INTRODUCTION

1These are my Reasons for Judgement on a dangerous offender application brought by the Crown pursuant to section 753 of the Criminal Code.

2On September 8, 2022 Mr. Hill plead guilty to assault causing bodily harm, contrary to section 267(b) of the Criminal Code, and attempted robbery, contrary to section 344(1) of the Criminal Code. A Gladue Report was ordered at that time.

3On March 2, 2023, he plead guilty to manslaughter, contrary to section 236(b) of the Criminal Code.

4At that time, I ordered that an assessment be conducted by Dr. Alina Iosif, a forensic psychiatrist, pursuant to section 752.1 of the Criminal Code and that a report be filed for use as evidence on a potential application to designate Mr. Hill a dangerous offender. The Crown filed its application following receipt of the report from Dr. Iosif, dated June 6, 2023. It included the required consent of the Attorney General of Ontario pursuant to section 754 of the Criminal Code.

5The defence obtained its own psychiatric assessment of Mr. Hill by Dr. John Bradford as well as an assessment by Dr. Eldon Loh, a rehabilitation specialist. These reports were dated December 17, 2024, and Jan 9, 2025, respectively.

6In addition to the above-noted reports, and on consent of the defence, the Crown filed a significant volume of documentary records related to Mr. Hill, including the following:

(a) Mr. Hill’s Criminal Record;

(b) Adult and Youth Probation Records;

(d) Hospital Records; and

(e) Transcripts, Police Occurrence Reports and Court Orders related to Mr. Hill’s prior convictions.

7The hearing itself took place over 10 days. Final submission were made on September 2, 2025. The court heard from the following witnesses:

(i) Shelly Griffith (Parole Officer Supervisor, Correctional Services Canada);

(ii) Karen Thomson (Regional Manager of Conditional Release Programs, Parole Board of Canada);

(iii) Katherine Beddows (Indigenous Correctional Program Officer, Correctional Services Canada);

(iv) Dr. Alina Iosif (Forensic Psychiatrist);

(v) Dr. Eldon Loh (Rehabilitation Specialist;

(vi) Bonnie Hill (mother of Preston Hill); and

(vii) Dr. John Bradford (Forensic Psychiatrist)

THE ISSUES

8Does Mr. Hill meet the criteria set out in section 753(1)(a)(i) and/or (ii) of the Criminal Code such that he should be declared a dangerous offender?

9If so, is there a reasonable expectation that a lesser measure falling short of an indeterminate sentence will adequately protect the public against the commission by Mr. Hill of murder or a serious personal injury offence?

POSITION OF THE PARTIES

10The parties agree that the predicate offences are serious personal injury offences as defined by section 752(a) of the Criminal Code.

11The Crown submits that Mr. Hill meets the definition of a dangerous offender and seeks to have him sentenced to an indeterminate period of incarceration. The Crown says that the offences before me form part of a pattern of repetitive behaviour and persistent aggressive behaviour under section 753(1)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Criminal Code. The Crown submits that there is no reasonable expectation that the public can be adequately protected by anything other than an indeterminate sentence.

12In the alternative, Crown submits that Mr. Hill should be designated a dangerous offender and sentenced to a life sentence or a lengthy fixed sentence in the penitentiary followed by a 10-year long-term supervision order. In the further alternative, Crown submits that Mr. Hill be declared a long-term offender and sentenced to a life sentence or a lengthy fixed sentence in the penitentiary followed by a 10-year long-term supervision order.

13The defence submits that Mr. Hill does not meet the criteria for designation as a dangerous offender and urges the court to impose a determinate sentence of 12 years less time served. The defence submits that Mr. Hill is treatable and that there is a reasonable expectation that treatment in the penitentiary during the course of a lengthy determinate sentence will adequately protect the public.

CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PREDICATE OFFENCES

Manslaughter

14The victim, Safurani Bakare, was a Minister of the Interdenominational Church. In addition to operating the “Christ Redeemer Ministries” he operated a cleaning business.

15At the time of his death, as a result of financial hardship, he did not have a fixed address. For several months, he had been renting a room at a rooming house located at 1061 Patricia Street in London. He terminated this tenancy at the end of February 2021 but had left some of his belongings behind which were to be picked up at a later date.

16He had been residing at the Salvation Army Centre of Hope on Friday May 14, 2021, where he met Mr. Hill. Both had spent the night there on the third floor and were observed by a worker at the shelter to be acting peaceably with each other that night. This was confirmed by video surveillance from that evening as well as the following morning when they left the facility together at approximately 7:15 a.m. Mr. Bakare had agreed to help Mr. Hill find employment and housing.

17Some time after leaving the Salvation Army on the morning of May 15, 2021, Mr. Bakare drove to a local Tim Horton’s before attending at his former residence on Patricia Street to retrieve his belongings. His former landlord had received a message from him shortly after 8 a.m. that morning indicating that he was on his way.

18Mr. Hill was travelling as a passenger in Mr. Bakare’s van. When they arrived at Mr. Bakare’s former residence he notified his former landlord of his arrival but did not receive a response to his messages. As a result, at 8:41 a.m. he contacted the police seeking their assistance in retrieving his belongings.

19While waiting in the driveway of Mr. Bakare’s former residence, Mr. Hill, without provocation, stabbed Mr. Bakare one time in the neck. He then stole Mr. Bakare’s cell phones and fled the area.

20At approximately 9:18 a.m., a City of London parking Enforcement Officer saw Mr. Bakare’s body slumped over and against the exterior of the garage located at 1061 Patricia Street. He contacted police after calling out to Mr. Bakare and receiving no response.

21Police and Paramedics attended the scene and administered CPR on Mr. Bakare who had an obvious stab wound to his neck. Mr. Bakare was transported to Victoria Hospital where further attempts were made to save his life.

22Mr. Bakare was pronounced dead at 9:53 a.m. as a result of what was determined to be a stab wound to his neck. A subsequent autopsy revealed that the stab wound had “nearly transected” Mr. Bakare’s “right common carotid artery.” He also sustained a laceration to his left eyebrow/forehead which was likely due to a terminal collapse.

Assault Causing Bodily Harm; Attempted Robbery

23At approximately 9:00 a.m. that same morning, Simon Dunford and his fiancée, Catharina Van Wijk, were walking their dog on the east side of Richmond Street near University Drive in the City of London.

24Mr. Hill was on the opposite side of Richmond Street and proceeded to jog across the street toward Mr. Dunford and Ms. Van Wijk. He stated “Hey man” as he approached and ultimately walked past them on the sidewalk.

25When Mr. Dunford turned towards Mr. Hill, Mr. Hill grabbed Mr. Dunford’s shoulder with one hand and stabbed him in the abdomen once with a knife using his other hand. Mr. Dunford and Ms. Van Wijk immediately fled northbound, and the accused ran southbound toward Richmond Street and University Drive.

26At approximately 9:05 a.m., immediately following the above-noted stabbing, Mr. Hill approached the partially opened driver’s side window of a white 2011 Nissan Sentra that was being operated by German Toro. The vehicle was stopped at a traffic light facing eastbound on University Drive at Richmond Street.

27Mr. Hill was still armed with a knife which he put through the window while stating, “Give me your fucking car.” Mr. Toro managed to roll his window up. He then had to roll up the front passenger’s side window as Mr. Hill was proceeding around the vehicle to the passenger’s side. Mr. Hill then returned to the driver’s side and attempted to break the driver’s side window of Mr. Toro’s vehicle by striking it four or five times with his knife. This caused scratches to the driver's side window, resulting in approximately $300.00 in damage.

28At 9:06 a.m., after being dispatched to the area following a 9-1-1 call from a passing motorist, Sergeant Yovicic and Sergeant Males observed Mr. Hill running southwest through the intersection of Richmond Street and University Drive. He ran through a small green space at the southwest side of this intersection and then onto the property of the TD bank at 1137 Richmond Street.

29After following Mr. Hill into the rear parking lot of the TD bank, the officers exited their vehicle and ordered Mr. Hill to the ground. Mr. Hill refused to comply and began walking toward them. Sergeant Males pointed her service-issued pistol at Mr. Hill who continued to walk toward them repeatedly shouting, “Just fucking shoot me.” Sergeant Yovicic then deployed his Oleoresin Capsicum spray (also known as “pepper spray”) at Mr. Hill who eventually laid down on the ground.

30At 9:07 a.m. Mr. Hill was arrested for Assault with a Weapon and was handcuffed to the rear. He was advised of his rights to counsel at that time. He had blood on both of his hands. He was in possession of a folding knife with the blade open as well as one of Mr. Bakare’s cell phones. The phone was playing the song “Rockstar” by rap artist “Da baby”, which Mr. Hill continued to ask the officers to play as it was his favourite song.

31Mr. Dunford was ultimately attended to by EMS and transported to Victoria Hospital. He did not require surgery, and his injury was not life-threatening.

32Mr. Hill was interviewed by Detective Bourdeau later that same day following his arrest for murder and robbery. He was advised of his right to counsel again. Having previously spoken with counsel, he elected to do so a second time.

33During the course of the interview, Mr. Hill admitted to stabbing Mr. Bakare in the neck and trying to steal Mr. Toro’s vehicle. He said he knew that Mr. Bakare was trying to help him find housing and employment and that he felt bad. When asked why he stabbed Mr. Bakare, the following exchange took place:

Det Bourdeau: …you said earlier he was gonna give you a ride? Mr. Hill: yep.

Det. Bourdeau: so he musta’ had a vehicle? Mr. Hill: yeah, I feel bad.

Det. Bourdeau: you feel bad?

Mr. Hill: yeah, I do. Yeah I mean. Det Bourdeau: okay.

Mr. Hill: He was tryna’ help people, you know [inaudible]. Det. Bourdeau: so why did this happen?

Mr. Hill: I dunno. It’s enough, yeah, it’s enough I guess. Det. Bourdeau: you said you became impatient.

Mr. Hill: yeah, cause I wanted to go, go to war actually, ya know.

Det. Bourdeau: go to war?

Mr. Hill: yeah.

Det. Bourdeau: yeah.

Mr. Hill: that kills, or goofs mostly, just goofs. Not regular war, but go to war against goofs.

Det. Bourdeau: who’s goofs?

Mr. Hill: all goofs like rapehounds all those fuckin people. Det. Bourdeau: because of…

Mr. Hill: child molesters…

Det. Bourdeau: because of what happened to you?

Mr. Hill: they can all go, they can all go…

34He also told Det. Bourdeau that he had gotten “sidetracked by drugs” but had not used recently. This was after he had indicated during the booking process that he had used crystal meth the prior evening.

VICTIM IMPACT

35A Victim Impact Statement dated December 22, 2022, was filed by Mr. Dunford.

36As a result of the offence, Mr. Dunford’s outlook on life has been significantly altered. He explained how he went from being a positive, optimistic, and trusting person to one who now lives with a significant degree of apprehension over thoughts that he could be harmed for no reason whatsoever.

37The stabbing left him with nerve damage in addition to severe PTSD and a general loss of enjoyment of life. He suffers from flashbacks and indicates that he and his wife are now burdened with avoidance and fear and a loss of hope because “violently attacking an innocent person changes them.”

