his index offence, the aggravated assault of a woman he had been dating, or to be designated a long-term offender. In oral argument, Mr. Ward limits his request to a long-term offender designation. Mr. Ward submits that the sentencing judge erred in excluding the possibility that the risk to the public he poses can be managed in the community. He relies on the evidence of the area director for Correction Services Canada and the parole officer in the northwest region.
3We do not accept Mr. Ward's submission. Importantly, neither the area director nor the parole officer testified that Mr. Ward was manageable in the community. Moreover, in his thorough and well-reasoned decision, the sentencing judge considered the submission Mr. Ward now raises and the evidence he relies on and yet concluded at para. 107 of his reasons:
... it is abundantly evident to me there is no system or infrastructure in place that could effectively supervise and manage the risk of Mr. Ward re-entering society. Given his past history, personality profile and lack of self-awareness, I find that there would have to be constant supervision to ensure the safety of the public from future violent outbursts that would likely involve women with whom he has an intimate relationship. Constant supervision is neither possible nor reasonable.
4The sentencing judge also concluded at para. 109 of his reasons that "The imposition of all the usual release conditions, including treatment and even electronic monitoring, would not ... reduce the level of risk of releasing Mr. Ward into society to a reasonable and acceptable level." These conclusions are amply grounded in the record before the sentencing judge. He summarizes in a series of bullet points at para. 99 of his reasons the evidence he relies on.
5We agree with the sentencing judge's assessment that this evidence overwhelmingly shows that the risk Mr. Ward posses to society cannot be controlled now or in the future.
6Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
"Doherty J.A."
"John Laskin J.A."
"E.E. Gillese J.A."