Court of Appeal for Ontario

Date: 20220308 Docket: C66301

Before: Rouleau, Nordheimer and George JJ.A.

Between: Her Majesty the Queen Respondent

And: Christopher Suganaqueb Applicant/Appellant

Counsel: Amy J. Ohler, for the appellant Deborah Krick, for the respondent

Heard: In writing

On appeal from the sentence imposed on March 16, 2015, by Justice Robert P. Main of the Ontario Court of Justice.

Reasons for Decision

[1] The appellant, a band member of the Eabametoong First Nation Community, pleaded guilty to the attempted murder of his cellmate while incarcerated at Central North Correctional Center. The appellant has an extensive criminal history, including many offences of violence.

[2] The Crown sought a Dangerous Offender Designation. The day the Dangerous Offender hearing was scheduled to start, defence counsel stated that the appellant wished to consent to the Dangerous Offender Designation and he did not wish to challenge the imposition of an indeterminate sentence. Neither the Crown nor defence made submissions.

[3] After asking the appellant a series of questions to ensure that he understood the consequences of his concession, the sentencing judge declared the appellant to be a dangerous offender. He provided very brief reasons for doing so. The reasons are contained in about one page of transcript. They indicate that the sentencing judge had reviewed the material and accepted the appellant’s consent.

[4] The appellant now seeks a new dangerous offender hearing on the basis of a number of errors. The respondent has conceded that the sentencing judge’s reasons are insufficient and that a new dangerous offender hearing should be ordered in the circumstances.

[5] We agree. The standard upon which sufficiency of reasons is to be assessed in the criminal context is whether the reasons are inadequate and if so whether they prevent appellate review: R. v. Gagnon, 2006 SCC 17, [2006] 1 S.C.R. 621, at para 13; R. v. Sheppard, 2002 SCC 26, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 869, at para. 20; R. v. Slatter, 2019 ONCA 807, 452 D.L.R. (4th) 4, at paras. 107-111. The reasons must show why the trial judge made a certain decision: R. v. Vuradin, 2013 SCC 38, [2013] 2 S.C.R. 639, at para. 15. The reasons do not reach these standards. The reasons provide only a conclusory statement that the appellant be declared a dangerous offender without providing explanation for why the criteria for the designation are met. They also do not explain why the test to impose an indeterminate sentence has been met. The sentencing judge was obliged to provide those explanations notwithstanding the appellant’s consent.

[6] The reasons, therefore, fail to meet the functional requirements for judicial reasons for both the designation and the sentencing phases of sentencing a dangerous offender.

[7] As a result, leave to appeal sentence is granted, the appeal is allowed, and a new dangerous offender hearing is ordered. As the sentencing judge has retired, the matter is remitted to the Ontario Court of Justice in Midland to assign a new sentencing judge.

“Paul Rouleau J.A.”

“I.V.B. Nordheimer J.A.”

“J. George J.A.”