CIRCUMSTANCES OF MR. HILL

38Mr. Hill is now 27 years of age. He was 22 years of age at the time of his arrest.

39Mr. Hill is an Indigenous person whose personal circumstances are set out in the Gladue Report prepared in connection with this matter. Both of his parents are registered members of the Oneida First Nation. He has a younger sister.

40There is a residential school history on both sides of his family. His maternal great grandparents attended the Mount Elgin Residential School approximately 20 miles southwest of London. His maternal grandfather attended the Mohawk Institute Residential School located in Brantford. A similar history was noted with respect to his paternal grandparents and great grandparents. Grandparents on both sides of the family also spent some time at the Mount Elgin Day School.

41Mr. Hill’s parents both disclosed that their parents and grandparents were the subject of significant abuse during their youth. They both acknowledged being raised in dysfunctional homes marked by alcoholism, domestic abuse and poverty. Despite this, Mr. Hill’s mother went on to obtain a diploma and worked as a medical secretary. She now works as a teacher. His father obtained a college diploma in social work and became a drug and alcohol counsellor.

42According to his mother, Mr. Hill started having difficulties at school in grade 4. She said there were reports of her son being disruptive in class and not doing his work. She said that his teachers encouraged her to take her son to a doctor to be assessed for learning disabilities but that she chose not to.

43It was at approximately this time that they register Mr. Hill in hockey, something which he excelled at. According to his mother, he struggled academically in grade school and his high school years were marked by frequent fighting and ultimately being expelled. He subsequently transferred to an alternative school on the Oneida First Nation. She believes he obtained a grade 11 education.

44By all accounts Mr. Hill began experiencing mental health difficulties and trouble with the law when he was approximately 17 years old. He said this is when he first disclosed to his parents that he had been a victim of past sexual abuse. This is confirmed in a Pre-Sentence Report (PSR) filed as an exhibit following his first conviction as a Youth in 2015. According to the author of the report, Mr. Hill indicated that the abuse began to “bother him more when he became older” and that as a result, he started taking his anger out on other people. He said he disclosed the abuse because he saw the perpetrator spending time with his aunt’s child, and this angered him. As indicated in the PSR, Mr. Hill admitted that “he can be verbally aggressive when he is upset and is unable to control his outbursts at times.” This was confirmed by his mother who reported that “Preston can be controlled by his anger and rage.”

45He advised the author of the Gladue Report that he was sexually abuse by an older female child that his parents had adopted. The child babysat Mr. Hill and his younger sister. He also indicated that he struggled to control his emotions following this initial disclosure stating, “I started getting mad about it. That’s when I started getting charged and stuff, around that time. Ever since then my life has been a roller coaster pretty much. It was a lot to handle.”

46A subsequent PSR filed with the court in 2016 indicates that Mr. Hill’s behaviour continued to deteriorate. The report noted that Mr. Hill was involved in daily drug use, that he began to act out in an aggressive and angry manner more frequently and that this behaviour began to frighten his mother and sister to the point that his sister would lock herself in her room when Mr. Hill was home. The report noted that Mr. Hill failed to follow through on treatment recommendations and that his father would not welcome him back into the home until he attended residential treatment.

47In a Critical Incident Report dated March 2, 2016, which forms part of the Youth records filed in these proceedings, his father indicated that “Preston’s angry and aggressive outbursts often happen without warning signs.” This was confirmed by Mr. Hill who, after being confronted for allegedly threatening a staff member said “I’m just random like that. I could just snap at any moment”.

48Later in 2016, a PSR Update indicates that Mr. Hill attended an Indigenous-based adolescent treatment centre but left prematurely. He said, “it was too far from home that he did not like the program”. The report went on to indicate that Mr. Hill was no longer welcome in the family home. His father said he did not feel safe around his son and was requesting an order that his son have no contact with the family.

49The Gladue Report indicates that at the age of 17, Mr. Hill suffered a significant head injury after instigating a fight and injuring someone at a party. He said he subsequently passed out as a result of intoxication and that while unconscious he was beaten in the head with a baseball bat. He spent some time in the Intensive Care Unit as result of a fractured skull and brain hemorrhaging and was ultimately moved to the Parkwood Institute for rehabilitation which lasted several months.

50The extent to which this head injury together with Mr. Hill’s past sexual abuse has contributed to his offending behaviour is in dispute. I will have more to say about this later in my judgement.

51It would appear from the Gladue Report that Mr. Hill’s addiction to substances and violent tendencies resulted in him being excluded from the family home. His mother indicated that, in the months leading up to the predicate offences, the family was living in fear and that this is what led Mr. Hill to moving out of the family home and into the Salvation Army.

52While in custody, Mr. Hill has accessed anger management programming and participated in smudging in traditional pipe ceremonies to support his mental health. He is presently taking Vyvanse medication to treat his attention deficit disorder.

53With respect to the predicate offences, Mr. Hill stated the following to the author of the Gladue Report, “I don’t really remember what happened, but I don’t feel good about it. I feel bad for what I’ve done.” As indicated in the Report of Dr Iosif, Mr. Hill was able to recall the events in question. After conferring with his client, council confirmed that Mr. Hill had a memory of the events and that he was satisfied the Crown could prove them beyond a reasonable doubt.

54Mr. Hill’s Adult Case Probation Notes indicate that this injury was in fact sustained on July 16, 2020, just before Mr. Hill’s 22nd birthday. This was consistent with Mr. Hill’s the medical records. (see exhibit 17: Integrated Discharge Summary)

55Mr. Hill has a significant history of substance abuse. He told Dr. Iosif that he was introduced to alcohol and marijuana at the age of 15 and was using crystal meth and cocaine, including crack cocaine, by the age of 17. He indicated that he was using crystal meth on a regular and continuous basis between 2019 and the date of his arrest for the predicate offences. Between 2020 and the date of his arrest he was also abusing Xanax to induce sleep after using crystal meth. He began using fentanyl in 2021 and indicated he had developed a “high tolerance” to it.

56He advised Dr. Iosif that “…all the charges ‘ve ever had I was intoxicated…crystal meth is the worst”.

MR. HILL’S CRIMINAL HISTORY – REGISTERED CONVICTIONS

57In support of its position, the Crown has filed various records relating to Mr. Hill’s criminal history. This included Police Occurrence Reports, transcripts of court Proceedings, Youth and Adult Probation Records and records from various custodial facilities to name a few.

58As indicated by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Jones, 1994 CanLII 85 (SCC), [1994] 2 S.C.R. 229, at paragraph 123, “In the case of dangerous offender proceedings, it is all the more important that the court be given access to the widest possible range of information in order to determine whether there is a serious risk to public safety.”

59Nevertheless, much of the documentary evidence constitutes a form of hearsay evidence. In R. v. L.T.P., [2001] B.C.J. No. 1706 (B.C.S.C.), at paragraph 13, the court discussed the admissibility and weight of documentary hearsay evidence admitted on consent:

The weight accorded to individual documents will depend in each instance on the nature of the document, its content and the purpose for which it is produced.

60With respect to the factual underpinnings of some of the offences on Mr. Hill’s record, there is an absence of transcripts. As such, the Crown seeks to rely on Police Occurrence Reports.

61In R. v. P.G., 2013 ONSC 589, the court reviewed the use of police synopses to support factual findings for an offender's prior convictions. Despite the limitations inherent in the use of police synopses, the Court was willing to accept, as reliable, the dates of the offences, the ages of the parties, and the general nature of the offences.

62In R. v. Williams, 2018 ONCA 437, the court concluded that police synopses are generally admissible but must be treated with caution. Some basic facts set out in the synopses can be used for the purpose of establishing details such as dates and ages. The incidents set out in the synopses must be considered in light of all of the evidence led at the hearing. Certain parts of a synopsis may find support and confirmation in other parts of the record. If so, it is open to the sentencing judge to rely on those incidents as evidence in support of a finding that the statutory elements of dangerousness, such as the requisite pattern of behaviour, are made out.

63I also note that the Crown bears the onus of proving the facts underpinning Mr. Hill’s prior criminal convictions beyond a reasonable doubt.

64Counsel for Mr. Hill does not dispute the admissibility of the records in support of the factual underpinnings of the offences relied upon by the Crown. As indicated in the reports of the forensic psychiatrists who testified in this case, they were reviewed with Mr. Hill.

65In the circumstances and having reviewed the records in some detail, I am satisfied that where transcripts are unavailable, the police occurrence reports are reliable with respect to the general nature of the offences described therein.

66The record can be briefly summarized as follows:

(a) Criminal convictions span approx. 7.5 years (November 2015 to March 3, 2023);

(b) Total convictions: 40;

(d) Convictions for failing to comply with court Orders: 8

67In addition to his criminal convictions, Mr. Hill admitted to Dr. Bradford that he committed additional assaults as an adult for which he did not get caught.

68The following is a table of Mr. Hill’s criminal convictions and sentences:

Disposition Date / Location of Court

Offence(s) with Offence Dates

(if known)

Sentence

November 23, 2015 (London, Youth Court)

Assault Causing Bodily Harm – s.267(b) CC (OD: March 24, 2015)
Assault (pled down from robbery) –

s.266 CC (May 4, 2015)

Assault (pled down from robbery) –

s.266 CC (OD: May 4, 2015)

Assault (OD: May 27, 2015 – referred to in Sentencing Decision, Custody and Supervision Order, and probation Order, but not on record)
Unauthorized possession of a prohibited or restricted weapon – s.92(2) CC
Possession of Weapon Dangerous to Public – s.88(1) CC
FTC Undertaking – s.145(5.1) CC
FTC Recog. – s.145(3) CC x 3

6 months deferred custody and supervision order (on ACBH and assaults), 18 months probation on all charges

Mischief Under $5000 – s.430(4) CC

May 18, 2017

(London, Youth and Adult entries)

Assault with a Weapon – s.267(a) CC (youth offence – OD: December 2, 2015)
Assault – s.266 CC x 2 (ODs: September 23, 2016, November 4,

Robbery – s.343 x 3 (OD: October 11, 2016)
Mischief under $5000 – s.430(4) CC (OD: October 11, 2016)
Break and Enter – s.348(1)(b) CC (OD: October 11, 2016)
Assault peace officer – s.270(1)(a) CC (OD: October 12, 2016)
FTC Recognizance – s.145(3) CC (OD: January 20, 2017)
Possess Weapon Dangerous – s. 88 CC (OD: January 29, 2017)

Adult sentence: credit for 286 days of pre- sentence custody (after enhancement) + 1 day deemed served, probation 3 years (concurrent on all counts)

May 17, 2018

(London, Adult)

Theft Motor Vehicle – s.333.1 CC
Flight from Police – s.249.1(1) CC (OD for both – October 22, 2017)

Suspended sentence with 12 months probation

October 18, 2018 (London, this and balance are Adult entries)

Carry Concealed Weapon – s.90(1) CC
Assault – s.266 CC (pled down from robbery)
Theft Under $5000 – s.334(b) CC (pled down from robbery) x 2
Uttering Threats – s.264.1(1)(a) (pled down from robbery)
Theft Under $5000 – s.334(b) CC
FTC Recognizance – s.145(3) CC

(ODs: all between Nov. 13-15, 2017, as stated by sentencing Judge, Tab 6 Criminal Convictions Brief)

