R. v. Villeneuve, 2022 ONSC 2188

Court File No.: 19-R2153 Date: 2022-04-14 Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Between: Her Majesty the Queen And: Matthew Villeneuve, Accused

Before: Aitken J.

Counsel: John Ramsay, for the Crown Joseph Addelman, for Matthew Villeneuve

Heard: March 28, 30, 31, April 5, 6, 2022

Reasons for Judgment on Dangerous Offender Application

Nature of the Proceedings

[1] On October 13, 2020, Matthew Villeneuve pled guilty to the following offences under the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46: (1) aggravated assault of Kerstin Jerome in the women’s washroom of the Ottawa Technical High School under s. 268(2); (2) break and enter a dwelling house and commit the indictable offence of theft under s. 348(1)(b); and (3) obstruction of justice under s. 139(2). On April 7, 2021, after I had ruled that a statement he had made to the police following his arrest was voluntary and admissible, Mr. Villeneuve withdrew his plea of guilty to aggravated assault and instead pled guilty to the attempted murder of Kerstin Jerome under s. 239(1) of the Code.

[2] The Crown, with the required consent of the Attorney General of Ontario, now seeks a finding under s. 753(1) of the Code that Mr. Villeneuve is a dangerous offender and asks under s. 753(4)(a) of the Code that I impose a sentence of detention in a penitentiary for an indeterminate period. The Defence takes the position that Mr. Villeneuve does not fall within the definition of “dangerous offender” under the Code and that, even if I find that he does, the appropriate sentence after pre-sentence custody is taken into account would be a global sentence of five years plus a ten-year long-term supervision order.

[3] Dr. Jonathan Gray, a psychiatrist with the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre, prepared the necessary assessment report under s. 752.1 of the Code and these Reasons rely heavily on that Report and the oral evidence he provided at the hearing. No other expert provided a report or testified at the hearing.

[4] In these Reasons, I often refer to Matthew Villeneuve as Matthew when describing him or his behaviour as a child. In using Mr. Villeneuve’s first name, I in no way intend to show him any disrespect.

Evidence at the Hearing

[5] A dangerous offender proceeding is part of the sentencing process and is governed by sentencing principles, objectives and evidentiary rules: R. v. Williams, 2018 ONCA 437, at para. 48, leave to appeal to SCC refused, [2019] S.C.C.A. No. 164, and the authorities quoted therein.

[6] As Gonthier J. stated in R. v. Jones, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 229, at p. 290 (and quoted in Williams, at para. 48):

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. If there is, the dangerous offender sentencing allows the justice system to more precisely tailor the actual time served by the offender to the threat that he poses to society.

[7] Pursuant to s. 723(5) of the Code, hearsay evidence is admissible at dangerous offender hearings, as at all other sentencing hearings, if found “credible and trustworthy”: R. v. Gardiner, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 368, at p. 414; and Williams, at para. 49. This includes the offender’s records from a variety of sources (including police synopses, child protection records, institutional records): R. v. Dow, 1999 BCCA 177, at para. 17; R. v. Neve, 1999 ABCA 206, at para. 133; R. v. Gibson, 2012 ONSC 5527, at paras. 6-7; R. v. Wong, 2016 ONSC 6362, at paras. 22-28; R. v. Shea, 2017 NSCA 43, at paras. 158-59, leave to appeal to SCC refused, [2017] S.C.C.A. No. 351, rev’g 2014 NSPC 78; Williams, at para. 47; R. v. Cook, 2020 ONCA 809, at para. 15; and R. v. Whittaker, 2021 ONSC 2915, at para. 11. That being said, the obligation rests on the Crown to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an offender is a dangerous offender, and caution may be called for when assigning weight to different types of records, such as police summaries or institutional misconduct allegations not resulting in documented sanctions: Neve, at para. 133; R. v. Miller, 2016 ABPC 59, at para. 210; Williams, at para. 53-55; R. v. Melvin, 2019 NSSC 334, at para. 66; R. v. Strathdee, 2019 ABQB 958, at paras. 67-72; and Whittaker, at para. 11. See also s. 724(3)(e) of the Code.

[8] In addition to the oral evidence of Dr. Jonathan Gray, Daria Swayne of Correctional Service Canada (CSC), and Matthew Villeneuve, thousands of pages of documents were filed consisting of documents relating to Mr. Villeneuve’s most recent offences and prior offences, child protection records, medical records, Youth Services Bureau records, youth criminal justice records, detention centre and provincial jail records, and penitentiary records. As well, documentary evidence was provided as to what programming exists within federal correctional institutions and what supervision possibilities are available in the community when an offender is on parole or under a long-term supervision order.

[9] Regarding Mr. Villeneuve’s convictions, I rely on the transcripts from the trials and any agreed statement of facts filed in support of the conviction. This evidence is supplemented by evidence of what Mr. Villeneuve told the police, correctional officers, probation officers, psychiatrists or psychologists, and social workers as recorded in their records and reports to the extent that it is credible and trustworthy and was not contradicted by Mr. Villeneuve’s testimony at this hearing.

[10] Regarding Mr. Villeneuve’s behaviour more generally, s. 757 of the Code provides:

Without prejudice to the right of the offender to tender evidence as to their character and repute, if the court thinks fit, evidence of character and repute may be admitted:

(a) on the question of whether the offender is or is not a dangerous offender or a long-term offender; and

(b) in connection with a sentence to be imposed or an order to be made under this Part.

[11] In this regard, I rely on the records of the professionals who worked with Mr. Villeneuve in group homes, detention centres, provincial jails, penitentiaries, or while he was on probation who recorded their observations at or close to the time events occurred as part of their professional duties, to the extent their observations were not contradicted by Mr. Villeneuve or by other evidence that cast doubt on the credibility or reliability of their account.

Matthew Villeneuve’s Life Until 2018

[12] Matthew Villeneuve had the misfortune of being born to parents who were sorely lacking in parenting skills. They were unwilling or unable to care for Matthew’s special needs and resorted to physical and emotional abuse, neglect, and ultimately abandonment. It is little wonder that Matthew has struggled throughout his life to deal with the physical and emotional harm and the feelings of rejection engendered by his early childhood experiences.

[13] On November 6, 2003, when he was eight, Matthew was placed in the Children First Group Home pursuant to a temporary care agreement between the Children’s Aid Society of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (CAS) and Matthew’s mother who advised that she and her husband could not control Matthew’s disruptive behaviour in the home. Matthew reported that both his mother and stepfather had been physically and emotionally abusive with him. While living at the Children First Group Home, Matthew attended the Child and Family Treatment Centre in Cornwall, a therapeutic educational day program. Two elementary schools he had attended when younger had been unable to cope with his behaviour.

[14] On June 25, 2004, Matthew’s mother removed him from care and took him and his sister to Alberta. By November 2004, Matthew’s mother had brought Matthew back to Ontario and had basically abandoned him, leaving him in the care of her parents. Due to his grandparents’ use of excessive physical discipline with Matthew and his running away from their home, on December 1, 2004, Matthew was apprehended by the CAS and placed once again at the Children First Group Home. He returned to the Child and Family Treatment Centre for counselling and schooling.

[15] On August 3, 2005, when he was ten years old, Matthew was made a Crown ward.

[16] From his early years in the care of the CAS, Matthew was identified as having a very aggressive personality and as being manipulative, demanding and attention-seeking. He was quick to anger when limits were being enforced or things were denied to him. He was obsessed with money which not only motivated him to seek work, but also, unfortunately, to steal from those around him. He also had a food obsession and expressed anxiety about not having enough food. Following an assessment at the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario (CHEO) in August 2006, it was recognized that Matthew’s obsession with money and food likely stemmed from his fear of abandonment and not having his basic safety needs met. His low intellectual functioning likely fuelled these fears.

[17] On October 24, 2005, at his request, Matthew was placed in a foster home. This placement broke down when Matthew threatened to kill the foster mother in her sleep. He was moved to another foster home but again that placement quickly broke down when Matthew levelled unfounded allegations against the foster father and another foster child in the home. Matthew was then placed in the Woodcock Youth Centre in Brockville, where he resided from June 2006 to 2010.

[18] By the fall of 2006, following an assessment at CHEO, Matthew was identified as having borderline intelligence with particular difficulty processing verbal information. There were no schools in his local school area able to provide the small class setting and individualized learning plan needed by Matthew, so he was placed in a s. 23 program at the Dalhousie school in the Smiths Falls area. It was clear by this time that Matthew had a limited understanding of the realities in the outside world and sometimes his own world and that, due to his verbal fluidity, he often appeared to understand or appreciate more than he actually did.

[19] Matthew’s difficulty with anyone in authority has been evident the entire time he has been in care, with his acting out both verbally and physically not only against staff in group homes and at school, but also against strangers such as bus drivers, lifeguards, and store owners. He has also consistently shown difficulties understanding social norms and boundaries, making it challenging to develop healthy relationships with peers and potential girlfriends. Matthew’s CAS, probation, and institutional records are replete with instances of Matthew being disrespectful, rude, aggressive, or threatening with many adults and peers in his life. It was common for him to threaten to make false allegations against them and to actually make such allegations.

[20] In the fall of 2007, Matthew started to self-harm and to make serious threats of self-harm, necessitating the staff removing all items from his room that he could use to harm himself. By the spring of 2008, Matthew’s self-harming behaviour had subsided, but his behaviour at school had deteriorated to the point that he was seldom in the class for the whole day, spent much time in a segregated classroom, rarely completed assignments, and was not making academic gains despite having his own personal educational assistant. As a result of his behaviour, the Dalhousie school would not take him back in the fall of 2008, and he was placed in the experiential learning program at Thousand Islands Secondary School where he was provided with a modified program geared to his abilities and his own educational assistant. By mid-September, Matthew’s disruptive and threatening behaviour had resulted in his being suspended indefinitely for reasons of safety. Starting early in 2009, Matthew was provided with five hours a week of home schooling.

[21] As the staff at Woodcock frequently observed, Matthew regularly sabotaged his opportunities to participate in community activities knowing that his poor behaviour meant that privileges would be denied to him. As a result, he had limited exposure to the outside world, aside from his participation in such activities as soccer and cadets.

[22] In April 2008, Matthew broke the window in his group home, which triggered an alarm, and brought the police to the home. The police did not press charges against Matthew but gave him a firm warning. On October 7, 2008, Matthew ran away from a program he was attending and turned himself in to the police within a few hours. On October 19, 2008, Matthew bolted from the car of a group home staff member, stealing $180 from her as he went. He was found within hours and charged with theft under $5,000. On November 13, 2008, Matthew lured his female house parent into his room and assaulted her. He then broke into an office and stole money from a cash box. He subsequently assaulted another female staff before being subdued by a male staff. Matthew was charged with two counts of assault and one count of theft under $5,000. This was the beginning of Matthew’s criminal career.

[23] By this time, it was determined that Matthew needed one-on-one supervision for much of the day at Woodcock Youth Centre, and he required a very structured daily schedule of which he had notice in advance. The one-on-one supervision was reduced gradually over 2009 as Matthew’s behaviour stabilized. By the fall of 2009, he was readmitted half-days to the experiential learning program at Thousand Islands Secondary School.

[24] In 2009, on a behaviour checklist, the following categories were ticked to describe Matthew: hostile/defiant/defies limits; injures others (attempts or threatens); injures self (attempts or threatens); lies/dishonest; profane language; property damage; relationship difficulties with adults; relationship difficulties with peers or siblings; risk taking; runs away; sleep difficulties. He was described as being unable to form a positive attachment to the adults in his life and as sabotaging any relationship that he makes.

[25] In the fall of 2009, Matthew’s behaviour at Woodcock Youth Centre continued to be very difficult to control with frequent verbal and physical outbursts against staff and other residents and with Matthew absconding from Woodcock on numerous occasions. On pp. 26-28 of his Report, Dr. Gray reviewed in detail the escalating number and nature of the incidents that occurred between the summer of 2009 and the fall of 2010. Those incidents included Matthew swearing, being rude to, and threatening the Woodcock staff; assaulting staff members; creating a peephole into a washroom beside his bedroom so that he could observe others in the bathroom; keeping knives in his room; absconding for hours or overnight; engaging in suicidal gestures by putting rope or cord around his neck; and assaulting other residents.