Suspended sentence with 18 months probation on standalone theft under $5000 and FTC Recognizance, on remaining counts – credit for 285 days pre-sentence custody (after enhancement) + 1 day deemed served + 18 months’ probation

February 27, 2020 (London)

Assault – s.266 CC (OD: Nov. 16, 2019)
Mischief Under $5000 – s.430(4) CC (OD: Nov. 23, 2019)

Credit for 135 days pre-sentence custody + 1 day deemed served followed by 12 months’ probation

December 7, 2020 (London)

Impaired Operation – s.320.14(1)(a) CC (OD: June 26,

$2000 fine

March 25, 2021 (Chatham)

Impaired Operation – s.320.14(1)(a) CC (OD: November 25, 2019)

$2500 fine

May 4, 2021

(London)

Assault Causing Bodily Harm – s.267(b) CC (OD: Dec. 21-28. 2020)
Assault with a Weapon – s.267(a) CC (OD: November 22, 2020)

Credit for 90 days pre- sentence custody (after enhancement) on assault bodily harm; 30 days presentence custody (after enhancement) on assault with a weapon; 90 days (after enhancement) on FTC Release Order, concurrent

Predicate Offences: Plea entered September 8, 2022

Assault causing bodily harm – s.267(b) (OD: May 15, 2021)
Attempted robbery – s.344(1) (OD: May 15, 2021

Pending

Predicate Offences: Plea entered March 2, 2023

Manslaughter – s.236(b) CC (OD: May 15, 2021)

Pending

Disposition Date: November 23, 2015 (Youth Record) Assault Causing Bodily Harm – s.267(b) CC

69In support of the factual underpinnings for this offence, the Crown relies on the police Occurrence Report, the transcript of the sentencing proceeding and Mr. Hills comments to Dr. Iosif as indicated in her report. Transcript of the plea were unavailable.

70The Occurrence Report discloses that on March 24, 2015, at 11:30 p.m., the victim was skateboarding with friends in London. They approached a group of teenage males who were smoking cannabis. The victim turned in order to avoid them and skateboarded away. The victim was slightly behind his friends. The group of teenaged males began chasing after the victim. One of Mr. Hill’s friends pushed the victim down and punched him in the face several times. Mr. Hill then punched the victim in the face several times. He then stopped and walked away from the victim. The victim suffered bruising and a concussion.

71Regarding these offences, Mr. Hill told Dr. Iosif “I don’t really remember...there was an argument with a guy, and we started fighting. I punched him and he got a concussion.” He subsequently told Dr. Bradford that he could not remember the details of any of his prior offences as he was either “drunk or high”.

72Given Mr. Hill’s comments to Dr. Iosif, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Hill committed an unprovoked and unplanned assault on the victim by punching him, and that this resulted in the victim suffering a concussion.

Assault x 2 (pled down from robbery charges) – s.266 CC, FTC Undertaking – s.145(5.1) CC

73The police occurrence report in relation to this matter indicates that on May 4, 2015, the two male victims, age 15 and 16 respectively, were standing on a street corner in London. Mr. Hill crossed the street and approached them. Unprovoked, Hill punched one victim in the jaw with a closed fist causing him to fall to the ground. He then punched the other victim in the face repeatedly until he fell to the ground. Once on the ground, Mr. Hill continued to punch the second victim in the face and stated: “empty your pockets” and “give me your stuff”. He did not obtain any property. A third party intervened and broke up the assault. Mr. Hill was later arrested at Westmount Mall while bound by an Undertaking with a condition not to attend there.

74The transcript noted above highlights the seriousness of the offences. During submissions, the Crown stated the following:

Your Honour will recall when I read in the facts, the statement from the one independent witness who came across one of the assaults who was talking about how the person who turned out to be Preston was essentially just pummeling the tinier male who wasn't doing anything to provide resistance and it seems to me based what I've read and seen here, that unless Preston gets a hold of his anger and is able to either curb it completely or channel it in some other pro-social fashion, it likely will get to the point where Preston causes serious harm to people if not you know potentially killing somebody and I'm not someone who's inclined to being dramatic and exaggerating, but I really hope that what we hear in the report that Preston's had a lot of time to think about things and be reflective and think to himself about the choices he's made, the decisions he's made, that he will go down a different path after this point because if he doesn't, I can only see him being in custody for longer periods of time…

75In that same transcript, Justice George(as he then was) said the following:

THE COURT: … it is actually quite frightening to read some of the facts and listen to some of the facts being read in and think about well what if someone did not intervene there? You know what if the police officers did not ultimately charge you with this? You know what were you capable of? Because of the some of this stuff is just random violence and I am not going to ask you direct questions here, but as I sit here, I wondered to myself are you just naturally violent? Do you have that inherent desire to do bad things to other people. I do not believe that. Is it because you were under the influence of a substance and you did things that are out of character. Maybe. Is it part of this dynamic with you and the people you used to hang with where it was to be macho or to show them how cool and tuff is I am going to do these types of things. Maybe it is part of that. In all likelihood it is a combination of a whole bunch of different things…

76Based on the transcript, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Hill was pummeling one of his victims who was not providing any resistance and that the assault stopped when a third party intervened.

77I am also satisfied from the transcript that both of the above-noted assaults, as well as the assault causing bodily harm, were unprovoked. This was confirmed, in part, in the Youth Court records filed with the court, wherein Mr. Hill admitted that he had assaulted random people as a means of obtaining their marijuana.

FTC Recognizance – s.145(3) CC x 3 and Unauthorized Possession of a Prohibited or Restricted Weapon – s. 92(2) CC

78One of the breaches is described in a transcript dated November 23, 2015. Mr. Hill was on a Recognizance and breached a condition not to consume or possess unlawful drugs or substances. On October 14, 2015, Mr. Hill was seen by police on Dundas Street holding a bong to his mouth with a lighter at the mouthpiece. He quickly handed the bong to a friend as the officer approached. The officer could smell freshly burnt marijuana on him. He was arrested and found in possession of an eight-inch Mossy Oak folding hunting knife which easily opened with centrifugal force. The bong had freshly burnt marijuana in it.

Disposition Date: May 18, 2017 (Youth and Adult Record)

79The facts underlying these convictions are supported by the police Occurrence Reports and the sentencing transcript from May 18, 2017.

Assault with a Weapon – s.267(a) CC (Youth Offence)

80The Occurrence Report indicates that during a hockey game on December 2, 2015, Mr. Hill struck another player over the head with his hockey stick. He swung the stick in a two-handed “lumberjack” style grip, striking the victim four times in the back of the head. Police corroborated this by watching a video of the incident. The strikes were so hard they broke the victim’s helmet.

81The sentencing transcript satisfies me beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Hill struck the victim in the head with his stick causing the victims helmet to break.

Robbery – s.343 x 3, Mischief Under $5000 – s.430(4) CC, Break and Enter – s.348(1)(b) CC (Adult Offences)

82Robbery #1: The Occurrence Report indicates that on October 11, 2016, at approximately 6:45 p.m., Mr. Hill ran up to a woman who was entering her vehicle in her driveway. He grabbed the driver’s door while banging a stick against the vehicle and demanded she turn over the vehicle. The victim refused and began honking her horn, before backing out and fleeing. She was uninjured and Mr. Hill did not obtain any property.

83Robbery #2, Break and Enter, and Mischief: The Occurrence Report indicates that on October 11, 2016, at approximately 6:55 p.m., the victim was inside his home when Mr. Hill entered uninvited and unannounced. He began striking the victim with a stick while demanding keys for the victim’s Ford pickup truck in the driveway. The victim managed to grab a knife and chased Mr. Hill out of the house. Mr. Hill then grabbed a brick and threw it into a window causing it to smash. The incident was witnessed by the victim’s wife, who was also home.

84Robbery #3: The Occurrence Report indicates that on October 11, 2016, at approximately 6:58 p.m., the victim was driving his car. He was about to turn into his driveway when something was thrown at his car. He stopped and saw Mr. Hill emerge from some bushes. Mr. Hill approached and opened the driver’s door and attempted to physically pull the victim out of his car. The driver’s seatbelt prevented his removal and he managed to drive away, causing Mr. Hill to let go and flee the area.

85Mr. Hill told Dr. Iosif, in relation to these offences: “… that he was intoxicated with crystal meth and was not sure as to the circumstances of the charges. He commented, “I was homeless, and I was trying to steal money.”

86During the Sentencing, Justice Skowronski confirmed with Mr. Hill that he was “not of [his] right mind because he was under the influence of drugs during these incidents”.

87With respect to the offences themselves, the court indicated the following:

I will not chronicle all of them, but the significant ones of the assault with a weapon being a hockey stick, three robberies in succession in a spree-like event when he was under the influence of methamphetamine, break and enter, again part of the same spree and damage to property, part of that as well. You assaulted a peace officer and on two occasions you committed assault. One was on fellow person being held in custody. A number of punches administered to him. And there was a push of a security guard during a basketball game while in custody as well.…

During the spree that I have already talked about just a matter of minutes there is attempts to steal automobiles with the people in them. Not planned out, just a spontaneous matters driven by I believe from all the facts that I heard is his methamphetamine use on the day in question.

88The court also noted that an assessment completed by the Family Court Clinic disclosed that Mr. Hill “was victimized early in his life and the impact of that remains today and could be one of the causative factors about his behaviour.” This would appear to refer to the sexual abuse discussed above.

89In the circumstances, the sentencing transcript does not give much detail of the facts underlying the three robberies and the mischief and break and enter offences. Based on the occurrence reports and the comments of the presiding Judge, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the three robberies involved Mr. Hill using force in an attempt to steal motor vehicles, two of which were being driven by the victims, as described in the Occurrence Reports. I am also satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that he entered the one victim’s home uninvited before using force in order to obtain the keys to the victim’s vehicle.

Assault Peace Officer – s.270(1)(a) CC (Adult Offence)

90On October 12, 2016, at approximately 3:22 a.m., Mr. Hill attended a residence and began aggressively knocking on the door and ringing the bell. The occupants were afraid to answer the door as earlier in the night an unknown male had entered the home and assaulted one of the occupants while demanding they give him their car. The occupants immediately contacted police to report the situation. While police were on the way, Mr. Hill threw a rock through their window causing it to shatter. He fled prior to police attending but a K9 track was established. At 3:54 a.m. Mr. Hill was observed fleeing the area. He was followed into the wooded area by Sgt. Corcoran of the LPS . Sgt. Corcoran advised Mr. Hill he was under arrest and went to take him into custody. Mr. Hill then struck Sgt. Corcoran with a closed fist.

91Again, given the comments by the presiding Judge noted above, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Hill struck the arresting officer with a closed fist.

Possess Weapon Dangerous – s.88 CC (Adult Offence)

92The Occurrence Report for this matter indicates that on January 29, 2017, at 11:05 p.m., police were conducting a curfew check on Mr. Hill as they believed he was the driver of a vehicle that had fled. Upon attending the residence, police saw the suspect vehicle and Mr. Hill fled on foot. His father advised police that his son had a butcher’s knife and had waved it in a threatening manner at him prior to police arrival. Mr. Hill also took the car to London and was breaching his curfew. Police tracked him down using a K9 and arrested him.

93Given the absence of any reference to this matter in the transcript, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Hill had possession of a knife for a purpose dangerous to the public peace. I am not satisfied that he waived it in a threatening manner at his father.

Disposition Date: May 17, 2018 (Adult Record)

Theft Motor Vehicle – s.333.1 CC, Flight from Police – s.249.1(1) CC

94The facts in relation to these matter are contained in a transcript dated May 17, 2018. I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of the facts underlying these offences as described below.

95On October 22, 2017, at approximately 10:15 p.m., Mr. Hill flagged a taxi. He got into the front passenger’s seat and asked the driver to take him to Harvey’s on Wonderland. He was fidgety and put on a black hoodie and ballcap. When they arrived, he attempted to run without paying, and the driver chased him on foot. Mr. Hill then ran back and jumped into the driver’s seat and stole the taxi. Police located the taxi using its GPS tracking. They attempted to stop Mr. Hill using a spike belt and pursued him with lights and sirens, but eventually abandoned their pursuit. The taxi was found in a ditch and Mr. Hill was located via K9 tracking.

96Mr. Hill told Dr. Iosif, in relation to this incident, “… that he stole a taxi because he was trying to get home to see his parents. He added that he was “always under the influence.”

Disposition Date: October 18, 2018 (Adult Record)

97The facts underlying these offences are contained in the transcript of May 17, 2018. I am therefore satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of the underlying facts discussed below.

Theft Under $5000 – s.334(b) CC

98On November 13, 2017, Mr. Hill snatched a cell phone from the victim’s hands in the lobby of the Salvation Army and exited the front door. Mr. Hill and the victim knew each other as both resided at the Salvation Army at the time of the offence.

Carry Concealed Weapon – s.90(1) CC

99On November 13, 2017, Mr. Hill entered a convenience store. The events were captured on video. He approached the cash register and took a small gold coloured bracelet valued at $30.00. He then walked around the counter and pulled a small knife out with his left hand. He approached the victim while brandishing the knife. The victim in turn grabbed a baseball bat, causing Mr. Hill to flee.

100In relation to this event, Mr. Hill told Dr. Iosif that he recalled “trying to rob a store and being chased away with a bat.”

Assault – s.266 CC, Theft Under $5000 – s.334(b) CC (pled down from robbery) and FTC Recognizance – s.145(3) CC

101On November 15, 2017, Mr. Hill snatched a cell phone from the victim’s hand as she stood at a bus stop. The victim pursued Mr. Hill and placed him in a bear hug in an attempt to get her phone back. Mr. Hill punched the victim in the stomach and ran. The victim and another person (a good Samaritan) pursued Mr. Hill into a parking lot where, during a confrontation, Mr. Hill struck that person in the head, causing him to start bleeding. Mr. Hill was arrested in possession of the stolen phone and 30 grams of marijuana (contrary to his release condition).

Uttering Threats – s.264.1(1)(a) (pled down from robbery)

102On November 16, 2017, Mr. Hill followed a victim who had exited the CIBC at Citi Plaza. The victim crossed the street and Mr. Hill continued to follow him. The victim stopped near a bus shelter and pretended to use his phone, hoping that Mr. Hill would pass by.

103Mr. Hill approached the victim “in an aggressive manner” and demanded his phone. He then placed his hands in front of his body and puffed out his chest, exposing the waistband of his pants. The victim saw what he believed was a gun in Mr. Hill’s waistband. It had a handle and a barrel, and it was all black with orange accents. Mr. Hill demanded the victim’s phone “or else.”

104The victim was fearful and fled to a Circle K convenience store where he asked the cashier to call 9-1-1. The victim then went to the rear of the store to call 9-1-1 on his cell phone as Mr. Hill followed him inside the store, where both remained for a period of time. No further direct contact was made, and Mr. Hill eventually left.

Disposition Date: February 27, 2020

105The facts underlying these offences are contained in a transcript dated February 27, 2020. I am therefore satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of the underlying facts indicated below.

Assault – s.266 CC, Mischief Under $5000 – s.430(4) CC

106On November 16, 2019, Mr. Hill and his then girlfriend, Brooke Kechego, got into an argument over Mr. Hill being unfaithful. Mr. Hill began punching Ms. Kechego in the face with a closed fist. This caused bruising on the left side of her face, underneath her eye, which was still visible when police attended on November 23rd. Ms Kechego felt like she had an undiagnosed concussion as she felt sick in the days following the assault.

107On November 23, 2019, police were dispatched to Ms. Kechego’s home (where she lived with her grandmother), after Mr. Hill had kicked in the front door. Mr. Hill had kicked in the door because Ms. Kechego refused to drive him to London. Once inside, he chased Ms. Kechego into the backyard where she hid from him until she felt it was safe to come out. Eventually Mr. Hill was found and arrested on a warrant.

108In relation to Ms. Kechego, Mr. Hill told Dr. Bradford “I slapped her a few times because of drugs and her lying.”

Disposition Date: December 7, 2020

Impaired Operation – s.320.14(1)(a) CC

109I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of the underlying facts for this offence as contained in a transcript dated December 7, 2020.

110On June 26, 2020, police were dispatched to an address on Chippewa Road. The police saw Mr. Hill back an ATV out of a driveway and followed him as he drove down various roads, during which he failed to stop at multiple stop signs and a police checkpoint. Eventually, he was blocked by police vehicles and came to a stop. He had an odour of alcohol on his breath and was unsteady on his feet. His breath readings were 196 and 181 mg/100mL of blood respectively.

Disposition Date: March 25, 2021

Impaired Operation – s.320.14(1)(a) CC

111I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of the underlying facts for this offence as contained in a transcript dated March 25, 2021.

112On November 25, 2019, police were dispatched to a collision at an intersection in Chatham. Mr. Hill had crashed a vehicle into the rear end of a vehicle in front of him, leaving a 110-metre skid mark prior to the impact. He smelled like alcohol, had slurred speech, and was unsteady on his feet. His breath readings were 233 and 226mg/100mL of blood respectively.

Disposition Date: May 4, 2021

113The facts underlying these convictions are contained in a transcript of the plea and sentencing on May 4, 2021 as well as in the probation records. I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of the facts disclosed therein.

Assault with a Weapon – s.267(a) CC

114On November 22, 2020, Mr. Hill was at Andrew Smith’ s residence. He was “mouthing off” and Mr. Smith asked him to leave. A physical altercation occurred, and Mr. Hill struck Mr. Smith with a glass liquor bottle. Mr. Smith managed to gain control of Mr. Hill, and he was held down until he calmed down enough to be let go.

115Mr . Hill admitted at the guilty plea that he and Sarah Bressette attended at Mr. Smith’s residence in response to a prior incident involving Mr. Smith. He acknowledged trying to set fire to Mr. Smith’s residence. Regarding the prior incident, Mr. Hill admitted that someone had been “set up” and stabbed following which he (Mr. Hill) was severely beaten and suffered a traumatic brain injury.

116A probation note dated July 17, 2020 appears to shed some light on this “prior incident.” The note states that “…Preston has been involved in an altercation last evening involving Michael Wyatt Hill. Wyatt was stabbed (3/4-inch wound) while Preston was riding in the back seat and Wyatt was the driver. Later that evening 0200hrs, Preston was found at the home of Andrew Smith suffering from significant head injuries. He was taken to St. Thomas hospital where he remains in serious but stable condition.”

117Mr. Hill told the Gladue Report writer that when he was 17, he instigated a fight and injured someone at a party. He later passed out due to intoxication and, while unconscious, was beat in the head with a baseball bat.

118In another probation note, also dated July 17, 2020, Stan Hill told Preston’s probation officer that he and his wife Bonnie were “sleeping with one eye open in fear of retaliatory action by others against their son. Preston has been having “violent outbursts” and his parents wanted him to get help. He was using substances and associating with the wrong people.”

119In a probation note dated July 20, 2020, Stan Hill told the probation officer about significant concerns he and his wife Bonnie had “around [Preston’s] potential for violence as well as retaliation against those who had assaulted him.”

120As noted in Dr. Iosif’s report, a witness told police that Mr. Hill tried to set Mr. Smith’s house on fire. At the time of his arrest, Mr. Hill’s clothes were soaked and emitted a strong odour of gasoline.

121This incident was referred to by Preston’s father, Stan Hill, in his interview with Dr. Iosif:

As to the head injury in 2020, Mr. Hill indicated that it was related to Preston’s lifestyle “to scare and intimate [sic] people...bully the others”. He indicated that he was likely set up and could have been killed. After his prolonged stay in hospital in St. Thomas, his memory returned but he seemed to be in “revenge mode”.

FTC Release Order – s.145(5)(a) CC

122On January 5, 2021, Mr. Hill was released on a release order in relation to two counts of assault. One of the conditions was not to attend within 200 metres of certain person and locations including Tyrell Smith and Mr. Hill’s then girlfriend, Jenesse Cornelius. Police were called to Tyrell Smith’s residence upon a report that Mr. Hill had assaulted Smith’s sister, Jenesse Cornelius. Ms Cornelius provided a statement that Mr. Hill had been inside the residence that day.

Assault Causing Bodily Harm – s.267(b) CC, FTC Release Order – s.145(5)(a) CC

123On February 2, 2021, Jayla Cornelius contacted police to report that Mr. Hill was at their residence again [the same address as the above breach] and he was “trying to assault Jenesse Cornelius in the basement.” This attendance was again in violation of h i s release order. Police arrived and Ms Cornelius was bleeding from her nose and had swelling to her face. Mr. Hill had fled on foot.

124Ms Cornelius told police "[Preston] just beat me up. He's a good guy but he just beats me up. He gets so jealous and beats me up and punches me and punches me” while pointing towards the couch implying that the event took place there. There were approximately 15 to 20 droplets of blood on the floor next to the couch that Ms. Cornelius pointed at. Due to the “original collar marks and comments made by the victim and visible injuries (blood on the ground)” they formed grounds that he was responsible for causing bodily harm. The victim’s child confirmed that Mr. Hill had been in the residence and “beat up mom.”

125In relation to the assault causing bodily harm, Mr. Hill told Dr. Iosif “that he hit his intimate partner at the time, giving her a black eye. He described that he was “drunk.” He could not recall other details. He indicated that he generally remembers what he may have done while intoxicated “but not for a long time”.

MR. HILL’S CRIMINAL HISTORY – INSTITUTIONAL OFFENCES (ADULT)

126Mr. Hill also admitted to Dr. Bradford that he committed additional assaults as an adult for which he did not get caught. I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the institutional records filed in these proceedings showed that Mr. Hill admitted to committing the following offences as an adult while in custody:

(a) In-custody assault on July 12, 2021

Mr. Hill assaulted an inmate in a “two-on-one assault.” He admitted to this misconduct and was found guilty.

(b) In-custody assault on August 21, 2021

An inmate called for assistance and was observed to have a visible red handprint mark on his face and neck. Guards reviewed video and observed Mr. Hill assaulting the inmate in the day room. Mr. Hill had no observable injuries. He admitted to this misconduct and was found guilty.

Mr. Hill was involved in a “two-on-one assault” on an inmate. Mr. Hill and another inmate were observed on camera punching the third inmate who was on the ground. Mr. Hill admitted to the assault stating he wants to “move to the left side of unit 2.” He was found guilty.