[26] At the end of March and into April 2010, Matthew ran away from the group home on several occasions. On one, he smashed the lock box in the staff office with a hammer and stole money. He also stole keys to a staff member’s car, broke into her car, and went through everything in it. On April 7, 2010, Matthew was charged with assault and mischief under $5,000 for punching a female staff member several times and throwing a table, threatening the safety of all in the home. On May 3, 2010, Matthew was charged again with assault after he locked the house parent out of the home, jumped a staff member who went to open the door, and assaulted both individuals. Matthew was arrested and spent time in secure detention before being returned to the more secure Cedarhaven Residence at the Woodcock Youth Centre. From May to October 2010, Matthew’s uncontrolled behaviour resulted in his being in custody for a time, suspended from school, threatening harm to himself and others, and eventually being admitted to CHEO on a Form 1 and then to Kingston’s Hotel Dieu Hospital on another Form 1.

[27] On October 15, 2010, Matthew was moved from the Woodcock Youth Centre to the Roberts/Smart Centre due to his high needs, which included threats of suicide, admissions to hospital for mental health assessments, and much involvement with the Youth Criminal Justice system. Initially, Matthew made some progress at the Roberts/Smart Centre, earning some unsupervised time in the community; however, from November 2010 to the summer of 2011, Matthew absconded on several occasions and exhibited serious disruptive behaviour at the Centre and at the school associated with the Centre. Dr. Gray provides the details of these incidents at pp. 29-30 of his Report. It is important to note that Matthew’s escalating behaviour was occurring when he was in a highly structured environment with a multidisciplinary staff to meet his needs.

[28] In July 2011, Matthew was placed with a foster family – a placement that lasted only four days. When Matthew was not allowed to do as he pleased, he threatened to harm himself with a knife, was admitted to the psychiatry ward at the Cornwall Community Hospital and was discharged back to the Roberts/Smart Centre.

[29] In June and July 2011, Matthew committed several criminal offences, including dangerous driving, flight while being pursued by a police officer, possession of property obtained by crime over $5,000 (namely a car), two break and enters, and three failures to comply with a court order. He spent ten days in open custody at the Sherwood Youth Centre. From there he moved to the Fresh Start Youth Residence in Spencerville, but only lasted 17 days there before stealing a staff vehicle during a trip to the YMCA and being involved in another high-speed police chase.

[30] On September 1, 2011, Matthew was placed in open custody at Yonge House only to be returned to secure custody at the William E. Hay Centre on September 16, 2011 because of his aggressive behaviour. On December 1, 2011, Matthew was transferred to the Sherwood Youth Centre to serve his sentence and he remained there until February 22, 2012, at which time he was discharged to the Unaliyi Outdoor Therapeutic Program in Killaloe.

[31] On April 4, 2012, Matthew was again convicted of dangerous driving, driving while disqualified, and possession of property obtained by crime over $5,000 (another car). Matthew was admitted to the secure custody program at the Syl Apps Youth Centre in Oakville from which he was discharged in October 2012. At that point, he moved to a semi-independent living unit associated with the Dalhousie Home for Youth in Smiths Falls where he received 20 hours a week of one-on-one counselling to assist him to transition to more independent living. Although he was supposed to be attending the TR Leger School of Adult, Alternative and Continuing Education, his attendance was sporadic and his focus missing.

[32] When Matthew turned 18 on March 3, 2013, he rented an apartment on his own in Brockville, with financial assistance from the CAS through their Extended Care and Maintenance program. He enrolled in the TR Leger School in Brockville. Independent living did not work out for Matthew. He could not manage his finances, the apartment, or his relationships with peers. His landlord wanted him to leave due to the problems he was creating for other tenants. From April 30 to May 27, 2013, Matthew lived with his sister, but this was not a good arrangement from the perspective of either of them. From May 27 to July 9, 2013, Matthew lived with another vulnerable person in a co-op setting, but his failure to meet rules and expectations and maintain basic cleanliness in the apartment resulted in his being evicted.

[33] On July 9, 2013, Matthew was arrested for a variety of offences including possession of property obtained by crime over $5,000 (a car) and driving while disqualified. He served an intermittent sentence in the Brockville Jail until September when he was convicted of another break and enter, failure to comply with a probation order, possession of a weapon, and possession of property obtained by crime under $5,000. These convictions resulted in his getting a lengthier sentence which he ultimately served at the St. Lawrence Valley Correctional and Treatment Centre until his release on January 4, 2014.

[34] Following his release, and not having anywhere else to stay, Matthew went to live at his mother’s home while she was away. Instead of following the rules that had been set out in advance, he broke into a locked room, took her car keys, and drove around in her car with friends without her authority before abandoning it in the ditch. Subsequently he did similar things at his grandmother’s property close by. On January 12, 2014, Matthew was arrested for a variety of crimes arising out of these incidents and spent time at the Ottawa-Carleton Detention Centre and the Central East Correctional Centre before going to the Secure Treatment Unit at the St. Lawrence Valley Correctional and Treatment Centre on April 10, 2014 with an anticipated release date of October 28, 2014. Matthew was expelled from the program on August 21, 2014 due to his behaviour and was returned to the Central East Correctional Centre and subsequently the Ottawa-Carleton Detention Centre.

[35] Upon his release on October 28, 2014, Matthew went to Brockville and received help from Leeds and Grenville Mental Health Services to find accommodation and get some part-time employment. On December 2, 2014, Matthew committed another break and enter and stole a vehicle. He was back in jail on these charges from December 12, 2014 to January 24, 2015. On January 27, 2015, the day after his first probation meeting, he was charged with dangerous driving, driving while disqualified, possession of a stolen vehicle, failure to stop for police, and a breach of conditions. On February 18, 2015, Matthew was sentenced to 30 months in a federal penitentiary as a result of these new charges.

[36] On May 24, 2016, after Matthew had been in the penitentiary for more than a year and he had attained 21 years of age, the CAS discontinued its services and funding for Matthew.

[37] While Matthew was in the penitentiary, he committed the offences of invitation to sexual touching and uttering threats arising from communications made by him to a 14-year-old girl in the community and threats made to her boyfriend. These incidents came to the attention of Correctional Service Canada prior to Matthew’s anticipated statutory release on August 24, 2017. As a result of these pending charges, Matthew’s statutory release on parole was subject to his being able to live at a community correctional centre, a community residential facility, or another residence where he would be subject to a curfew and would be supervised. Those helping Matthew had difficulty finding any place that would take him.

[38] Immediately following Matthew’s release from the penitentiary, he was arrested for the alleged offences of invitation to sexual touching and uttering a threat and was convicted of these offences on December 29, 2017. He was sentenced to one year of incarceration minus pre-sentence custody. On January 5, 2018, he was sentenced to a further six months of custody for stealing a motor vehicle, breach of conditions, and driving while disqualified – all arising from events in October 2017.

[39] Matthew was released from prison on October 7, 2018. He failed to report to his initial meeting with his parole officer on October 9, 2018. He was arrested for the index offences on October 12, 2018 and has remained in custody since then.

Matthew Villeneuve’s Youth Record and Criminal Record

[40] To summarize, from March 2009, when Mr. Villeneuve turned 14, to January 2018, when he was 22, Mr. Villeneuve accumulated the following convictions: four assaults, two uttering threats, one possession of a weapon, one invitation to sexual touching, seven break and enters with intent to commit an indictable offence or with committing the indictable offence of theft, five thefts under $5,000 or possession of property obtained by crime under $5,000, seven possession of property obtained by crime over $5,000 (motor vehicles) or theft of a motor vehicle, three dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, two flights while pursued by a peace officer, five driving while disqualified, and fifteen failure to comply with a court order, undertaking, or recognizance. In order to explain context and circumstances, I will review in chronological order Matthew’s convictions, providing the underlying facts for each.

March 10, 2009 Brockville

[41] On March 10, 2009, Matthew Villeneuve pled guilty to two assaults and two counts of theft under $5,000 arising from two incidents at the Woodcock Youth Centre.

[42] On October 19, 2008, Matthew bolted from the car of a group home staff member, stealing $180 from her as he went. On November 13, 2008, Matthew requested the assistance of his house parent to pick up glass on his bedroom floor. When she bent over, he held her head down and punched her in the head and face. He ran downstairs, pushed another worker out of the way and entered and locked himself in the office. He went through a worker’s pockets, found a key, and stole $480 from a cash box before running outside. He returned inside to the office, locking it again. When he came out, he was taken outside for a cool down period, during which he struck another female worker in the eye with his fists, causing swelling and bruising. Other staff helped to subdue Matthew and he was taken to his room to await the police.

July 13, 2010 Brockville

[43] On July 13, 2010, Matthew pled guilty to two counts of assault and one rolled-up count of breach of a probation order.

[44] On April 7, 2010, Matthew left the Woodcock Youth Centre on his bicycle without permission, returning one hour later. To prevent him from leaving the residence again, the staff deflated the bicycle tires. Matthew became very angry and violent. He called a female staff derogatory names, threw toast on the floor and at other residents, and threw a phone on the floor when staff would not permit him to use it. Staff members tried to take Matthew to his room but he resisted and they were unable to do so. Matthew smashed a table on the ground. A staff member was struck in the face by Matthew while attempting to prevent further damage to the residence.

[45] On May 3, 2010, Matthew refused to comply with a direction from staff to turn off a video game for supper. Matthew told the staff to fuck off and said the staff could not tell him what to do. When the staff went to turn off the video game, Matthew stood up, made a fist, and cocked his arm in apparent readiness to punch the staff. The staff supervisor intervened and followed Matthew out of the home. When Matthew returned to the home, he tried to lock the door to keep the supervisor out. Another staff intervened to prevent him from doing that and Matthew tried to push that staff out of the way. The staff pushed Matthew back. Matthew then came at the staff with a fist. The staff deflected the punch, pushing Matthew off balance. Matthew fell to the floor. Matthew was restrained and escorted to his room. As this was happening, Matthew tried to kick staff in the groin. As soon as Matthew was released in his room, he charged at the staff, kicking and punching.

November 30, 2011 Brockville

[46] On November 30, 2011, Matthew pled guilty to theft under $5,000 (a motor vehicle), flight while pursued by a peace officer, and breach of recognizance.

[47] On August 27, 2011, Matthew was at the YMCA in Brockville with his group home worker. The keys to the worker’s vehicle and two checks were in a locked box. Matthew obtained the key from the front desk, removed the belongings and used the key to steal the vehicle. Later in the day, police located Matthew in the vehicle at a Walmart parking lot. When they attempted to speak to him, he sped away. Emergency lights were activated and a pursuit was initiated. Matthew was observed operating the vehicle through several stop signs and a red light, making no attempt to stop or slow down. He was observed heading out of the city limits driving at speeds exceeding 150 kph in an 80-kph zone. Pursuit was discontinued and the OPP were called. A short distance later, Matthew was involved in a motor vehicle collision. He fled the scene on foot and was subsequently arrested by the OPP and returned to Brockville. The pursuit lasted about seven minutes over fourteen kilometers.

December 20, 2011 Ottawa and Brockville

[48] On December 20, 2011, Matthew pled guilty to dangerous driving, possession of property obtained by crime over $5,000 (motor vehicle), one break and enter with intent, one break and enter and commit theft, and breach of a probation order, an undertaking and a recognizance.

[49] On June 3, 2011, Matthew went into the residence of the person he was working for, stole car keys, and took the person’s car to go joyriding. He drove at excessive speeds, causing the car to fishtail and hit the shoulder of the road. Matthew overcorrected and lost control, doing a 180-degree turn that had the vehicle swing around a young couple out walking with their two children. The vehicle ended up in the ditch just in front of the couple. Matthew accelerated to get out of the ditch. The vehicle ran several stop signs and red lights with a police car in pursuit and reached speeds exceeding 150 kph in an 80-kph zone as it headed out of the Brockville city limits.

[50] On June 7, 2011, a couple who were upstairs heard a noise at their front door. When they investigated, they found Matthew in their living room. He claimed to have seen a dog running out of their home, and then he ran out the door. Nothing was stolen and no damages were noted.

[51] On July 31, 2011, a woman entered the front door of her mother’s residence and unexpectedly heard the back screen door slam shut. When she investigated, she saw that the house had been ransacked. She and a neighbour flagged down the staff from Roberts/Smart, from which Matthew had absconded, and they were able to track down Matthew. When the police arrived, it was discovered that Matthew had the woman’s cell phone on his person and had discarded her computer during his flight from the home.