(d) In-custody assault on February 22, 2022

Mr. Hill participated in a “two-on-one assault” on an inmate who reported the incident to guards. It was captured on video. No injuries were reported. Mr. Hill admitted to “fighting” due to “street beef.” He was found guilty.

(e) In-custody assault on August 27, 2022

Mr. Hill was involved in an altercation with his cellmate. The cellmate had dried blood on his forehead and swelling behind his right ear. Mr. Hill had no observable injuries and reported none. Mr. Hill admitted to assaulting his cell mate because “he was snoring.” He was found guilty.

(f) In-custody assault on October 9, 2022

Mr. Hill admitted to assaulting his cellmate because he wanted to move units. He was found guilty.

(g) In-custody assault at the London Courthouse on March 12, 2025

On March 12, 2025, at approximately 1:12 p.m., Mr. Hill was captured attacking an inmate in one of the holding cells in the courthouse. This was minutes after these proceedings broke for lunch and in the midst of evidence from Dr. Bradford on behalf of Mr. Hill. Counsel for Mr. Hill admitted the video clips, typed statement, and duty book notes of an officer (capturing the victim’s statement) at this hearing.

The video shows Mr. Hill sipping his water before setting his cup down and approaching the cell door, appearing to say something to someone in the bullpen across from his cell. He then approached the victim, who was seated, and began punching him with both hands about the face and head, approximately 10 to 15 times. The victim did not fight back and called for help. Within 15 seconds, officers swiftly attended, and Mr. Hill was escorted out of the cell area and was cooperative.

The investigating officer’s duty book notes captured the victim’s statement. The victim, James Munroe, told the officer that a male in the other bullpen told Mr. Hill to “pretty much… punch me out”, telling him something along the lines of “bang me out”. Preston kept asking the other male “your word?”, before taking a drink of water and then “smashing” the victim.

The officer noted the following injuries to the victim: Hematoma on forehead, bruising around eyes, bloody nose, and a swollen lip.

MR. HILL’S CRIMINAL HISTORY – INSTITUTIONAL OFFENCES (YOUTH)

127In addition to the institutional offences as an adult, the records related to Mr. Hill’s behaviour in an institutional setting as a youth are similarly concerning. They include a number of occurrence reports which are reviewed in the Forensic Report of Dr Iosif and referenced in the Crown’s submissions at paragraphs 82-97.

128Having reviewed the records, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Hill was assaultive towards both staff and other youth while in detention. This included an unprovoked assault on another youth by repeatedly striking him with a closed fist and which continued despite being directed to stop.

STATUTORY FRAMEWORK

129Part XXIV of the Criminal Code establishes a two-step process for dangerous offender proceedings. The first stage, known as the designation stage, requires the court to determine whether the criteria set out in section 753(1) have been satisfied. If so, the offender must be designated as a dangerous offender. Once that finding is made, the court moves to the penalty stage, where it decides whether to impose an indeterminate sentence, a fixed term of at least two years combined with up to ten years of long-term supervision, or the original determinate sentence.

130Section 753(4.1) provides that an indeterminate sentence may only be imposed if the court concludes that no lesser sentence would adequately protect the public.

131While this provision might appear to create a presumption in favour of indeterminate detention, the Supreme Court in R. v. Boutilier, 2017 SCC 64, [2017] S.C.J. No. 64, clarified that it merely guides judicial discretion in line with sentencing principles, emphasizing public protection. The court endorsed the following structured approach outlined in R. v. Crowe (Ontario Court of Justice, March 20, 2017);

(a) If a conventional sentence, possibly including probation, would sufficiently protect the public from murder or serious personal injury offences, that sentence must be imposed;

(b) If not, the court must consider whether a sentence of at least two years’ imprisonment followed by a long-term supervision order of up to ten years would provide adequate protection. If so, that sentence is required; and If neither option suffices, the court must impose an indeterminate sentence.

132Under section 753(5) of the Code, if the offender is not found to be dangerous, the court may treat the application as one for a long-term offender designation under section 753.1.

133Based on the circumstances of Mr. Hill's case, the Crown has chosen to proceed under section 753(1)(a)(i) and (ii) which requires the court to consider whether the evidence demonstrates a pattern of repetitive or aggressive behaviour posing a threat to public safety.

134Those sections read as follows:

753 (1) On application made under this Part after an assessment report is filed under subsection 752.1(2), the court shall find the offender to be a dangerous offender if it is satisfied:

(a) that the offence for which the offender has been convicted is a serious personal injury offence described in paragraph (a) of the definition of that expression in section 752 and the offender constitutes a threat to the life, safety or physical or mental well-being of other persons on the basis of evidence establishing:

(i) a pattern of repetitive behaviour by the offender, of which the offence for which he or she has been convicted forms a part, showing a failure to restrain his or her behaviour and a likelihood of causing death or injury to other persons, or inflicting severe psychological damage on other persons, through failure in the future to restrain his or her behaviour,

(ii) a pattern of persistent aggressive behaviour by the offender, of which the offence for which he or she has been convicted forms a part, showing a substantial degree of indifference on the part of the offender respecting the reasonably foreseeable consequences to other persons of his or her behaviour,

135The Crown bears the burden of proving dangerousness beyond a reasonable doubt. The overriding purpose of the dangerous offender regime remains protection of the public.

136As indicated above, there is no issue that the predicate offences are “serious personal injury” offences.

137In order to be found to be a dangerous offender, the Crown must prove that Mr. Hill constitutes a threat to the life, safety or physical or mental well-being of other persons. To meet the second threshold, Mr. Hill’s history must reveal a pattern of violent or endangering behaviour, lack of restraint or indifference, and a high degree of intractability.

138As explained in R. v. Lyons, 1987 CanLII 25 (SCC), [1987] 2 S.C.R. 309, section 753(1) requires four elements:

(i) The offender must be convicted of, and is to be sentenced for, a "serious personal injury offence". (the objective element of dangerousness);

(ii) The predicate offence must be part of a broader pattern of violence;

(iii) There is a high likelihood of harmful recidivism; and

(iv) The violent conduct is intractable. (see also R v. Boutilier, supra. at para. 26, 33 and R v Hanson, 2024 ONCA 369 at para. 84)

139The last three criteria constitute the subjective part of the assessment of the threat posed by the offender, and the third and fourth are future-oriented.

140In Boutilier at para. 27, intractability is defined as “behaviour that the offender is unable to surmount.” It applies at both the designation and penalty stages. As indicated at paragraph 31, “The designation stage is concerned with assessing the future threat posed by an offender. The penalty stage is concerned with imposing the appropriate sentence to manage the established threat. Though evidence may establish that an offender is unable to surmount his or her violent conduct, the sentencing judge must, at the penalty stage, turn his or her mind to whether the risk arising from the offender's behaviour can be adequately managed outside of an indeterminate sentence.”

141Offenders cannot be designated as dangerous if their treatment prospects "are so compelling that the sentencing judge cannot conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that they present a high likelihood of harmful recidivism or that their violent pattern is intractable" (see Boutilier, at para. 45).This was confirmed more recently by the Ontario Court of Appeal in R v J.C., [2025] O.J. No. 1879 at paragraphs 14-15. The overall goal at the designation stage is to assess future risk and protect society from those who demonstrate a likelihood to recommit offences.

142However, even where an assessment of the future threat posed by an offender justifies a finding of dangerousness, at the penalty stage the treatment prospects are still “relevant in choosing the sentence required to adequately protect the public.” (Boutilier at para. 45)

143As recently indicated by our Court of Appeal in R v. Straub, (2022) ONCA 47 at paragraph 62, “treatability is a relevant factor at the penalty stage of dangerous offender proceedings. But evidence of treatability must extend beyond speculative hope about successful treatment. The evidence must give some indication that the offender can be treated within an ascertainable time.” (see also Boutilier at para 45)

GLADUE FACTORS

144The sentencing principles set out in section 718 to 718.2 of the Criminal Code apply to all sentencing proceedings, including dangerous and long-term offender proceedings. This includes the requirement in section 718.2(e) that sentencing judges consider Gladue factors when determining a fit and proper sentence for an Indigenous offender.

145In R. v. Ipeelee, 2012 SCC 13, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the duty of trial judges to consider Gladue factors when sentencing any Indigenous offender. Justice Lebel, writing for the majority, held that section 718.2(e) calls upon judges to use a different method of analysis in determining a fit sentence for Indigenous offenders. When sentencing an Indigenous offender, a judge must consider:

(a) The unique systemic or background factors which may have played a part in bringing the particular Indigenous offender before the courts; and

(b) The types of sentencing procedures and sanctions which may be appropriate in the circumstances for the offender because of his or her particular Indigenous heritage or connection.

146Given that intractability applies to both the designation and penalty phases on a dangerous offender application, Gladue factors are also relevant to both stages (see R. v. Wesley, 2018 ONCA 636 at para. 23).

147In R v. Awasis, 2020 BCCA 23, the court stated the following at para. 127:

Gladue factors are clearly important considerations for a sentencing judge when determining "the least intrusive sentence required" to achieve the primary purpose of public protection, per Boutilier at para. 60. While it may seem counterintuitive to suggest that Gladue factors could overcome findings of dangerousness, a high risk of recidivism and intractability -- they could, for example, provide a basis for assessing the viability of traditional Aboriginal-focused treatment options aimed at addressing the issues that contribute to or aggravate an offender's risk. If such resources are available and considered appropriate, they could provide a basis for finding that a lesser sentence will adequately protect the public. In this regard, see the comments of Caldwell J.A. in Standingwater at para. 51.

148In R v. Gracie, 2019 ONCA 658 at para. 47, the court stated that the issue is whether “the Indigenous programming or treatment options he might access would have any prospect of addressing the risk he poses to the community such that a sentence other than an indeterminate sentence would be appropriate.”

PSYCHIATRIC EVIDENCE

Dr. Alina Iosif

149Dr. Iosif was qualified to give expert evidence field of forensic psychiatry, with a particular emphasis on clinical and actuarial risk assessment in the context of proceedings under Part XXIV of the Criminal Code.

150She was assisted by Dr. Mamak who administered a number of psychological tests which showed the following:

(i) that his overall intellectual functioning fell in the borderline range. Although Mr. Hill was diagnosed with ADHD as a teenager, Dr. Iosif indicated that this is not necessarily correlated with lower-than- average intellectual functioning. Her report further indicates the test results were lower than expected “for someone who reports not experiencing any academic difficulties and not being diagnosed with a learning disorder as a child.”;

(ii) that on a battery of tests designed to assess neurocognitive functioning, Mr. Hill received a score in the .01 percentile. Specifically, his performance on tasks involving memory, language, and attention fell in the extremely low range;

(iii) that Mr. Hill was not feigning or malingering in relation to the cognitive tests;

(iv) that on the Paulhus Deception Scale (PDS), Mr. Hill scored in the 99th percentile. According to Dr. Iosif, the result suggests that “Mr. Hill is inclined to minimize or deny personal shortcomings that most would admit” and that he has “poor insight”;

(v) that Mr. Hill reported a “marked need for stimulation and excitement”, traits associated with Antisocial Personality Disorder which are likely to result in risk-taking and reckless behaviour;

(vi) that on the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI), Mr. Hill described his temper as “well controlled and within the normal range”. His answers suggested that he was “generally satisfied with himself and sees little need to change” but that there were “a number of strengths that there are positive indications for a relatively smooth treatment process, if he were willing to make a commitment to treatment.” [Emphasis Added]; and

(vii) he has moderate levels of “anger pathology” with elevations in areas indicative of “significant psychological arousal” when angered.

151With respect to his ability to respond to treatment, Dr. Iosif made the following comment in her report:

In addition, Mr. Hill’s cognitive profile will certainly impact treatment response. To his credit, Mr. Hill does present as someone who is likely amenable to treatment if recommended, but given his cognitive functioning, he may struggle to comprehend and integrate what is taught in programs to enhance his learning potential, he would benefit from being provided with extra support while attending programs. He would likely benefit from being assigned a tutor who can assist him with homework. In addition, he would benefit from programs that are geared towards individuals who demonstrate intellectual impairment.

152Dr. Iosif diagnosed Mr. Hill with the following mental illnesses, both of which impact on his risk and the issue of treatability:

(i) Antisocial Personality Traits; and

(ii) Polysubstance Use Disorder – in partial remission in a controlled setting.

153At page 53 of her report, Dr. Iosif described how these diagnoses interact:

These diagnoses are intertwined, with substance abuse sometimes enabling antisocial behavior. Both diagnoses have been extant for Mr. Hill since adolescence and are well entrenched. Both diagnoses require intensive, long-term (possibly indefinite) psychological treatment. There is no medication available to treat such problems.

154Of the seven possible criteria for Antisocial Personality Disorder, Mr. Hill “met” five, and “met somewhat” of a sixth criteria. Only three or more need to be met to make this diagnosis. Although these are the same criteria required to diagnose someone with this disorder under the DSM-V, one must also have a diagnosis of “Conduct Disorder” before the age of 15. In Mr. Hill’s case, Dr. Iosif indicated that this diagnosis could not be made as no records were available relating to Mr. Hill’s behaviour prior to attaining the age of 15.

155With respect to his use of substances, Dr Iosif pointed out that “Mr. Hill has used a laundry list of illicit substances to his great detriment since early adolescence.” She noted that he has continued to use substances despite his involvement with the law, his parents’ complaints, and ultimately his eviction from the family home.

156Dr. Iosif noted that Mr. Hill claimed to be severely intoxicated at the time of the index offences and that he admitted using substances while in custody. His family members described to Dr. Iosif the drastic change in his personality when intoxicated, going from calm and loving, to belligerent and agitated. Mr. Hill acknowledged to Dr. Iosif that his criminal history is “intimately enmeshed” with his substance use history; in his own words, “all charges I’ve ever had I was intoxicated”.

157Dr. Iosif commented that Mr. Hill’s antisocial conduct is exacerbated, but not entirely predicated on intoxication. She said that illicit substances likely augment his impulsivity, disinhibit his behaviour, and impair his judgment. She observed that intoxication facilitates violence. Further, his cognitive difficulties and personality variables contribute to his criminal history, and these would all be exacerbated by his use of substances.

158With respect to the head injury sustained by Mr. Hill in July of 2020, Dr. Iosif was of the opinion that while this may have worsened his behaviour, it did not entirely explain it. She noted that “Mr. Hill’s antisocial personality traits started well before the advent of the traumatic brain injury.”

159Dr Iosif was also asked to comment on the diagnosis of PTSD made by Dr. Bradford stemming from Mr. Hill’s prior sexual abuse. At page 24 of her report, she noted that his sister denied having witnessed any posttraumatic stress symptoms. In addition, Dr. Iosif testified that there was no indication of PTSD in the files she reviewed. She was “very circumspect with respect to the role or the degree to which Mr. Hill has suffered from PTSD.” While she acknowledged that a history of sexual abuse can contribute to a history of violence, she disagreed it played a significant role in the escalation of Mr. Hill’s criminal behaviour stating that “this is not really in keeping with the history of PTSD and it would be, if anything, an outlier not, not typical.”

160In cross-examination, Dr. Iosif reiterated her opinion that from a psychiatric perspective, Mr. Hill’s sexual abuse did not significantly contribute to his offending behaviour. She referred to the fact that Mr. Hill claimed the abuse occurred between the ages of 7 and 12 and at another time between the ages of 4 and 15. She stated the following:

So during the ages of - between the ages of 7 and 12 or even if we take out the outer bracket of that timeline, between the ages of, I don’t know, 4 and 15, something like that, we have absolutely no behaviours that are reported, no issues with anger, no conflicts, nothing like that. And then we have a period of four years after which Mr. Hill either by some accounts remembers, that’s what he told me and Dr. Mamack or, you know, he, he said hidden and then disclosed this, and then suddenly we have this great difficulty with managing anger and I, I don’t understand that, like it doesn’t make sense from a psychiatric perspective that we go from nothing while the person is being abused for years, purportedly, to, you know, 100% difficulties managing anger…

Again, from my perspective and in my opinion, the sexual abuse cannot account for this, it cannot account for somebody going from absolutely fine to years later after the sexual abuse has ended being - violating the rights of others almost unremittently, being very aggressive, very impulsive, very reckless, I don’t know of any other cases where something like this would happen. It doesn’t go along with the way these issues normally manifest, contribute and develop over time.

161The actuarial risk assessment tools administered by Dr. Iosif placed Mr. Hill in the moderate range for future risk of violent recidivism.

162On the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R), Mr. Hill received a moderate score of 17 placing him in the 28th percentile. The score, which is predictive of future violent recidivism, shows that of 100 male offenders, 28 would have received a lower score.

163On the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG), Mr. Hill received a moderate score of 6 placing him in the fifth of nine ascending risk categories on this instrument. Among the development sample, 48% of offenders in the same risk category committed a new violent offense within 10 years of opportunity. Accounting for the estimated measure of error associated with the VRAG, Mr. Hill’s probable risk would be expected to fall within one category above or below this result, which would place Mr. Hill’s risk of violently re- offending between 31% and 58% within 10 years of opportunity.

164Despite these scores showing Mr. Hill to be a moderate risk for violently re- offending, Dr. Iosif assessed Mr. Hill to be at a high risk for future violent recidivism and concluded that he “evidences a substantial likelihood of re-offense.” She testified that while she believed Mr. Hill to be a high risk, she used the term “moderate high risk” in her report to reflect “a combination of my opinion and what the actuarial test would suggest.”

165Dr. Iosif explained that the actuarial risk scores were “not in keeping with his presentation and history, which is marked by severe and frequently repeated violence, culminating with the index offences.” She indicated that the actuarial tools provide a fixed estimate of risk at a particular point in time and do not account for dynamic factors.

166She went on to write the following:

The discrepancy between scores and his criminal record rests with Mr. Hill’s stable and pro-social family history but may also suggest a certain bias in the collateral information gathered from family members; as aforenoted, records regarding Mr. Hill’s early history (before the age of 15) were not available. In this particular case, because of Mr. Hill’s history and presentation, there is reason to override the moderate risk suggested by actuarial instruments to high. I note that Mr. Hill has always been assessed as high risk in the correctional system and identified as needing intensive supervision and resources.

167When asked to explain her decision to override the moderate actuarial risk scores, she gave the following evidence:

In my opinion, Mr. Hill is someone who was at high risk of violent recidivism. He has had a very frequent record of violent offences, it culminates with the index offence. I have no reason to believe that Mr. Hill is at the present time any less prone to violent recidivism than he was for the last seven, eight years before his incarceration.

168Later in her report she stated the following:

From a psychiatric perspective, the possibility of “eventual risk control” hinges on the treatability of the problems and issues which are seen as determinants of Mr. Hill’s criminogenic behaviour. Factors usually considered in order to arrive at an opinion regarding treatability, include:

(i) diagnoses,

(ii) motivation to change,

(iii) previous response to treatment,

(iv) previous response to supervision, and

(v) future prospects regarding employment and supports in the community.

169Despite the positive comment noted above (that Mr. Hill’s cognitive profile was reflective of someone amenable to treatment if recommended), Dr. Iosif questioned Mr. Hill’s motivation to change, indicating that it is “likely not a strong driving factor in his recovery” and that he is more likely to respond to “legal conditions” than “internal motivation”. She noted that his previous response to treatment has been poor, that he has breached numerous conditions while on bail and probation and that his efforts to comply with recommendations have been minimal.

170Dr. Iosif disagreed with the additional diagnoses made by Dr. Bradford and was more guarded in her opinion. She did not believe that these additional diagnoses were determinants of Mr. Hill’s criminogenic behaviour in any event and said there was “very little support” for Dr. Bradford’s conclusions. She testified that Mr. Hill’s cognitive difficulties have “likely impacted his ability to restrain himself and control his impulses” and that, in her opinion, a neurocognitive disorder would increase the risk posed by Mr. Hill and reduce his amenability to treatment. With respect to the opinion that treatment for PTSD at this point in time could reduce Mr. Hill’s violent behaviour, she said this was “a very unlikely proposition.”

171With respect to any release back into the community, Dr. Iosif was of the opinion that this should take place “only gradually and slowly, with extended periods of time in a residential correctional facility, and limited privileges earned through demonstrated compliance and appropriate behaviour.” She indicated that Mr. Hill’s movements within the community should be “monitored by unannounced visits by probation and parole officers” and recommended “rapid intervention” following any breach of release conditions.

Dr. John Bradford

172Dr. Bradford was also qualified to give expert evidence field of forensic psychiatry, with a particular emphasis on clinical and actuarial risk assessment in the context of proceedings under Part XXIV of the Criminal Code.

173He also administered the PCL-R and the VRAG. On the PCL-R, Mr. Hill received a score of 19 (2 points higher than reported by Dr. Iosif). On the VRAG, he reported an identical score to that of Dr. Iosif.

174As with Dr. Iosif, Dr. Bradford diagnosed Mr. Hill as having Substance-Related and Addictive Disorders (In remission in a controlled environment) and Antisocial Personality Disorder Traits. He also diagnosed Mr. Hill with Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) which Dr. Iosif accepted in her testimony based on the records she reviewed.

175He also agreed that a diagnosis of Antisocial Personality Disorder requires evidence of a conduct disorder before the age of 15. His report indicates that, “history supports that Mr. Hill has not shown evidence of a conduct disorder before age 15.”

176Dr. Bradford’s opinion differs from that of Dr. Iosif in that he diagnosed Mr. Hill with the following additional disorders:

(i) Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder; and

(ii) Neurocognitive Disorder due to Traumatic Brain Injury (With Behavioural Disturbance).

177With respect to his diagnosis of PTSD, his report indicates that Mr. Hill “most likely” meets the criteria for this diagnosis. He indicated that Mr. Hill received a score of 62 on the PTSD checklist. He indicated that score of 31 – 33 is indicative of PTSD and that a score of 62 places Mr. Hill in the range of “active PTSD”. He attributed this to Mr. Hill’s prior reported history of sexual abuse and the fact that he has never received treatment for PTSD.