April 11, 2012 North Bay

[52] On April 11, 2012, Matthew pled guilty to dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, driving while disqualified, and possession of property obtained by crime over $5,000 (motor vehicle).

[53] On March 28, 2012, while on a camping trip in Algonquin Park with his group home, Matthew took a camp counsellor’s vehicle in the middle of the night. He was observed in the morning driving erratically, swerving all over the road, hitting the shoulder, cutting cars off, passing cars and then slowing down to let them go by, and then cutting in front of them again. The police were notified and located Matthew in the parking lot of a hotel. The police boxed in the vehicle being driven by Matthew. Matthew put the vehicle in reverse and accelerated rapidly, striking the police vehicle behind him. The police had to smash the driver’s side window to take physical control of the vehicle and prevent Matthew from driving forward and causing more damage.

June 17, 2013 Pembroke

[54] On June 17, 2013, Mr. Villeneuve, then an adult, pled guilty to possession of property obtained by crime over $5,000 (motor vehicle) and driving while disqualified.

[55] At some point, Mr. Villeneuve had stolen a pickup truck owned by his girlfriend’s parents and had driven it from Brockville to Pembroke where he had run out of gas and was hanging around a high school trying to get gas money from people. He had obtained keys to the vehicle by going into the parents’ house and taking them.

September 6, 2013 Brockville

[56] On September 6, 2013, Mr. Villeneuve pled guilty to break and enter and commit theft, possession of a weapon, possession of property obtained by crime under $5,000, and failure to comply with a probation order.

[57] On April 23, 2013, Mr. Villeneuve and a youth entered an unlocked apartment door in a neighbouring building and stole a flat screen television. On the same day, they entered an unlocked apartment door in their own building and stole an XBOX gaming system.

[58] On July 9, 2013, Mr. Villeneuve picked up another individual in Ottawa in a stolen vehicle and drove the vehicle to Kemptville, where the other individual took over the driving and they carried on to Brockville. When in Brockville and on or near property that Mr. Villeneuve had been trespassed from, Mr. Villeneuve was told by the owner or caretaker of the property that he was not welcome. Mr. Villeneuve became confrontational. He pulled a small hunting knife from his pocket and held it in his hand while engaging in a verbal argument with the complainant. He threatened the complainant that if he saw him outside, he would get him good.

February 27, 2014 Cornwall

[59] On February 27, 2014, Mr. Villeneuve pled guilty to break and enter and commit theft, uttering threats, and two counts of failure to comply with a probation order.

[60] Mr. Villeneuve was released from custody on January 4, 2014 and needed a temporary place to stay. After being approached by Mr. Villeneuve’s social worker, Angela Rutters (Mr. Villeneuve’s mother), agreed that Mr. Villeneuve could stay at her place in Athens while she was away in Florida visiting her mother, Linda Rutters. The understanding was that the social worker would check on Mr. Villeneuve every two days. Mr. Villeneuve did not have permission to drive Ms. Rutters’ vehicle, the keys to which were kept in a locked room in Ms. Rutters’ home.

[61] Mr. Villeneuve broke into the locked room and took the car keys. On January 10, 2014, he drove to Brockville to meet his girlfriend, who was 16 at the time, two other 17-year-old girls, and two other young men. They hung out at a ball diamond where Mr. Villeneuve did donuts with the car, smashing the car into a hard snowbank and cracking the front bumper. The following day, Mr. Villeneuve took an air compressor from his mother’s residence and then drove to his grandmother’s residence where he broke in and took a big-screen television and a container of change. Mr. Villeneuve drove back to Brockville where he pawned the television and the air compressor. When returning to his mother’s residence that night with some of the girls from the previous day, Mr. Villeneuve drove the car into the ditch.

[62] On January 12, 2014, Mr. Beckstead, a friend of Angela Rutters, saw her vehicle in the ditch and helped Mr. Villeneuve get it out. Later in the day, at the request of Angela Rutters, Mr. Beckstead and his wife went to Linda Rutters’ home in search of Mr. Villeneuve and the vehicle. Meantime, two friends of Linda Rutters, Angie Moreau and Jim Brown, had gone over to Linda Rutters’ home to feed the cat. They observed Angela Rutters’ vehicle and Linda Rutters’ ATV in the driveway. They blocked the driveway with their vehicle and called the police. Mr. Villeneuve told his girlfriend to get in his mother’s vehicle and drive away. He started the ATV and was trying to get it into gear. Mr. Beckstead grabbed the keys and shut the bike down. Mr. Villeneuve ran over to Mr. Brown’s pickup truck that was running and unattended and got behind the wheel. Mr. Beckstead physically removed Mr. Villeneuve from the vehicle. Mr. Villeneuve punched Mr. Beckstead who was restraining him on the ground. The police arrived shortly after and arrested Mr. Villeneuve. When the police arrived at the station, they had difficulty removing Mr. Villeneuve from the cruiser. Ultimately, they had to drag him to his cell. While in the cell, Mr. Villeneuve threatened the officer that he was going to “fuck him up” when he saw him on the street.

January 5, 2015 Perth

[63] On January 5, 2015, Mr. Villeneuve pled guilty to possession of property obtained by crime over $5,000 (motor vehicle), driving while disqualified, and failure to comply with conditions of an undertaking regarding his being in possession of a stolen vehicle on December 12, 2014.

February 18, 2015 Smiths Falls

[64] On December 2, 2014, Mr. Villeneuve pled guilty to break and enter and commit theft, possession of property obtained by crime over $5,000 (motor vehicle), and failure to comply with a probation order. The transcript from this day’s hearing provides no agreed statement of facts relating to this incident.

February 18, 2015 Brockville

[65] On February 18, 2015, Mr. Villeneuve pled guilty to possession of property obtained by crime over $5,000, dangerous driving, flight while pursued by peace officers, driving while disqualified, failure to comply with a probation order, and failure to comply with conditions of an undertaking.

[66] On January 27, 2015, a woman had left her vehicle open and running while she dropped something off. She returned to the vehicle to find Mr. Villeneuve in the driver’s seat. She pounded on the window. He reversed and drove off. Police were called and located the vehicle. Emergency lights were activated. When Mr. Villeneuve realized the police were pursuing him, he drove at a high rate of speed down Brockville streets. Due to concerns about public safety, the police discontinued the chase. Subsequently they located the vehicle and tried to block its exit from a cul-de-sac. Mr. Villeneuve drove straight at the police car and the police had to take evasive action to get out of the way. Police vehicles then tried to block Mr. Villeneuve’s route, but he struck both marked cruisers and was able to evade them. At this point, Mr. Villeneuve was travelling at a high rate of speed, in excess of 100 kph, and was not stopping for traffic signals. The police activated their spike belt, but Mr. Villeneuve’s vehicle swerved around the belt at the last minute. Mr. Villeneuve proceeded to Highway 401, where his speed got up to 180 kph. Mr. Villeneuve exited the highway at Maitland and pulled into a parking lot. While trying to turn the vehicle around, he got the vehicle stuck in the snow and was arrested by the police.

November 24, 2017 Brockville

[67] On November 24, 2017, Mr. Villeneuve pled guilty to possession of property obtained by crime under $5,000 and failure to comply with a recognizance.

[68] On October 16, 2017, when Mr. Villeneuve was arrested on unrelated matters, he had in his possession vehicle keys and a bank card belonging to Alanna Phomin who, earlier that evening, had reported her car stolen. The car was subsequently recovered.

December 29, 2017 Brockville

[69] On December 29, 2017, Mr. Villeneuve pled guilty to invitation to sexual touching and uttering threats.

[70] Between March and September 2016, while he was in a federal penitentiary, Mr. Villeneuve, through letters and phone calls, engaged in numerous conversations about sexual intercourse with the girl whom he knew was 14 years of age at the time. They referred to each other as fiancé(e)s and spoke of getting married and having children. After the relationship ended, Mr. Villeneuve threatened to “curb-stomp” her new boyfriend upon his release. In his letters to the girl, Mr. Villeneuve spoke of not wanting a girl who lies and cheats on him because he will kill someone.

January 5, 2018 Ottawa

[71] On January 5, 2018, Mr. Villeneuve pled guilty to theft of a motor vehicle, driving while disqualified, and failure to comply with a recognizance or undertaking. These offences arose out of the same incident referred to above under November 24, 2017.

[72] On October 16, 2017, Mr. Villeneuve used keys he had to his girlfriend’s Ottawa home to enter a neighbour’s home that used matching keys. He took a set of car keys for a car that the neighbour was authorized to use. Mr. Villeneuve then drove off in the stolen car. He was arrested later that evening in Brockville and the car was recovered.

Matthew Villeneuve’s Institutional Records

Correctional Service Canada Record of Incidents

[73] On March 9, 2015, Mr. Villeneuve participated in disruptive and destructive activities on the range at Millhaven Institution during which he tried to tie a sheet at the range barrier to block the view of correctional officers. Mr. Villeneuve was placed in segregation after this incident.

[74] On March 13, 2015, while still at Millhaven, Mr. Villeneuve asked to be moved from his range to segregation as a result of conflicts with other inmates and his fears for his own safety.

[75] On November 25, 2015, during a routine search of Mr. Villeneuve’s cell at Beaver Creek, a brew like substance was discovered in his locker.

[76] On December 21, 2015, while at Beaver Creek, Mr. Villeneuve disobeyed instructions not to leave his unit.

[77] On December 23, 2015, while at Beaver Creek, Mr. Villeneuve requested a move to protective custody due to concerns for his safety as a result of outstanding debts.

[78] On February 17, 2016, concerns were raised about Mr. Villeneuve owing debts in the Bath Institution even though he had only been there a short period of time.

[79] On March 8, 2016, Mr. Villeneuve threatened to slit his cellmate’s throat if he did not get away from him. He claimed the cellmate continually talked about molesting children. Mr. Villeneuve was moved to a different cell.

[80] On March 23, 2016, while at Bath Institute, Mr. Villeneuve acknowledged that he had been assaulted recently because he owed a significant debt to two inmates and they were concerned that he was attempting to avoid payment by voluntarily admitting himself to administrative segregation. There were several reports about his getting involved in minor fights and accumulating canteen debts. He expressed difficulty integrating into the population at the Bath Institute and had trouble with a number of cellmates.

[81] In April 2016, it was observed by correctional staff at Matsqui Institution that Mr. Villeneuve was not liked by other inmates on his range and there were reports from other inmates that he had skipped out of drug debts.

[82] In May 2016, it was observed by correctional staff at Mountain Institution that Mr. Villeneuve was getting himself in trouble with other inmates, on one occasion having a black eye, and on another occasion being in a fight with another inmate that correctional staff broke up.

[83] On June 6, 2016, a search was conducted of Mr. Villeneuve’s cell because of his thoughts of self-harming. He had a piece of metal, a small rock in a sock, and a tattoo needle – all of which he gave to the correctional officers.

[84] On July 7, 2016, Mr. Villeneuve made up a story about being physically assaulted by another inmate so that he would be placed in segregation for his protection. When confronted by the other inmate, Mr. Villeneuve acknowledged that the allegation was not true. The correctional officers left Mr. Villeneuve in the general population and advised him that he needed to develop some coping skills rather than hiding in segregation.

[85] On September 26, 2016, Mr. Villeneuve again tried to get himself into segregation, claiming that other inmates on his range were abusing him physically and were threatening him all the time.

[86] On September 30, 2016, Mr. Villeneuve was made aware that he has been on an authorized telephone intercept and that CSC was aware of his conversations with a 14-year-old girl. During the interview, Mr. Villeneuve made veiled threats, such as refusing to leave the office, to assault an inmate, or to do whatever it would take to get himself in segregation.

[87] On October 3, 2016, Mr. Villeneuve was in a fight with another inmate. On the same day, Mr. Villeneuve tried to initiate a physical fight with a correctional officer.