178With respect to his diagnosis of a neurocognitive disorder due to a traumatic brain injury, Dr. Bradford relies on the tests conducted by Dr. Iosif discussed above in relation to cognitive functioning and memory, and the diagnostic criteria from the DSM-5 in relation to Major Neurocognitive Disorder. His report indicates that Mr. Hill has symptoms of neurocognitive disorder that would support a diagnosis “at a minimum of a mild level but possibly a major level”. He attributed Mr. Hill’s low cognitive functioning to the brain injury described above. He based this on the evidence regarding Mr. Hill’s educational history which suggested he had a higher level of functioning prior to the acquired brain injury.

179Dr. Bradford also indicated that Mr. Hill’s anti-social personality traits “fits very well with the psychiatric sequelae of traumatic brain injury.” (p. 30 of Dr. Bradford’s report)

180He went on to indicate that in his opinion, Mr. Hill’s PTSD and acquired brain injury “played a significant role in his escalation of criminal behaviour, which also escalated following the traumatic brain injury. I believe these are also mitigating factors that need to be considered.” (see p. 30 of Dr. Bradford’s Report).

181Dr. Bradford’s opinion with respect to intractability was largely based on having diagnosed Mr. Hill with PTSD and a neurocognitive disorder – both of which Mr. Hill has yet to receive treatment for. In his opinion, Mr. Hill has a number of significant ongoing psychiatric problems in need of treatment but presents a moderate risk for future violent recidivism and can be re-integrated into the community with appropriate supervision and treatment. He indicated that this could be done through a Long-Term Supervision Order which “should include conditions of residence, random drug testing, ongoing methadone maintenance treatment for methamphetamine addiction if supported medically, and then the specific psychiatric treatment for PTSD and the long-term sequelae of traumatic brain injury.” (see p. 30 of Dr Bradford’s Report)

Dr. Eldon Loh

182Dr. Loh, a clinical neurophysiologist, was the doctor who, as part of a multidisciplinary team, treated Mr. Hill upon his admission to the Parkwood Institute following his traumatic head injury. He was qualified to give opinion evidence in the diagnosis and treatment of an acquired brain injury with particular emphasis on the extent to which a brain injury could impact one’s ability to benefit from treatment i.e., the extent that they are able to learn and absorb material presented to them. He was not qualified to give an opinion on risk or Mr. Hill’s ability to overcome any psychiatric condition.

183According to the medical records, Mr. Hill was transferred to the Parkwood Institute from the St. Thomas Elgin General Hospital on August 17, 2020. He was discharged on September 24, 2020.

184As indicated in the discharge report, he was diagnosed with a traumatic brain injury. Dr. Loh explained that although the Glasgow Coma Scale scored Mr. Hill’s brain injury as moderate, this was upgraded based on the fact that he suffered five days of post- traumatic amnesia.

185Dr. Loh indicated that although the brain injury left Mr. Hill with some impairments, upon discharge his ability to problem solve was assessed to be in an average range. He said that Mr. Hill had been engaged and motivated in his therapies while at the Parkwood Institute and that upon discharge, he was thought to be capable of managing independently in the community- that there were no concerns with regards to his physical or cognitive functioning in terms of managing day to day. He was of the opinion that Mr. Hill’s impairments would not be a barrier to his ability to learn or benefit from any future treatment.

186In cross-examination, Dr. Loh confirmed that “Those who suffer from traumatic brain injuries can be noted by family members to exhibit difficulties with impulsivity, easy frustration, and poor judgment compared to baseline.” He agreed that he was not aware of Mr. Hill’s baseline with respect to these behaviours.

187Dr. Loh confirmed that upon discharge, Mr. Hill received written instructions which included a recommendation that he abstain from consuming alcohol for two years “due to the risk of sustaining another brain injury and the increased risk of having a seizure.” It was also recommended that he access addiction counselling through one of the various community agencies, including the Southwest Ontario Aboriginal Health Access Centre (SOAHAC). Contact information was also provided for the Brain Injury Association of London which provides support for those with a brain injury and their families. (see ex. 17: Integrated Discharge Summary p. 23)

188Dr. Loh confirmed he had a follow-up appointment scheduled with Mr. Hill for December 2, 2020 which Mr. Hill did not attend. It would appear from the evidence that Dr. Loh’s last contact with Mr. Hill was at or prior to his discharge date of September 24, 2020.

Other Witnesses

Bonnie Hill (Mother of Preston Hill)

189Ms. Hill gave evidence that her son’s behavioural problems started when he was approximately 17 years old. She explained that leading up to this time, he was disappointed at not being drafted into the Ontario Hockey League (OHL), that he had witnessed his grandfather’s death and had only recently disclosed being sexually abused as a child by a family member. She said this led to fighting, school suspensions and drug use.

190She has maintained regular contact with her son since his incarceration and believes he has made a significant turn-around particularly in the last two years. She said he more mature now, wants to get help with his addictions and is remorseful for his actions. She indicated that she and her husband were willing to do whatever was required to assist their son in his recovery.

191In cross-examination, she confirmed that her son did not follow through on the discharge recommendations when he was released from Parkwood Hospital, that he resumed drinking and doing drugs and that he was removed from the family home as they were afraid of him. She agreed with the suggestion that whenever they took him back into their home, he would revert to his former behaviour.

192Ms. Hill testified before the incident referred to above where her son attacked an inmate during the course of these proceedings. She was unaware that he had been involved in any other assaultive behaviour while in custody awaiting this hearing.

Other Witnesses

193Shelly Griffith is employed with Correctional Services of Canada as a supervisor of parole officers. She gave evidence as to the availability of indigenous programming within the federal institutions as well as parole eligibility for dangerous and long-term offender’s and the parole supervision process.

194Karen Thompson is a Regional Manager employed by the Parole Board of Canada. She gave evidence as to the types of release available to dangerous and long-term offender’s as well as the parole process generally. She confirmed that although Indigenous persons comprise approximately 5% of the general population in Canada, they account for 32% of federal inmates.

195Catherine Beddoes works for Correctional Services of Canada as an Indigenous Correctional Program Officer. She has experience in providing institutional programming to Indigenous offenders. She described the various programs available, including adapted programming for individuals with mental health difficulties, learning disabilities, and cognitive impairments. She indicated that the programs are administered in small group settings or one-on-one.

ANALYSIS

Designation Stage

196As indicated above, the defence concedes that the predicate offences are serious personal injury offences. I am also satisfied that this is the case.

197The next issue to decide is whether the predicate offences form part of either of the following patterns of behaviour:

(a) a pattern of repetitive behaviour by Mr. Hill, showing a failure to restrain his behaviour and a likelihood of causing death or injury to other persons, or inflicting severe psychological damage on other persons, through a failure in the future to restrain his behaviour (section 753(a)(i) of the Code); or

(b) a pattern of persistent aggressive behaviour by Mr. Hill, showing a substantial degree of indifference on his part respecting the reasonably foreseeable consequences to other persons of his behaviour (section 753(a)(ii) of the Code)

198For the reasons that follow, I find that the Crown has proven both patterns of behaviour beyond a reasonable doubt.

199I find that the record evidences a pattern of repetitive behaviour involving unprovoked, impulsive and unsophisticated acts of violence against others.

200I find that the pattern is established by the following offences:

(i) The assault on his first victim on March 24, 2015 which resulted in the victim receiving a concussion;

(ii) The assault on two victims on May 4, 2015;

(iii) The robbery of three separate victims on October 11, 2016;

(iv) The assault and theft on November 15, 2017, during which Mr. Hill used force to steal the victim’s cell phone and assaulted a third party who had intervened to assist the victim;

(v) The Uttering Threat on November 16, 2017 in which Mr. Hill attempted to obtain the victim’s phone by threat of bodily harm; and

(vi) The numerous in-custody assaults upon other inmates both as a youth and adult, including the assault committed by Mr. Hill in the courthouse cells during the course of this proceeding.

201The behaviour exhibited by Mr. Hill throughout these offences shows that he gives little thought to his actions. This underscores the impulsive nature of his behaviour.

202I note that on several of these matters, Mr. Hill was initially charged with robbery. Although he plead to a lesser offence, the facts largely speak to a more serious matter than would otherwise be gleaned from a simple review of the record of convictions.

203I find that the predicate offences form a part of this pattern. The facts admitted in support of the offence of manslaughter involve an unprovoked, impulsive, and unsophisticated attack on someone who was trying to assist Mr. Hill. Following the attack, he stole the victim’s cell phone, as he had done in previous offences. The subsequent assault causing bodily harm involved an unprovoked stabbing on a total stranger. It was impulsive and unsophisticated. The subsequent attempt to rob a victim of his car involved an unprovoked, unplanned and spontaneous attack on an unsuspecting stranger and is similar to past robberies and thefts.

204I also find that the record establishes a pattern of persistent aggressive behaviour commencing in 2015 and ending in 2025 with the in-custody assault on another inmate.

205In coming to this conclusion, I rely upon the following:

(i) With the exception of the first offence of assault as a youth in 2015, Mr. Hill was on probation, and in many cases subject to terms of release, when he committed the remaining offences of violence on his criminal record. This includes the predicate offences which occurred only 11 days after being released following a sentence for assault causing bodily harm and assault with a weapon;

(ii) His 10-year history of violence includes no significant gaps;

(iii) The level of violence has been significant throughout this history. In some cases, bodily harm was clearly caused. In others, his level aggression could just as easily have caused significant bodily injury or death.

His first offence of assault caused the Crown to voice concern that Mr. Hill could potentially kill someone if he did not get control of his temper. The court questioned whether Mr. Hill was “naturally violent” and expressed concern over what might have occurred had a third party not intervened.

Subsequent offences of violence involved the use of weapons, including knives. He used “lumber jack style” swings to strike an opposing player 4 times over the head causing his helmet to break. He stabbed another person during an altercation that led to him being struck with a bat and suffering a significant brain injury. He subsequently admitted to trying to set fire to a person’s home, following which he attacked the homeowner with a liquor bottle.

(iv) His aggression has persisted while in custody, including during the course of these proceedings; and

(v) His family and others have repeatedly voiced concern that Mr. Hill’s aggression is often without warning and that he has shown little ability to control it.

206From a designation perspective, I also find beyond a reasonable doubt that these patterns are intractable in that there is a present likelihood that Mr. Hill will re-offend in the future, and that he is likely “to cause death or injury to other persons, or inflict[ing] severe psychological damage on other persons, through failure in the future to restrain his or her behaviour” and that this risk will result from “a substantial degree of indifference on the part of the offender respecting the reasonably foreseeable consequences to other persons of his or her behaviour.”

207In coming to these conclusions, I have considered the entirety of the evidence, including that of the experts who testified in this case. In that regard, I note that while expert opinion evidence can be of assistance to the court, it does not usurp the court’s responsibility to decide the issue of intractability. It is for the court to determine the weight to be given to the evidence of any given witness including expert witnesses.

208I accept the opinion of Dr. Iosif that Mr. Hill’s risk for future violent recidivism is high and that the moderate scores on the actuarial risk assessment tools is not in keeping with his history of violently re-offending. This was also borne out by the in-custody assault committed by Mr. Hill following Dr. Iosif’s testimony.

209Numerous attempts have been made at changing Mr. Hill’s violent behaviour. Mr. Hill has been subject to numerous court orders aimed at his rehabilitation, including Indigenous-based treatment programs. His family has made efforts at getting him appropriate counselling and treatment. Despite these efforts, his criminal record shows that he has consistently re-offended violently and given little thought to the rights of others or the consequences of his actions. This has also been demonstrated through the numerous assaults he has committed on other inmates since his arrest including an assault committed during the course of these proceedings. His repeated behaviour shows a substantial indifference to the harm he causes.

210At this stage, I find that Mr. Hill’s treatment prospects are not so compelling as to reduce the high likelihood of violent recidivism. I do not believe that a determinate sentence would adequately protect the public. I have no reasonable doubt this regard.

Penalty Stage

211The question remains as to whether anything short of an indeterminate sentence can reduce this risk to the public to an acceptable level.

212Dr. Bradford was of the view that, with appropriate treatment and controls imposed through the use of a Long-Term Supervision Order, Mr. Hill could be re- integrated into the community without significant risk to the public. His opinion was largely based on having diagnosed Mr. Hill with PTSD and a neurocognitive disorder – both of which Mr. Hill has yet to receive treatment for.

213Although less optimistic, Dr. Iosif did not specifically say that Mr. Hill’s behaviour was intractable. Instead she said pointed to the factors the court should consider in arriving at an answer to this question.

214For the reasons outlined in the Crown’s submissions, I give significantly less weight to the opinion of Dr. Bradford. In particular, I note the following:

(a) Dr. Bradford indicated that he met with Mr. Hill for 10 hours and that he asked him questions other than those related to the PCL-R or other testing procedures. While he indicated that he would normally make rough notes and then dictate them separately, he acknowledged that apart from his notetaking in relation to the PCL-R, his notes in this case were consisted of only 2 lines. He confirmed that he had made no other notes of what Mr. Hill had told him;

(b) Dr. Bradford’s report contained several errors. For example, his report indicates that Mr. Hill’s score on the PTSD test was 62. In cross- examination, the score sheet was made an exhibit. After reviewing it, Dr. Bradford readily acknowledged that the actual score was 54 and that he had incorrectly tabulated the results. At another point in his evidence, he acknowledged that his report was inaccurate with respect to what he had been told by Mr. Hill’s parents. They told him that their son had been the victim of physical abuse by a teacher in elementary school and at a later date, sexual abuse perpetrated by their adopted daughter. In his report to the court, Dr. Bradford incorrectly conflated these events and described the first incident as one involving sexual abuse. Although he testified to discovering this error in advance of this hearing he did not advise the court or file an addendum prior to giving his evidence. He said he told defence counsel about the error and thought it would be rectified when he testified. I note that the error did not come to the court’s attention until cross- examination;

(c) An electronic copy of Dr. Bradford’s report was forwarded to the Crown and the Court. In cross-examination, it became apparent that it included a number of “text box” comments of his assistant, Jennifer Walker. These comments referred to her making changes to his draft. Although he denied she made any changes without his permission, he confirmed that most of the errors she pointed out had not been “fixed”;

(d) Dr. Bradford acknowledged that his diagnosis of “likely PTSD” was made without a history of knowing when the symptoms started or when precisely Mr. Hill remembered the sexual abuse. Dr. Bradford did not ask these questions of Mr. Hill. In this regard, the evidence available to Dr. Bradford showed that Mr. Hill said different things to different people at different times regarding when he remembered the abuse. This included an occasion where Mr. Hill said he remembered the abuse when he was 12 i.e., approximately 5 years before his offending behaviour. Dr. Bradford’s Report also makes no reference to what Mr. Hill’s sister told Dr. Iosif (that she observed no PTSD symptoms);

(e) His diagnosis of “likely PTSD” is based almost exclusively on Mr. Hill’s test results on the standard DSM-V PTSD Checklist. In cross-examination, Dr. Bradford agreed that before administering the test he told Mr. Hill that he likely had PTSD as a result of the sexual assault. In these circumstances, Mr. Hill was clearly aware of the purpose of the questions. This gives rise to the possibility that his answers were deliberately self-serving. I note for example that he endorsed having flashbacks, something which he never mentioned in any of the previous reports; and

(f) When questioned about the most recent in-custody assault perpetrated by Mr. Hill during the course of these proceedings, Dr Bradford agreed that from his review of the video of the assault, it appeared to be impulsive and unprovoked. In these circumstances, he opined that the attack may have been the result of “dyscontrol” or psychosis stemming from Mr. Hill’s brain injury. In my view, this was entirely speculative.

215I accept the opinion of Dr. Iosif that Mr. Hill’s past sexual abuse and traumatic brain injury do not explain Mr. Hill’s offending behaviour or reduce his future risk to the public. I also accept her opinion that, if anything, the additional diagnoses made by Dr. Bradford would make Mr. Hill’s prospects for treatment less compelling.

216I note that Mr. Hill’s offending behaviour started well before his traumatic brain injury in July of 2020 and that his offending behaviour since that time has not changed substantially.

217In addition, there are indications that his memory problems and intellectual functioning were compromised well before this time. For example, as noted at p. 30 of Dr. Iosif’s report, in a probation note from February 2016, Mr. Hill was described as “child-like”. In a subsequent note from June of 2016, he was described by a social worker to have “brain function issues”. As indicated at p. 21 of Dr. Iosif’s report, according to Mr. Hill’s father, Mr. Hill’s work with his grandfather was problematic in that he “couldn’t remember anything.” This was confirmed by Mr. Hill himself who reported that his grandfather was “annoyed at his performance in the workshop because he seemed to have problems remembering what he was being taught and asked to do.” There is also evidence that he struggled in school, including elementary school, where he was noted to be getting average and below average grades. His father indicated to Dr. Iosif that his son’s ability to learn was evident during his school years when he struggled academically. All of the above related to times prior to Mr. Hill’s head injury.

218The records before me also include Progress Notes from the St. Thomas Hospital where Mr. Hill was being treated prior to his transfer to the Parkwood Institute. One such note from August 4, 2020 indicates that “His mom is fearful for her safety if he gets released.” This was consistent with prior records showing that Mr. Hill’s behaviour caused his family to be concerned for their safety. Another such note from August 6, 2020 indicates that, according to Mr. Hill’s mother, Mr. Hill appeared to have returned to his “baseline cognitive state.”

219In summary, I find that this evidence does not support the view that the head injury suffered by Mr. Hill in July of 2020 resulted in a significant change in his intellectual functioning or the threat he posed prior to that time.

220I also agree with the opinion of Dr. Iosif that the sexual abuse suffered by Mr. Hill does not adequately account for his offending behaviour based on a diagnosis of PTSD. In coming to this conclusion, I have considered the possibility that Mr. Hill’s anger and conflict with the law was precipitated by a recovered memory of the abuse and the onset of PTSD at that time.

221While the records show that he first disclosed the abuse at the age of 17, the evidence that this the result of a recovered memory at that time, and hence the sudden onset of PTSD, is inconsistent. In this regard I note that in a Risk/Need Assessment dated November 18, 2015, Mr. Hill’s mother stated that Mr. Hill began to become angry a few years ago (i.e. 2013) when Mr. Hill would have been 14 or 15 years old. I also note that in a Pre-Sentence Report dated November 13, 2015, Mr. Hill said he was 12 years old when he became aware he “was abused” after being taught sex education at school. There is no indication that Mr. Hill’s behaviour changed at that time, or any time between the ages of 12 and 14 or 15, nor is there any prior indication that he forgot and recovered these memories, apart from what he told Dr. Iosif (that he remembered when he was 17).

222Although I have no doubt that Mr. Hill suffered sexual abuse as a child, his account of the extent of the abuse is also inconsistent. While in Youth Detention in October of 2015, Mr. Hill disclosed to a worker that he had been sexually abused when he was 4 or 5 years old. In November 2016 he disclosed to another worker that he had been sexually abused around the age of 5 or 6. In a Pre-Sentence Report dated April 12, 2018, he said he was sexually abused between the ages of 3 and 7. He told the author of the Gladue Report that the abuse commenced when he was approximately 6 years old and continued throughout his adolescence. He told Dr. Iosif that the abuse occurred when he was between the ages of approximately 7 and 10. He told Dr. Bradford that the abuse occurred when he was between 6 and 8 years of age.

223There are additional inconsistencies that cause me to have considerable doubt about Mr. Hill’s credibility. This includes what he told others about his memory of the predicate offences. In the Gladue Report, he is recorded as saying that he didn’t really remember what had happened due to his mental health and level of intoxication. He then gave different versions of the events to Dr. Iosif and Dr. Bradford. He told Dr. Bradford that he had been living on the street for two months prior to the predicate offences when the record clearly shows that he was released from custody only 11 days earlier. As indicated above, he acknowledged the agreed statement of facts when this was addressed by the court at the outset of this hearing.

224This of course does not mean that an indeterminate sentence should automatically follow. The question remains as to whether Mr. Hill’s risk of violent recidivism can be reduced to an acceptable level.

225In this regard, I find that Mr. Hill’s previous response to treatment and supervision to be extremely poor. This includes Indigenous-based treatment that had been made available to him in the past. His intellectual functioning and antisocial personality traits also negatively impact the extent to which the risk he poses to the public can be reduced to an acceptable level.

226He has shown little in the way of motivation to change. He acknowledges his addiction to substances, and there are indications that he is willing to accept whatever treatment is recommended. Unfortunately, this has been the case for the better part of his criminal history.

227I find that Mr. Hill’s moral blameworthiness for the offences is towards the higher end of the range. In coming to this conclusion, I have considered his Indigenous heritage, and the extent to which Gladue factors have played a part in what brings him before the court. There are indications he suffered racism and I accept that there is some impact flowing from the intergenerational trauma associated with residential schooling. As indicated in the Gladue Report, he grew up in a community that struggles with addictions to alcohol and substances. Nevertheless, previous Pre-Sentence Reports indicate that he has had the benefit of an otherwise stable, secure and loving home in spite of the trauma and hardship endured by his parents and grandparents.

228Even if, as indicated by Dr. Bradford, available treatment could reduce the risk to an acceptable level, I find it would be speculative to accept that Mr. Hill would respond positively to such treatment in a given time frame. In coming to this conclusion, I have considered the availability of culturally specific programming.

229As indicated above, mere hope or speculation that an offender will respond to treatment, such that his risk to the public can be reduced to an acceptable level, is insufficient. The records are replete with Courts directing treatment. Youth workers, Probation Officers, and family members have repeatedly encouraged him to see psychiatrists, psychologists, therapists and Elders. Indeed, he has been referred to and seen a psychologist, a social worker, multiple Elders, and multiple therapists.

230In these circumstances, I agree with the opinion of Dr Iosif that Mr. Hill’s release into the community needs to be “earned through demonstrated compliance and appropriate behaviour”. In my view, given the overriding principle of public protection, this can only be done through an indeterminate sentence.

CONCLUSION

231Having considered the evidence in its totality, I find that it does not support a reasonable expectation or likelihood or sufficient reason for believing that anything less than an indeterminate sentence will protect the public against Mr. Hill’s violent recidivism.

232Accordingly, having designated Mr. Hill to be a dangerous offender, I sentence him to an indeterminate period of incarceration.

Dated at London Ontario this 20th day of November 2025.

Justice G. L. Orsini