Ottawa-Carleton Detention Centre Records of Misconducts

[88] While in the Ottawa-Carleton Detention Centre, Mr. Villeneuve was found guilty of the following misconducts:

• April 30, 2019 – committed an assault on another inmate.
• February 20, 2020 – committed or threatened an assault
• July 10, 2020 – had contraband with him during a visit; namely some documents that he wanted to show the visitor.
• July 15, 2020 – made a gross insult at a person
• October 17, 2020 – threatened an assault on a correctional officer. When Mr. Villeneuve was upset that the officer would not get him out of his cell and into another pod, he said he would play the suicide game and go to segregation on suicide watch. Subsequently, he said to the officer: “you don’t know who I am eh? I have assault charges on correctional officers, and I’m affiliated so I can hurt you” and other statements to this effect.
• February 4, 2021 – committed or threatened an assault
• March 11, 2021 – wilfully disobeyed a lawful order of an officer
• September 9, 2021 – committed or threatened an assault

Psychiatric and Psychological Evidence

[89] Mr. Villeneuve has had numerous psychiatric, psychological, and psycho-educational assessments in the past for the following purposes: (1) to assist child protection authorities, youth criminal justice authorities, and adult correctional authorities to determine an appropriate placement, treatment, or educational plan for him; [1] (2) to determine whether he is fit to stand trial; [2] (3) to determine whether he is criminally responsible for his actions (an NCR assessment); [3] and most recently (4) to assist the court in determining whether he is a dangerous offender and, if so, what disposition is appropriate. [4]

[90] During his childhood, Mr. Villeneuve was diagnosed by various professionals as exhibiting Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), a tic disorder, possibly Tourette’s Syndrome, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Reactive Attachment Disorder (RAD), Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD), Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD), and Borderline Intellectual Functioning. In 2019, Dr. Jonathan Gray completed an assessment, referenced at footnote 3, in which he found no evidence that Matthew Villeneuve would fit the definition of “not criminally responsible” under the Code regarding the offences for which he has now been convicted.

[91] In December 2020, Dr. Gray was tasked with completing an assessment of Matthew Villeneuve under s. 752.1 of the Code for the purpose of this hearing. His fulsome Report is an exhibit to these proceedings and was supplemented by his oral testimony.

[92] Dr. Gray interviewed Mr. Villeneuve on December 2, 2020 and reviewed the copious materials that had been provided to him by the Crown, which are also contained in Exhibit 1.

[93] Dr. Gray considered whether a diagnosis of PTSD was appropriate for Mr. Villeneuve at the present time and concluded that it likely is, though Mr. Villeneuve is not currently demonstrating all symptoms of PTSD. For a diagnosis of PTSD to be made under the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), five specific criteria must exist for more than one month, causing significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning. A list of those criteria follows with Dr. Gray’s assessment as to whether they apply to Mr. Villeneuve.

• Exposure to a traumatic event. Mr. Villeneuve has a well-documented and extensive history of physical and emotional trauma and neglect and abandonment as a child.
• Intrusion symptoms involving involuntary re-experiencing of the experience of the trauma. Although Mr. Villeneuve has described ongoing nightmares, these were not related to his described childhood traumatic events and do not meet the criterion.
• Avoidance behaviour. It is possible that Mr. Villeneuve’s trigger to anger by being touched involuntarily stems from his early physical abuse.
• Negative alterations in cognitions and mood associated with the traumatic event. Mr. Villeneuve’s behaviour suggests discomfort with long-term commitment to any treatment program or supervised facility and it is possible this reaction stems from an underlying negative alteration in his cognition about relationships generated by his exposure to early trauma.
• Problems with irritability, concentration, and sleep. These observed symptoms with Mr. Villeneuve can also be explained by other factors such as his co-morbid diagnoses of ASPD and ADHD.

[94] When Mr. Villeneuve was admitted to the St. Lawrence Valley Correctional and Treatment Centre in October 2013 and April 2014, his scores on the diagnostic screening questionnaire for PTSD were in the “borderline/mild symptom” and “no symptom” range respectively. On his third admission in 2018, the admitting psychiatrist concluded there was evidence to support a diagnosis of PTSD. In Dr. Gray’s opinion, although a diagnosis of PTSD is likely appropriate for Mr. Villeneuve, it only has an indirect tie to his current antisocial behaviour. He observed at p. 36 of his Report that many of the symptoms of PTSD that could theoretically increase rule-breaking behaviour, such as hypervigilance and irritability, could also be due in Mr. Villeneuve’s case to underlying personality factors.

[95] Regarding anxiety spectrum disorders, Dr. Gray concluded that any anxiety displayed by Mr. Villeneuve during various assessments over time is likely part of a possible diagnosis of PTSD rather than a stand-alone diagnosis in the anxiety category. In 2011, Dr. Catherine Boucher diagnosed Mr. Villeneuve as having a non-specific anxiety disorder. [5]

[96] Dr. Gray’s opinion is that Mr. Villeneuve clearly meets the criteria for a diagnosis of ASPD. Dr. Gray explained at p. 36 of his Report that the DSM-5 describes ASPD as: “a pervasive pattern of disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others occurring since age 15 as indicated by at least three of seven listed criteria: failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviours as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest; impulsivity; irresponsibility; irritability and aggressiveness; lack of empathy; deceitfulness; and reckless disregard for the safety of self or others.” There also must be evidence of a diagnosis of conduct disorder prior to age 15. Mr. Villeneuve meets all these criteria. This diagnosis has been listed frequently in previous discharge summaries. [6]

[97] According to Dr. Gray, there is inadequate evidence that Mr. Villeneuve warrants a diagnosis of stimulant intoxication under the DSM-5, but his behaviour at the time of the index offences is consistent with that of someone under the influence of speed. Mr. Villeneuve testified that he has never had a drug problem and only uses alcohol recreationally. He acknowledged having used speed, a drug that he was not used to, prior to committing the index offences.

[98] Repeated cognitive testing has suggested that Mr. Villeneuve has borderline intellectual functioning with a low IQ. [7] According to Dr. Gray, this diagnosis plays a role in Mr. Villeneuve’s low responsivity to the treatment programs that he has been offered.

Legal Framework

[99] Under s. 753(1)(a) of the Code, and pursuant to the directions in R. v. Boutilier, 2017 SCC 64, [2017] 2 S.C.R. 936, at paras. 17-18, the Court shall find the offender to be a dangerous offender if the Crown has satisfied it beyond a reasonable doubt that: (1) the offence for which the offender has been convicted is a serious personal injury offence described in s. 752(a) of the Code, and (2) the offender constitutes a threat to the life, safety or physical or mental well-being of other persons. The second element requires that the judge evaluate the threat posed by the offender on the basis of evidence establishing one of the following three types of behaviour:

i. A pattern of repetitive behaviour by the offender, of which the offence for which he has been convicted forms a part, 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 failure in the future to restrain his 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 behaviour, or

iii. Any behaviour by the offender associated with the offence for which he or she has been convicted, that is of such a brutal nature as to compel the conclusion that the offender’s behaviour in the future is unlikely to be inhibited by normal standards of behavioural restraint.

[100] The Crown relies on the first two types of behaviour in this case. Both require a “pattern of behaviour”. In the first instance, it is a pattern of “repetitive” behaviour. In the second instance, it is a pattern of “persistent” behaviour. The Defence argues that no such patterns exist regarding Mr. Villeneuve’s behaviour to date.

Pattern of Repetitive Behaviour

[101] In Dow, at paras. 21-27, Lambert J.A. of the British Columbia Court of Appeal, explained the elements required to prove the pattern under s. 753(1)(a)(i) of the Code:

The elements of subpara. (1) of para. 753(a) are: (1) that there be a pattern of repetitive behaviour revealed in the offences and that the pattern be present in the offence which gave rise to the dangerous offender proceedings; and (2) that the pattern of repetitive behaviour contained two essential elements: first, a failure to restrain the relevant repetitive behaviour and, second, a likelihood of causing death or injury through a failure to restrain that behaviour in the future.

So there must be a pattern revealed by repetitive behaviour; the pattern must contain an element that the dangerous behaviour was not restrained in the past; and there must be a likelihood that the same behaviour in the future will not be restrained and will cause death or injury.

Each of those three elements must be present in the pattern and those three elements serve to define the relevant characteristics of the pattern for the purposes of subpara. 753(a)(i). But, necessarily, the description of the three elements in subpara. (1) is couched in general terms. So, in any particular case, for the purposes of describing the pattern, each of the three elements may be particularized in a way that gives individuality to the pattern by indicating specific similarities between one incident and another. But it is important that the process of particularization not result in a level of detail which obscures the common characteristics which embody and reveal the three essential elements of the pattern.

In short, the significance and the relevance of common elements of the pattern must be determined by whether they tend to show first, repetitive behaviour, second, that there has been a failure in each case to restrain the behaviour, and third, that there has been injury to other persons arising from that failure. If any of those three elements is missing, then there may be a pattern but it will not be a relevant pattern. But if all three are present then the essential elements of a relevant pattern are revealed.

I add that it is the very essence of a pattern that there be a number of significant relevant similarities between each example of the pattern that is being considered, but that, at the same time, there may be differences between each example, some of them quite distinctive, so long as the differences leave the key significant relevant elements of the pattern in place.

[102] In R. v. Hogg, 2011 ONCA 840, at para. 40, the Ontario Court of Appeal described the required pattern under s. 753(1)(a)(i) of the Code as follows:

[T]he pattern of repetitive behaviour that includes the predicate offence has to contain enough of the same elements of unrestrained dangerous conduct to be able to predict that the offender will likely offend in the same way in the future. This will ensure that the level of gravity of the behaviour is the same, so that the concern … that the last straw could be a much more minor infraction – could not result in a dangerous offender designation. However, the offences need not be the same in every detail; that would unduly restrict the application of the section.

Pattern of Persistent Behaviour

[103] The “persistence” required for the pattern under s. 753(1)(a)(ii) involves behaviour that is “enduring, continuous, obstinately persevering, interminable or sustained”: R. v. Williams, 2018 ONSC 2030 [Williams ONSC], at para. 252, per Hill J. See also Wong, at para. 217; R. v. Robinson, 2011 BCSC 728, at para. 122; R. v. J.Y. (1996), 104 C.C.C. (3d) 512 (Sask. C.A.), at pp. 522-23; and R. v. Morin (1998), 173 Sask R. 101 (Q.B.), at para. 85.

[104] In R. v. McArthur, [1998] O.J. No. 5184 (Ont. Gen. Div.), at para. 11, LaForme J. (as he then was) equated aggressive behaviour with “hostile” behaviour. In Wong, at para. 218, F.E. McWatt J. (as she then was) stated:

Aggressive behaviour does not require an element of physical force. Instead, aggressive behaviour “is a vague term that can run the gamut between ‘pushy and overly-confident’ to ‘extremely violent’” (R. v. Campbell, [1992] O.J. No. 2079 at p. 23 (O.C.J.); R. v. R.J.M., [2008] O.J. No. 5991 at para. 70 (S.C.J.); and R. v. S.L., [2011] O.J. No. 6078 at para. 32 (O.C.J.)).

[105] In Williams ONSC, at para. 252, Hill J. equated “indifference” with disregard, lack of sympathy or empathy, callousness and coldness, and lack of concern or sensitivity. It is the lack of concern exhibited by the offender as to how his actions will impact others, are impacting others, or have impacted others that is crucial. As F.E. McWatt J. stated in Wong, at para. 224:

In examining whether Mr. Wong’s conduct demonstrates indifference, his attitude must be examined more generally. A demonstration of indifference which is limited to the time at which the offence was committed is not sufficient. A broader examination of the offender’s personality is required in order to determine if the offender lacks compassion towards others. The Crown must demonstrate that the offender has a conscious, but uncaring awareness of causing harm to others and that this has occurred over a long period, involving frequent acts with significant consequences.

[106] The test under s. 753(1)(a)(ii) does not depend upon similarities among the offences being relied upon as establishing a pattern: R. v. C.W., 2019 ONCA 976, at para. 28; and R. v. Brown, 2021 ONCA 678, at para. 55.

Four Criteria in Boutilier

[107] In Boutilier, at paras. 26-27, the Supreme Court confirmed that the four criteria enumerated by La Forest J. in R. v. Lyons, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 309, at p. 338, as being required for a dangerous offender designation are still requirements for such a designation following the 2008 amendments to the dangerous offender provisions in the Code. Those criteria are as follows: (1) the offender has been convicted of and must be sentenced for a “serious personal injury offence”; (2) this predicate offence is part of a broader pattern of violence; (iii) there is a high likelihood of harmful recidivism on the part of the offender; and (iv) the violent conduct is intractable. The last two criteria are forward looking, and the last criterion necessarily involves the consideration of future treatment prospects: Boutilier, at para. 46. It is for the court, and not the psychiatrist, to determine whether the four criteria exist in any given case: R. v. Walsh, 2017 BCCA 195, at para. 34. Psychiatric evidence is particularly pertinent to the last two criteria.

Analysis: Designation of Dangerous Offender

Serious Personal Injury Offence

[108] Mr. Villeneuve pled guilty and was found guilty of the following offences: (1) attempted murder (s. 239(1)); (2) break and enter, committing an indictable offence therein (s. 348(1)(b)); and (3) obstruction of justice (s. 139(2)). The offence of attempted murder is a “serious personal injury offence” as that term is defined under s. 752 of the Code.

The Predicate Offence

[109] Mr. Villeneuve committed the predicate offence of attempted murder when he attacked Kerstin Jerome in the women’s washroom at the Ottawa Technical High School on October 12, 2018. When Mr. Villeneuve approached Ms. Jerome in the washroom, wielding a knife and telling her to go into one of the stalls, he gave no thought to what her reactions would be or to the impact his actions would have on her. He grabbed her by the arm and backed her into the stall, cornering her, and preventing her from leaving. Ms. Jerome fought to get out of the stall, and Mr. Villeneuve responded by assaulting her and attempting to close the stall door. Ms. Jerome managed to grab the knife out of Mr. Villeneuve’s hand and throw it away into another stall. Ms. Jerome tried to yell for help, so Mr. Villeneuve covered her mouth. In order to subdue her, Mr. Villeneuve grabbed her throat with one hand and punched her more than five times in the head. He then put his hands around her throat, applied pressure, and strangled her until she fell to the ground. Meanwhile, Ms. Jerome kept fighting back – punching and kicking Mr. Villeneuve to try to free herself from his grip. One hates to think how this aggression would have ended had Mr. Villeneuve not been interrupted by another woman coming into the washroom and observing what was happening.

[110] When interviewed by the police on October 13, 2018, Mr. Villeneuve stated:

It didn’t go the way I wanted to. I was gonna kill her. Straight up, I was going to kill her. Why? Because in my head yesterday, I was high on fucking speed. I have like, I don’t even know, like six pills. I was just … and in my head, a voice … she was laughing at me because I was wearing jackass pants. She smiled and laughed at me. So, I was like, “Yo, what the fuck … fuck this bitch and then I went in there and I told her I was like … I’m going to hurt you.” And I was going to choke her out and I was going to fucking slit her fucking throat and just slice her up, okay? That’s what was going through my head yesterday. (p. 4 of the Transcript, with similar description at p. 21)

I just wanted to stab her and kill her. That’s it. (p. 15)

[111] Mr. Villeneuve went on to state that he had thought of killing a woman who had reported his theft of her car in 2015 that had resulted in his getting a penitentiary term. He said he was going to tie her to a post in the basement and burn her house down. He also claimed to have had thoughts on other occasions to kill people.

[112] When interviewed by Dr. Gray in 2019 for an NCR assessment, Mr. Villeneuve claimed not to have remembered much about the events leading to the predicate offences. He blamed his behaviour on four factors: the stress he was under due to his being released from prison on October 7, 2018 without his usual medication; his living with his girlfriend who was continuously high on speed and was being physically and emotionally abusive to him; his lack of sleep over four days; and his using speed provided to him by his girlfriend – a drug he was not in the habit of taking. He said that, at some point during his assault of Ms. Jerome, he heard his grandfather’s voice telling him to “kill this girl – they are evil”.

[113] When interviewed by Dr. Gray in December 2020 for the purpose of the dangerous offender assessment, Mr. Villeneuve provided a different story as to why he did what he did on October 12, 2018. He explained that when he saw that Ms. Jerome had an iPhone as she passed him in the hall of the high school, he decided that he wanted it and he followed her into the washroom to get it. He had not planned to assault or sexually assault her. However, she fought back and since he did not want her to be able to identify him, he had to choke her in order to render her unconscious so that he could get away. He said that he had no intention of killing her, and just wanted to render her unable to prevent his leaving.

[114] Mr. Villeneuve’s different versions of the events of October 12, 2018 tend to support an observation made by many professionals working with or assessing Mr. Villeneuve, namely, that he gears what he says during any interview or assessment procedure to what he hopes to accomplish at that time. If he wants to end up in a mental health rather than a correctional institution, he tries to portray himself as having mental health issues. If he does not want to be found a dangerous offender, he describes himself as not being violent and as being amenable to change through programming. Mr. Villeneuve readily admits that he acts in this manipulative fashion.

[115] Mr. Villeneuve’s different versions of the events of October 12, 2018 may also result from the effects of speed still being in his system on October 13, 2018, when he was interviewed by the police, whereas when he was subsequently interviewed by Dr. Gray he was not under the influence of illicit drugs. What Mr. Villeneuve said to police on October 13, 2018 may actually represent the level of anger and hostility that informs his actions when he is under the influence of drugs like amphetamines or methamphetamines.

[116] Regardless of which, if any, of Mr. Villeneuve’s versions of his actions and thoughts on October 12, 2018 has any resemblance to the truth, I am satisfied on all the evidence that Mr. Villeneuve acted impulsively and without restraint upon seeing Ms. Jerome with an iPhone walk past him and into the washroom. He used the amount of force he considered necessary to get what he wanted and to get away, without any consideration of the harm he was doing to Ms. Jerome. According to Ms. Jerome, as Mr. Villeneuve was choking her, he was calmly staring at her as she fought back to get free – an indication of the indifference he felt toward her well-being.

Broader Pattern of Violence

[117] Much time was spent during submissions on the issue of whether the predicate offence is part of a pattern of “repetitive” behaviour as is required under s. 753(1)(a)(i) of the Code.

[118] The Defence argues that the violence exhibited by Mr. Villeneuve toward Ms. Jerome was out of character for Mr. Villeneuve and far exceeded any other act of violence in the past. This is accurate. Mr. Villeneuve’s criminal record is replete with offences involving lesser assaults, break and enters, dangerous driving offences, and breaches of various types of court orders, but nothing with a level of violence approaching what he did on October 12, 2018. The Defence contends that there is not sufficient similarity between the predicate offence and any of Mr. Villeneuve’s earlier offences to create an identifiable pattern and, without that, the court cannot predict likely future violent actions on Mr. Villeneuve’s part.

[119] The Crown argues that the similarity comes from the impulsive and opportunistic nature of Mr. Villeneuve’s crimes all of which result from his wanting something and having no internal restraints to limit how he goes about getting it. He may want some materialistic gain – therefore he commits break and enters and thefts. He may want thrills – therefore he steals cars, goes for dangerous joyrides, and refuses to stop when pursued by police. He may not want to follow the rules at group homes or institutions – therefore he commits assaults against those in positions of authority.

[120] As Dr. Gray observed at p. 41 of his Report, “Mr. Villeneuve has demonstrated a pattern of opportunistic offences, usually either for pecuniary gain or thrill-seeking, that show a failure to restrain his behaviour in that they are impulsive and often occur shortly after release from incarceration.” While the predicate offence of attempted murder arose in circumstances somewhat different from his usual fare of break and enters, assaults, car thefts, and dangerous driving, it shares similarities with the earlier offences. Mr. Villeneuve’s attack on Ms. Jerome was opportunistic – he happened to see her going into the washroom on her own in possession of an iPhone. He quickly decided he would follow her in and assault her. Whether his goal in going into the washroom was to get her iPhone (which I find was likely the case) or whether it was to seriously hurt or kill her, Mr. Villeneuve acted without giving any thought to how things would likely unfold. When met with resistance to his plan, he did what he always does and became physically aggressive, being indifferent to how his behaviour would impact Ms. Jerome. Assuming the goal was to get her iPhone, Ms. Jerome was in his way of getting what he wanted, and he was going to do what he had to do to overcome her resistance.

[121] It may be that when the predicate offence occurred, Mr. Villeneuve was under the influence of speed and this increased the risk of impulsive, reckless behaviour likely to cause harm to others. According to one account given by Mr. Villeneuve, when he committed the offence of dangerous driving in 2015, he was also under the influence of recreational drugs – an account he later resiled from. Whether or not recreational drugs played a role in these two instances, the reality is that in the ten years prior to the predicate offence, Mr. Villeneuve engaged in impulsive, opportunistic, and reckless behaviour – whether or not under the influence of drugs – with no restraint and with no consideration of the risks he was creating for others or the harm he was doing to others.

[122] In Whittaker, Byrne J. found that a pattern of repetitive behaviour existed where an offender had a total of 36 criminal convictions and/or findings of guilt, and 45 misconducts relating to violent occurrences while in provincial custody. His youth record, which commenced when he was 13 years of age, included convictions for assault, uttering threats, and failure to comply with various court orders. His adult record included entries for assault, robbery, assaulting a police officer, trafficking, harassment, and failure to comply with court orders. At para. 103, Byrne J. found a clear pattern of reactive violence on Mr. Whittaker’s part that occurred in two types of circumstances: (1) where a need or request by him was not met, or (2) where he did not want to comply with a direction or rule.

[123] Although an argument along these lines could be made in this case, I do not see the need to decide whether there are sufficient similarities between the predicate offence and earlier offences to create the relevant pattern of “repetitive” behaviour that the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt under s. 753(1)(a)(i) of the Code. The Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt a pattern of “persistent aggressive behaviour” by Mr. Villeneuve under s. 753(1)(a)(ii) of the Code. Since the provisions in s. 753(1)(a)(i), (ii), and (iii) are disjunctive, the Crown need only prove the elements of one beyond a reasonable doubt: Boutilier, at para. 18.

[124] Replete in all of Mr. Villeneuve’s records from the time he was a child to as late as last fall is a description of him being aggressive; hostile; physically and verbally assaultive; threatening; and reckless regarding the safety of others, whether those living or working with him or perfect strangers. By his actions, he has shown total indifference respecting the reasonably foreseeable consequences to other persons of his behaviour.

[125] When in group homes, Mr. Villeneuve frequently assaulted staff when they would not give him what he wanted or let him do what he wanted, without a thought to their welfare – even though these were the people taking care of him. When in correctional institutions, he challenged and threatened the correctional officers for the same reason. When breaking into other people’s homes, he gave little thought as to what might happen to them if they were present during the break-in or returned home while the break-in was happening. When he followed Ms. Jerome into the washroom, Mr. Villeneuve gave no thought as to what was going to unfold from Ms. Jerome’s perspective. Even while he was choking her, he showed no emotion reflecting any realization of the impact of his behaviour on her.

[126] If Mr. Villeneuve wanted something, or wanted to do something, he went after it with no concern for the impact his behaviour would have on others. When challenged with this reality by those professionals trying to get him to feel some remorse or some empathy for his victims, Mr. Villeneuve’s standard response was that if those he harmed had simply given him what he wanted or had let him do what he wanted, there would have been no problem. The offences that occurred were really their fault.

[127] In addition to the predicate offence, the offences that most exemplified Mr. Villeneuve’s total disregard for the welfare of others were his dangerous driving offences. In the three instances in 2011, 2012, and 2015, others were put in danger by Mr. Villeneuve for the sole reason that he was bored and wanted some thrills. He showed no concern about how his behaviour might impact incident bystanders or the police who were trying to stop him. Driving prohibitions did not dissuade him from this activity. Numerous police vehicles pursuing him and taking heroic efforts to stop him before he hurt someone did not dissuade him.

Threat of Future Violence

[128] Dr. Gray’s opinion, which I accept, is that Mr. Villeneuve is at very high risk to commit another violent offence upon release from incarceration based on his high score on actuarial risk assessment instruments and the psychopathy checklist and based on his behaviour since he was 13 years of age. No evidence was tendered to the contrary. Furthermore, Dr. Gray’s assessment is supported by Mr. Villeneuve’s history of offending as a teenager and young adult that entails a continuous series of assaults, threatening behaviour, and reckless behaviour that has endangered the life and safety of other individuals.

[129] Dr. Gray assessed Mr. Villeneuve on the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide - Revised (VRAG-R), which is an actuarial instrument used to assist in risk prediction of violent offenders through identification of specific static or historical factors in the offender. Mr. Villeneuve received a score of +35 which puts Mr. Villeneuve in the highest of nine ascending risk categories with a very high risk of reoffence. Seventy-six percent of offenders in the VRAG-R study population, who had similar risk scores to Mr. Villeneuve, reoffended with a violent offence within five years of their release into the community. Ninety percent of such offenders reoffended with a violent offence within 15 years of their release into the community. Mr. Villeneuve’s score of +35 is higher than 97 percent of offenders assessed with the VRAG-R.

[130] Dr. Gray also assessed Mr. Villeneuve on the Psychopathy Checklist Revised (PCL-R), which is designed to compare the subject against the psychological construct of psychopathy which consists of interpersonal, affective, and antisocial lifestyle factors. According to Dr. Gray, psychopathy has been shown to be associated with recidivism with violent or general offences and is a strong predictor of risk. Higher scores on the PCL-R also indicate poorer prognosis for treatment. Dr. Gray assigned Mr. Villeneuve a score of 33 on the PCL-R, which places him in the 94.2 percentile compared to a sample of North American male offenders, the average score being between 22 and 23. A score of 30 is the cut-off to meet the construct of psychopathy. According to Dr. Gray, offenders with a score above 25 on the PCL-R are associated with a higher risk of reoffending and a poor response to treatment.

[131] Mr. Villeneuve told the detectives during his interview on October 13, 2018:

I’m not going to lie to you. I get out and I’ll probably do it again. That’s what goes through my head. I need a hospital. I can’t do jail anymore. Secure me. Put me in the … I know, like I said, I won’t get NCR, I know that. But I need a secure environment that’s like not cops and that … criminal mentality, you know what I mean? (p. 16)

If I go to jail for five years, I’m telling you right now. I’m telling. I’m warning you … within a month I will have someone killed by the time I get out. I don’t want that. I don’t … I want my life. (p. 23)

[132] During the police interview, Mr. Villeneuve also repeatedly said that he was a psychopath or sociopath. He targets people to get what he wants; he does not care a bit about them. No one cared about him, so why should he care about anyone else: (p. 19). He also warned that he was impulsive and that it was unpredictable when he might decide to kill someone and act on those thoughts. He repeated numerous times that he needed psychiatric help and that putting him in jail was not going to help. He also stated that, although he was on speed when he committed the offences, and he was not in the habit of taking it, it was his underlying psychiatric problems that were the problem – not speed.

[133] Although the specifics of what Mr. Villeneuve said to the police as to his likely recidivism may have been fuelled by the speed in his system or by his desire to go to a mental health facility rather than a jail, what Mr. Villeneuve said about himself is consistent with his risk of recidivism with a violent offence as estimated by the actuarial risk assessment instruments used by Dr. Gray. I accept Dr. Gray’s assessment that overall there is a very high likelihood that Mr. Villeneuve will reoffend with a violent offence if he is released into the community.

Intractability of Mr. Villeneuve’s Violent Behaviour

[134] The next question is whether Mr. Villeneuve’s behaviour, and therefore the risk he poses to others, is likely to change. This is the issue of intractability. Is Mr. Villeneuve’s behaviour something he is unable to surmount? Again, I accept Dr. Gray’s assessment at p. 42 of his Report that Mr. Villeneuve’s risk of committing another impulsive offence that may put others at risk of injury or death is intractable. A review of Mr. Villeneuve’s youth and criminal records shows that Mr. Villeneuve started his offending behaviour at the early age of 13 and, since that time, has continued a pattern of reoffending with depressing regularity. Assaults and reckless and dangerous driving offences have put members of the community at risk of severe injury, but even the break and enters and the car thefts create situations where harm to others is foreseeable.

[135] As Dr. Gray observed, Mr. Villeneuve has not been successful at remaining in the community outside of highly supervised and structured residential settings for more than two or three months at a time before reoffending. In some cases, the reoffences have occurred within a matter of days of his release from prison. Even living in a structured environment, Mr. Villeneuve has had great difficulty following rules and expectations. I note that he has 15 convictions for breaches of probation orders, undertakings, or recognizances.

[136] By way of example and to how persistent and intractable Mr. Villeneuve’s behaviour is, on the same afternoon as he attempted to murder Ms. Jerome, Mr. Villeneuve broke into a home in a residential neighbourhood and stole a variety of items, including a computer, car keys, and various credit cards. He had a knife in his possession.

[137] During his police interview on October 13, 2018, Mr. Villeneuve claimed that, at the time of his arrest, he had been pacing back and forth near the home after the break-in because he was waiting until the family got home, then he was going to do a home invasion, tie up all members of the family, slit their throats, take their car and all their stuff, and give their stuff to his girlfriend and her children. During the interview with Dr. Gray in 2019 for the NCR assessment, Mr. Villeneuve said he had no memory of breaking into anyone’s house and said he would not have stayed in the area after the break-in for fear of being caught. As noted above, the different versions as to what Mr. Villeneuve may have been thinking or feeling around the time of the break-in could be attributable to his still being influenced by speed in his system during the police interview and that not being the case when he was interviewed by Dr. Gray OR it could be the result of his saying different things to different people about the same event to accomplish different goals. Whichever the case, this is one more example of his engaging in impulsive, opportunistic behaviour for monetary gain, not caring who might get hurt as a result of his behaviour.

[138] That Mr. Villeneuve was angry and hostile on October 12, 2018 is clear in how he reacted to the officers who arrested him and were dealing with him in the cell block. Mr. Villeneuve was verbally aggressive, threatening, and uncooperative with the police officers and kicked out at the arresting officer, necessitating Mr. Villeneuve’s arms and legs being restrained and force being used to move him from place to place. He continued this same aggressive behaviour toward staff at the cell block.

[139] Mr. Villeneuve’s file contains countless references to his acting in this fashion toward staff and those in authority at group homes, at school, at detention centres, and at the penitentiary – often to the point of having to be restrained by more than one staff member or the police.

[140] As Dr. Gray observed at p. 43 of his Report, the intractability of the risk of violent reoffending is demonstrated not only by the number of offences he has committed and the speed at which he commits them once released from incarceration, but also by the ineffectiveness of all the treatment programs and modalities already offered to Mr. Villeneuve – both when he was a youth and since he has been an adult. As will be reviewed in more detail later in these Reasons, to date Mr. Villeneuve has been unable or unwilling to benefit from these programs. As well, he remains unwilling or unable to follow the terms and conditions of any court orders that have attempted to offer structure and parameters for his life in the community.

[141] As Dr. Gray explained, Mr. Villeneuve’s apparent inability to change his behaviour is consistent with the high score of 33 which Dr. Gray assigned to Mr. Villeneuve on the PCL-R instrument. A score of 30 is the cut-off to meet the construct of psychopathy and offenders with a score above 25 on the PCL-R are associated with a higher risk of re-offending and a poor response to treatment.

Dangerous Offender Designation

[142] In conclusion, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that:

• Mr. Villeneuve has been convicted of a serious personal injury offence, namely attempted murder;
• This offence is part of a broader pattern of persistent aggressive behaviour showing a substantial degree of indifference on his part respecting the reasonably foreseeable consequences to other persons of his behaviour;
• There is a strong likelihood that Mr. Villeneuve will violently reoffend; and
• Mr. Villeneuve’s behaviour is intractable, as evidenced by the number of offences on his criminal record, the speed at which he commits offences once released from prison, and the failure of any previous court orders, programs, or treatment modalities to curb his offending and get him on a pro-social path.

[143] Thus, I find that Mr. Villeneuve constitutes a threat to the life, safety or physical or mental well-being of other persons and, as required by s. 753(1)(a) of the Code, I designate him a dangerous offender.

Analysis: Disposition

Section 753(4) and (4.1) of the Code

[144] Section 753(4) of the Code reads:

If the court finds an offender to be a dangerous offender, it shall

(a) impose a sentence of detention in a penitentiary for an indeterminate period;

(b) impose a sentence for the offence for which the offender has been convicted – which must be a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of two years – and order that the offender be subject to long-term supervision for a period that does not exceed 10 years; or

(c) impose a sentence for the offence for which the offender has been convicted.

[145] Section 753(4.1) of the Code reads:

The court shall impose a sentence of detention in a penitentiary for an indeterminate period unless it is satisfied by the evidence adduced during the hearing of the application that there is a reasonable expectation that a lesser measure under paragraph 4(b) or (c) will adequately protect the public against the commission by the offender of murder or a serious personal injury offence.

[146] As Watt J.A. stated in R. v. Straub, 2022 ONCA 47, at para. 45, the standard to be met under s. 753(4.1) is that of “reasonable expectation” and not “reasonable possibility”: “A ‘reasonable possibility’ describes something that may happen. A ‘reasonable expectation’ refers to a belief that something will happen.” The question I must consider is whether there is a reasonable expectation that a lesser measure than an indeterminate sentence will adequately protect the public against Mr. Villeneuve committing a serious personal injury office or murder. For the following reasons, I am not satisfied that such a reasonable expectation exists.

Past Interventions and Their Success

[147] Matthew Villeneuve has been offered numerous opportunities for individual counselling, group therapy, and various treatment programs since he was a child. In addition, several child and youth workers at the CAS, group home supervisors, mental health counsellors, and probation officers have taken an interest in his welfare and have stood by him, through thick and thin, over many years – often being at the end of the phone at all hours of the day and night to offer him support or to help him get out of difficult situations. In short, tireless efforts have gone into helping Mr. Villeneuve, both as a child and as an adult, deal with his challenges and live in society without running afoul of the law. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, Mr. Villeneuve has not been able to meaningfully participate in the counselling he has been offered and benefit from it. Nor has he benefitted from the one-on-one mentoring and guidance that he has received.

[148] As a child, Matthew received individualized counselling at the Child and Family Treatment Centre. For a long stretch during his four-year stay at the Woodcock Youth Centre, he had bi-weekly individualized counselling with Andrew Alkenbrack of Quinte Counselling Services, bi-monthly individual sessions with Dr. Philippe Robaey from CHEO’s Outpatient Mental Health office, and counselling from Joan Boyd of the St. Lawrence Youth Association. During this period, Mr. Alkenbrack reported that maintaining a therapeutic alliance with Matthew was difficult. He tended to externalize or deny problems. If the counsellor tried to engage in meaningful discussions, Matthew tended to respond with one-word answers or simply walk away. Mr. Alkenbrack described Matthew’s style of interaction as egotistical and materialistic in nature: if there was something concrete in the interaction for Matthew, he engaged. If not, he did not bother.

[149] This assessment is repeated throughout the notes on Mr. Villeneuve’s file. It led to Dr. Robaey at a certain point discontinuing his regular one-on-one meetings with Matthew because Matthew was not willing or able to engage in the therapeutic process in any meaningful way. Ms. Boyd observed during this period that although Matthew acknowledged that he had a problem with anger and aggression, he thought the real problem was with other people. He did not see the correlation between his behaviour and the problems that he experienced every day at the group home, at school, and with peers.

[150] In his April 30, 2009 Report, Dr. Robaey stated:

To summarize, Matthew’s behaviour is very difficult to control and treatment strategies have to combine medication with psycho-educational approach. He requires very strict limit setting, a clear reward system and a constant focus on building a secure attachment with some key figures. The psycho-educational approach has to take into account … Matthew’s cognitive limitations. Rules have to be very clear, concrete and consistent.

[151] It was Dr. Robaey’s assessment that Woodcock Youth Center had adopted this approach with Matthew and yet, violent incidents continued to occur. Dr. Robaey believed that these incidents were managed in a way that was always through clear and predictable consequences in a supportive relationship with Matthew. He observed that the staff at Woodcock had never given up on Matthew and that they were doing all they could to manage his behaviour and continue to provide a home for him.

[152] In a July 17, 2010 Report, Dr. Kimberly noted that Mr. Villeneuve deals with “uncomfortable feelings” by “rejecting before he is rejected”. In other words, his fear of abandonment leads him to distrust staff, counsellors, and psychotherapists ostensibly trying to help and support him and to reject the relationship or act in a way that inevitably will lead to its breach before the other adult has a chance to abandon him. Mr. Villeneuve’s file is replete with references to this response on his part.

[153] When Mr. Villeneuve was at the Roberts/Smart Centre, he received one-on-one counselling with Katherine Doucette. She described him as using the sessions as his opportunity to complain about everything he was unhappy about, rather than being willing to work on finding solutions to his concerns or linking his problems with his own behaviour, though by the end of his stay, he appeared a little more committed to working on solutions.

[154] After Mr. Villeneuve was first convicted of criminal offences and placed on probation, his probation officer recommended he attend courses offered by the John Howard Society’s Non-Residential Attendance Centre. Mr. Villeneuve only attended four of eight sessions of the course on “Alternatives for Aggression” and did not attend any sessions on the “ABC of Risky Thinking” because of his incarcerations.

[155] When Mr. Villeneuve was serving his sentence at the Sherwood Youth Centre in late 2011, early 2012, he refused to participate in the regular programs. A special program was created for him with one-on-one staff involvement. Mr. Villeneuve was reported as sabotaging his treatment and claimed he did not like the behavioural and treatment expectations placed on him. He had several “stand-offs” with staff, destroyed property when his demands were not met, was disruptive in classes, and put little effort into his work.

[156] Mr. Villeneuve did not like his placement at the Unaliyi Outdoor Therapeutic Program and told his probation officer that he was going to breach his conditions to get out. A month after arriving at the program, he stole a staff vehicle and drove to North Bay, resulting in further charges for dangerous driving, assault with a weapon (the vehicle), and breach of conditions.

[157] Mr. Villeneuve served his sentence for these offences at the Syl Apps Youth Centre from April 26 to October 22, 2012. He met weekly with a social worker from April to June 2012 and then with a psychologist, Dr. Janelle Hall, until his discharge. Both therapists described Mr. Villeneuve as coming easily to sessions and fully participating to the best of his abilities. He was described as looking out for others, being disciplined, and working on impulse control – the most positive comments from any institution that has housed Mr. Villeneuve. Mr. Villeneuve also participated in the Dialectical Behavioural Therapy Skills program (DBT) on a weekly basis. Dr. Hall felt that Mr. Villeneuve had a genuine desire to change but struggled to accept personal responsibility for his actions. Mr. Villeneuve described the Syl Apps Youth Centre as the best group home he had ever been in and he testified that he had benefited from the programming there. He described the period in his life from October 2012 until April 2013 as the one with the greatest stability. He attributed that, in part, to the programming he had received at the Syl Apps Youth Centre.

[158] While living semi-independently at the Dalhousie facility in Smiths Falls, Mr. Villeneuve had access to a social worker, a probation officer, and 20 hours of one-on-one counselling a week. At the end of the period of probation, the probation officer noted that Mr. Villeneuve continued to struggle with feelings of entitlement and wanting to do things his way or no way. He wanted to live freely and on his own rules. The probation officer was concerned that Mr. Villeneuve would soon reoffend due to his attitude and impulsive nature, and that proved to be the case.

[159] In summary, for stretches of time when Mr. Villeneuve as a youth was living in group home or institutional settings, he had a one-on-one support worker for several hours a day to provide him with mentoring, guidance, structure, established routines, clear expectations, and consistent consequences for poor behaviour. Despite this level of supervision, and with the exception of the time Mr. Villeneuve spent at the Syl Apps Youth Centre, Mr. Villeneuve’s aggressive, assaultive, and threatening behaviour could not be managed in a group home setting due to the risk it posed to the staff, other residents, and Mr. Villeneuve himself. During much of this time, when attending educational institutions, Mr. Villeneuve also had his own educational assistant. Despite this intervention, Mr. Villeneuve’s behaviour was so disruptive in the school setting that he was frequently suspended or denied entrance into programs.

[160] It is to be noted that, from an early age, Mr. Villeneuve has been prescribed a variety of medications relating to his ADHD, disruptive behaviour, and poor sleeping, and his medications have been adjusted and changed frequently to maximize their effectiveness. Those prescriptions continue until today. Over the years, sometimes Mr. Villeneuve was compliant with the medication regime; at other times, he decided on his own to discontinue the medications or only take them sporadically.

[161] Once Mr. Villeneuve had moved into his own apartment and was clearly struggling to manage the apartment and his finances, his CAS worker sought the assistance of the Canadian Mental Health Association (CMHA) for some on-going counselling for Mr. Villeneuve to assist him in adjusting to his new independence. Although Mr. Villeneuve had indicated that he would like some counselling of this nature, when he and the case worker went to meet with the intake person at CMHA, Mr. Villeneuve said he was not interested in counselling and was just interested in getting a job. He claimed that everything was fine, it took him a lot of time to trust anyone, and that until he trusts someone, he would not talk to them about his family or any emotional issues. Although Mr. Villeneuve claimed that everything was fine and he did not need counselling to make a success of living on his own, while he was at Dalhousie and when he first got his own apartment, he was constantly calling staff at the home or his CAS worker for assistance.

[162] From October 2013 to January 4, 2014, Mr. Villeneuve was housed at the Secure Treatment Unit (STU) at the St. Lawrence Valley Correctional and Treatment Centre where he participated in a PTSD and leisure education group. He was readmitted to the STU on April 10, 2014 but was discharged back to jail on August 21, 2014 due to his disruptive and disrespectful behaviour which had resulted in his being on administrative segregation on four occasions. During this second stay at the STU, Mr. Villeneuve attended four of the fourteen sessions of the Reasoning and Rehabilitation Group that focused on teaching skills and values required for pro-social functioning. Although Mr. Villeneuve said he would attend sessions, he found reasons not to and, according to staff, would not have successfully completed the program even if he had remained for his entire sentence at the STU. He simply was not motivated to learn from the program and, in fact, showed that he was not taking in what was being taught when he did attend the meetings.

[163] After Mr. Villeneuve was released into the community on October 28, 2014, he had four individuals assisting him: a counsellor from Leeds and Grenville Mental Health, his CAS worker, another counsellor, and his probation officer. Despite this level of support, Mr. Villeneuve again reoffended in December 2014 and January and February 2015.

[164] Mr. Villeneuve began a federal sentence on February 18, 2015. He was recommended for the “Multi-Target High Intensity Program”. Unfortunately, he was unable to start the program due to his disruptive behaviours that resulted in a succession of segregation placements and transfers to other institutions. In the first fifteen months of his sentence, he transferred between institutions seven times. In any event, Mr. Villeneuve advised Dr. Gray that he did not have treatment while in federal institutions because he is not a people person and cannot do groups. He would only do individual therapy. While incarcerated, he spoke to psychologists when he needed to and was followed by a psychiatrist for his medications. Otherwise, it was his plan to stick to himself, do his time, and get out without taking any programs.

[165] On July 13, 2016, Steve Kemp, a parole officer made the following comments about Mr. Villeneuve:

[He] presents as being immature and is easily agitated and angered. He presents with a great deal of impulsivity; however, does not seem to recognize these traits in himself. He has demonstrated that he lacks consequential thinking and has presented with an inability to manage his emotional arousal. He continues to require intervention in terms of developing skills to appropriately problem-solve, self-regulate and set boundaries and goals. To his credit, Mir. Villeneuve does not (sic.) appear to have the ability to reflect on his poor management of emotions after the fact, and tends to justify and minimize his behaviour. Mr. Villeneuve has not made any progress in addressing this dynamic factor. His continual problematic behaviour in the institution has resulted in his inability to participate in programming.

Mr. Villeneuve does not appear to recognize that a problem exists within his lifestyle and presents as being comfortable with the choices he has made which resulted in this criminal offending and institutional difficulties. He presents as somewhat entitled and has demonstrated little willingness to change his behaviour.

[166] Between January 24 and February 8, 2018, Mr. Villeneuve was again housed at the STU; however, as a result of his verbal aggression towards staff and his disruptive behaviour on the unit, he was discharged early and unable to participate in any therapeutic groups.

Recent Recommendations

[167] Following his assessment of Mr. Villeneuve in April 2019, Dr. Adiele recommended anger management treatment and other psychotherapy programs which utilize Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) techniques to assist Mr. Villeneuve to identify the faulty interpretations of his sensations and experiences, moderate and control the associated emotional correlations such as anger, target his apparently low frustration tolerance, and learn alternative strategies to resolve conflicts without violence. Dr. Adiele recommended that Mr. Villeneuve be placed at the St. Lawrence Valley Correctional and Treatment Centre but acknowledged that Mr. Villeneuve would not be able to stay at the centre or to benefit from any programming if he was unable to curb his violent and disruptive behaviour. In any event, the appropriate sentence for Mr. Villeneuve’s index offences is one in a federal penitentiary.

[168] Following his NCR assessment of Mr. Villeneuve in September 2019, Dr. Gray recommended that Mr. Villeneuve seek treatment in the areas of anger management and cognitive skills within the federal system. He went on to say:

While it may be helpful to Mr. Villeneuve to receive treatment of some sort to help reduce his risk of violent or general reoffence, this will prove to be a major challenge based on his past failed attempts. As noted above, in my opinion he clearly does not show psychiatric evidence sufficient to be found not criminally responsible for his actions and would not even benefit on a practical level from most programs in the forensic system. His problems are not stemming from a psychotic or mood disorder, conditions that are more effectively treated in the forensic or health care system. Rather his difficulties are due to criminogenic factors such as antisocial thinking, impulse control, aggression and anger management, which are best addressed with treatment in the correctional system.

[169] Following his January 2020 assessment of Mr. Villeneuve under s. 21 of the Mental Health Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M-7, Dr. Reghuvaran Kunjakrishnan concluded that Mr. Villeneuve could benefit from various treatments including anger management, counselling and psychotherapy – particularly CBT; however, he expressed uncertainty as to whether Mr. Villeneuve was sufficiently motivated to participate in this kind of treatment program.

Institutional Programs Offered by Correctional Service Canada

[170] Under the Integrated Correctional Program Model (ICPM) offered by Correction Service Canada, Mr. Villeneuve would have the opportunity of participating in the High-Intensity Multi-Target Program (ICPM-MT) designed to assist offenders whose risks and needs place them at high risk to reoffend. This stream has a primer, a main program, and a maintenance component that includes a community program.

[171] An offender who cannot or refuses to participate in the program will be referred to a motivational module of four individual sessions with a correctional officer to try to get them on track. The motivational module is targeted to three types of offenders: (1) offenders who refuse to participate in programs, (2) offenders who drop out of programs, and (3) offenders who require additional support and assistance to successfully complete programs. [8] Considering Mr. Villeneuve’s past experience with group programs in various institutions, it is foreseeable that he might need to take one or more of the motivational module streams to enable him to fully participate in the ICPM-MT. In the past, he has refused to participate in group programming or has dropped out of programs, and his low cognitive functioning could mean he would need extra time and support to complete the program.

[172] The motivational module can be adapted for offenders who have unique responsivity needs that may impact both functioning (i.e., cognitive impairments, mental health issues and/or learning disabilities) and their ability to participate successfully in correctional programming. The evidence is that Mr. Villeneuve would likely need such an adaptation for any program being offered. [9]

[173] The High-Intensity ICPM-MT consists of five modules. There are 87 group sessions of two to two and a half hours each and an additional five individual sessions. The maximum group size is twelve participants. There are a maximum of six sessions per week, but this may vary depending on the site routine and program delivery schedules.

[174] At this point, the High Intensity ICPM-MT does not have an adapted program for offenders who have unique responsivity needs that may impact both functioning and their ability to participate successfully in correctional programming. The Moderate Intensity ICPM-MT has such a program, but Mr. Villeneuve’s risk of reoffending is too high for him to be placed in that program.

[175] Graduates of the High-Intensity ICPM-MT participate in the institutional maintenance program and/or the community maintenance program, as required. [10] The community maintenance program consists of a series of 12 group sessions once a week during which a facilitator helps offenders deal with challenges they are facing in the community. There is no individual counselling offered during the maintenance component of ICPM-MT.

[176] According to Daria Swayne, the employee from Corrections Canada who testified at the hearing, it takes about six to eight months for an offender to complete the High Intensity ICPM-MT. If the offender is in maximum security, it takes a lot longer, but she could not say how long. That would depend on several factors. Ms. Swayne estimates that it requires about four years of actual custodial time for someone in medium security to complete the High Intensity ICPM-MT prior to statutory release. There are longer wait lists in maximum security settings and more lockdowns and other occurrences that result in programming not being offered as frequently or consistently as is done in medium security settings.

[177] Considering Mr. Villeneuve’s history of reoffending, the nature of his most recent offences, his disruptive behaviour during earlier periods of incarceration, and his refusal to participate in any programming when last in a federal institution, there is little doubt that following the initial intake and assessment process at the institution, Mr. Villeneuve will be classified as a high-risk offender and will be placed in a maximum-security institution. [11] This means that, even in the unlikely event that Mr. Villeneuve applied himself diligently in the programs being offered and was able to understand and advance through the sessions, it could likely take well more than four years before Mr. Villeneuve could complete the ICPM-MT.

Likelihood of Success of Treatment Programs

[178] As detailed above, Mr. Villeneuve has not been able to benefit from the extensive treatment interventions that have been offered to him since he was a child. In every setting he has been in, he has had individual counsellors and access to psychiatric care – sometimes for counselling but always for pharmacological interventions. He has also had access to group therapy – most of which he refused.

[179] Mr. Villeneuve has frequently stated in the past that he does not like group therapy and would only participate in one-on-one therapy programs – something that cannot be offered in our correctional institutions. He has stated on several occasions that he does not like to be around other criminals and does not want to share his story with them. Although Mr. Villeneuve stated while testifying that he was willing to participate in group programs, his evidence is suspect. Mr. Villeneuve has shown a pattern over the last 15 years of lying and being manipulative in order to get what he wants at a given point in time. Currently, what Mr. Villeneuve wants is to not be designated a dangerous offender, and to get out of prison as soon as possible. I have no doubt that he will say what he thinks the court wants to hear to find in his favour. Consequently, what is more telling is Mr. Villeneuve’s past behaviour when institutionalized and his refusal to participate in a meaningful way in any group therapy, aside from some programs offered at the Syl Apps Centre.

[180] According to Dr. Gray, the St. Lawrence Valley Correctional Centre, of all the provincial correctional institutions, has the most extensive range of treatment options available to offenders. Mr. Villeneuve had the opportunity to benefit from its programs on three occasions (2011, 2012, 2018) but did not take advantage of what was being offered. The Reasoning and Rehabilitation Group may have helped him address his criminal thinking and impulsivity; however, he was not motivated to attend the group or complete the program. Although it may be possible that a treatment program such as CBT or DBT would help to reduce the likelihood that Mr. Villeneuve would violently reoffend again, it is not reasonably likely that any such treatment programs would have the desired result at this time due to Mr. Villeneuve’s aversion to group therapy.

[181] A further consideration is that Mr. Villeneuve’s behaviour up to the current time, while in group homes or correctional institutions, has been so disruptive, aggressive, and manipulative that he has consistently had to be removed from or denied group activities in order to protect other residents, inmates, or staff or in order to protect himself from other inmates irritated by his behaviour. Mr. Villeneuve’s disruptive behaviour has landed him in administration segregation on numerous occasions. As well, he has had to be moved frequently from institution to institution for his safety and the safety of others as a result of conflict with other inmates, often involving drug debts. It is difficult for programming to be offered to inmates who are never in an institution long enough to follow a program from beginning to end.

[182] What also militates against the success of any proposed treatment programs is Mr. Villeneuve’s refusal or inability to accept reality; namely, that he has repeatedly committed violent offences or offences that have put others at great risk. When he says he is not a violent person, he shows a total lack of understanding of how staff at the various group homes and institutions, other residents or inmates, and complete strangers have experienced his behaviour. He has both physically and emotionally harmed them.

[183] Before Mr. Villeneuve will likely be open to any treatment modality, he will have to accept responsibility for his behaviour and realize that something will have to change if he is ever going to be able to live in the community. Putting the blame on others has been a hallmark of his and is not an attribute that bodes well for successful treatment.

[184] Also of concern is Dr. Gray’s observation that in Mr. Villeneuve’s case, there are no clear and defined psychiatric conditions that could be treated to reduce the risk of reoffence, such as schizophrenia, bi-polar disorder, or substance abuse disorder. Although Mr. Villeneuve may suffer from PTSD, and that is not entirely clear, Dr. Gray is of the view that PTSD is likely not what produces Mr. Villeneuve’s aggressive behaviour. Thus, treating him for PTSD will likely not have a significant impact on his behaviour. Dr. Gray described Mr. Villeneuve’s risk as based on criminogenic factors such as impulsivity, need for stimulation, failure to accept responsibility for his actions, and criminal associates. In Dr. Gray’s opinion, these factors are intractable and longstanding and do not lend themselves easily to treatment.

[185] Finally, Mr. Villeneuve’s high score on the Psychopathy Checklist also suggests that his risk of reoffence is less likely to be modified through treatment programs than would be the case if he had a lower score.

Community Supervision Offered by Correctional Service Canada

[186] The assessment and management of the risks posed by an offender is an ongoing process undertaken by CSC starting as soon as the offender is given a federal sentence, continuing while the offender is in the institution, and carrying on while the offender is on parole in the community or subject to a long-term supervision order. [12] One consideration is what supports the offender has in the community at the present time and is likely to have when released from prison. Sadly, in Mr. Villeneuve’s case, no family, friendship, community, or agency supports have been identified.

[187] Mr. Villeneuve’s plans to reintegrate into the community, were he to be released, are unrealistic and show no appreciation of the challenges he would experience. He talked about getting his own apartment and finding part-time work with the help of Leeds and Grenville Mental Health; however, Mr. Villeneuve’s attempts at living in an unstructured environment like this in the past have failed miserably after a matter of days or weeks. He spoke of getting support from his mother and sister; however, he has been estranged from them since he went to jail. He spoke of getting support from a girlfriend, but the so-called girlfriends that Mr. Villeneuve has had in the past have been transitory and, by his own evidence, have increased his risk of offending. In short, Mr. Villeneuve does not now and is unlikely in the foreseeable future to have personal support from family, friends, or any identified community to help him adapt to life in the community after so many years living in institutional settings.

[188] CSC and the National Parole Board recognize the importance of a gradual, structured, and supervised re-entry of an offender into the community after lengthy prison terms. If Mr. Villeneuve serves a finite sentence and is then released to the community on parole or if he is subject to a long-term supervision order, CSC would help Mr. Villeneuve comply with the conditions imposed by CSC or the National Parole Board. It is inconceivable that Mr. Villeneuve would be released to the community either on parole or subject to a long-term supervision order without one of the conditions being that he live in a highly structured and supervised setting.

[189] CSC owns and operates 14 Community Correctional Centres (CCCs) across the country that, together with privately-run Community Residential Facilities (CRFs), provide a bridge between federal institutions and independent community living. CRFs can refuse certain offenders and, considering Mr. Villeneuve’s record of disruptive behaviour and abscondments, that is what he could easily face. CCCs cannot refuse to take an offender; the challenge is that there are insufficient beds to meet the need. [13]

[190] CCCs offer a structured and intervention-centred living environment for offenders on release to the community. “CCCs are designed for offenders who need a high degree of structure based on their higher level of risk or have complex needs (or both) [and] are unable to secure other appropriate accommodations to facilitate a safe, gradual and structured return to the community”. [14] That being said, even if an offender is placed at a CCC, CSC does not provide 24-hour supervision. Offenders continue to have access to the community. [15]

[191] Over and above the residency condition, for Mr. Villeneuve to be released into the community, there would be regular meetings with a parole officer, probably counselling or treatment requirements, and limitations imposed on his freedom and choices. Up to this point, Mr. Villeneuve has never responded well to these impositions on his freedom. It is foreseeable that he would not respond well to them in the future, unless programming within the institution were able to modify this thinking and his behaviour before he was released into the community. No credible evidence has been presented at this hearing which leads me to believe that that is a likely scenario.

Likelihood of Control in the Community

[192] Dr. Gray is of the opinion that there is no reasonable expectation of control of Mr. Villeneuve’s risk of violent reoffending if he were to live in the community, an assessment with which I agree.

[193] A review of Mr. Villeneuve’s file reveals that he has never been successful at completing a term of supervision in the community without a breach. Many of those breaches involved his committing new offences for which he was incarcerated. Between the ages of 18 and 27, Mr. Villeneuve has lived in the community for less than a year.

[194] Legal orders, such as release orders or probation orders, do not seem to carry any deterrent effect on Mr. Villeneuve, nor does the likelihood of ever lengthening sentences for his offences. He acts impulsively when opportunities present themselves, when he is angry or frustrated, or when he is bored – without any consideration for the legal ramifications of his actions. Mr. Villeneuve does not see probation as a meaningful intervention in his life. He sees it as a nuisance – something he must do to stay out of jail but not something from which he could benefit. When Mr. Villeneuve testified that he would be willing to be supervised in the community, it was because he considers meetings with probation or parole officers as pro forma events where he checks in, says he is fine, maybe tries to get some material thing he wants, but otherwise does not have serious conversations with the person about his challenges.

[195] Secure supervised environments have also not prevented or deterred Mr. Villeneuve from reoffending, as evidenced by the string of offences he committed when in such settings as a youth. Dr. Gray stated that if Mr. Villeneuve, now an adult, were released to a secure correctional facility as part of a gradual reintegration plan into the community, he would almost certainly violate the conditions of his release within a short period of time, likely through breach of curfew, absconding from the residence, or assaulting a staff member who stood in the way of his getting what he wanted. This type of breach would result in his reincarceration which could reduce the risk of more violent reoffending – at least in the community – though it would also interrupt any gradual, safe reintegration into the community. What this means is that, currently, Mr. Villeneuve needs incarceration to prevent him from reoffending violently.

[196] Looking at past behaviour to predict future behaviour, it is likely that, if Mr. Villeneuve were living in the community for any length of time – even if in a relatively secure setting – he would engage once again in impulsive, thrill-seeking, rule-breaking behaviour. Such behaviour is likely to endanger the life or safety of other people, as has been shown in the past with Mr. Villeneuve’s dangerous driving convictions and this attempted murder conviction. This is especially so if Mr. Villeneuve were to use drugs on a recreational basis.

Indeterminate Sentence

[197] For these reasons, I am not satisfied by the evidence adduced at the hearing that there is a reasonable expectation that a measure less than an indeterminate sentence will adequately protect the public against the commission by Mr. Villeneuve of a serious personal injury offence. Consequently, by virtue of s. 753(4.1) of the Code, I must impose on Matthew Villeneuve a sentence of detention in a penitentiary for an indefinite period.

Ancillary Orders

[198] Mr. Villeneuve shall also be subject to a lifetime weapons prohibition under s. 109 of the Code and a DNA order under s. 487.051(1) of the Code. Finally, an order shall go under s. 743.21 of the Code prohibiting Mr. Villeneuve from communicating directly or indirectly with Kerstin Jerome, Alanna Phomin, and Yao Zheng during the custodial period of the sentence.

Footnotes

[1] Consultation Report of Dr. Karl MacEwen, Child & Youth Counselling Services, Cornwall General Hospital, December 19, 2001; Report of Robert Billard, Child and Family Treatment Centre, Cornwall, April 16, 2004; Report of Dr. Sophia Hrcko, psychiatrist, CHEO, August 2006; Report of Dr. C. Beauregard, psychologist, CHEO, August 2006; Report of Dr. Philippe Robaey, psychiatrist, CHEO, April 30, 2009; Report of Dr. Kimberly, psychiatrist, Kingston Family Court Clinic, June 17, 2010; Report of Dr. Shelly Jordan, psychologist, Ottawa Anxiety & Family Trauma Clinic; Psychoeducational Consultation Report of the Quinte Assessment & Treatment Group, January 25, 2011; Report of Dr. Catherine Boucher, psychiatrist, Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre, November 21, 2011; Report of Margaret Lederman, psychologist, Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre, November 3, 2011; Report of Dr. C.A. Bradley, psychiatrist, Kinark Child & Family Services, May 2, 2012; Intake and Discharge Reports of Dr. Alfonso Corona, psychiatrist, Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre, October 3, 2013 and December 12, 2013; Intake and Discharge Reports of Dr. Alfonso Corona, psychiatrist, Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre, April 10, 2014 and August 12, 2014; Consultation Reports of Dr. R. Kunjukrishnan, Royal Ottawa Health Care Group, September 18, 2018 and October 2, 2018; Report of Dr. Anthony Adiele, psychiatrist, Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre, August 19, 2019; and Report of Dr. Jennifer Newman, psychologist, Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre, August 19, 2019.

[2] Report of Dr. R. Kunjukrishnan, January 28, 2020.

[3] Report of Dr. Jonathan Gray, Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre, September 26, 2019; Report of Dr. R. Kunjukrishnan, January 28, 2020.

[4] Report of Dr. Jonathan Gray, Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre, December 30, 2020.

[5] Ibid, note 1.

[6] Ibid, note 1.

[7] Ibid, note 1.

[8] Correctional Service Canada, Reintegration Programs Correctional and Education Program Descriptions, at p. 6.

[9] Ibid, note 8, at p. 19.

[10] Ibid, note 8, at p. 10.

[11] Ibid, note 8, at para. 46.

[12] Angela Haydon, Community Supervision Information Package, 2019, at para. 14.

[13] Ibid, at p. 35.

[14] Ibid, note 12, at p. 34.

[15] Ibid, note 12, at p. 39.

Aitken J. Released: April 14, 2022