WARNING

The President of the panel hearing this appeal directs that the following should be attached to the file:

An order restricting publication in this proceeding under ss. 486.4(1), (2), (2.1), (2.2), (3) or (4) or 486.6(1) or (2) of the Criminal Code shall continue. These sections of the Criminal Code provide:

486.4(1) Subject to subsection (2), the presiding judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the victim or a witness shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way, in proceedings in respect of

(a) any of the following offences;

(i) an offence under section 151, 152, 153, 153.1, 155, 159, 160, 162, 163.1, 170, 171, 171.1, 172, 172.1, 172.2, 173, 210, 211, 213, 271, 272, 273, 279.01, 279.011, 279.02, 279.03, 280, 281, 286.1, 286.2, 286.3, 346 or 347, or

(ii) any offence under this Act, as it read at any time before the day on which this subparagraph comes into force, if the conduct alleged involves a violation of the complainant's sexual integrity and that conduct would be an offence referred to in subparagraph (i) if it occurred on or after that day; or

(iii) REPEALED: S.C. 2014, c. 25, s. 22(2), effective December 6, 2014 (Act, s. 49).

(b) two or more offences being dealt with in the same proceeding, at least one of which is an offence referred to in paragraph (a).

486.4(2) In proceedings in respect of the offences referred to in paragraph (1)(a) or (b), the presiding judge or justice shall

(a) at the first reasonable opportunity, inform any witness under the age of eighteen years and the victim of the right to make an application for the order; and

(b) on application made by the victim, the prosecutor or any such witness, make the order.

486.4(2.1) Subject to subsection (2.2), in proceedings in respect of an offence other than an offence referred to in subsection (1), if the victim is under the age of 18 years, the presiding judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the victim shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way.

486.4(2.2) In proceedings in respect of an offence other than an offence referred to in subsection (1), if the victim is under the age of 18 years, the presiding judge or justice shall

(a) as soon as feasible, inform the victim of their right to make an application for the order; and

(b) on application of the victim or the prosecutor, make the order.

486.4(3) In proceedings in respect of an offence under section 163.1, a judge or justice shall make an order directing that any information that could identify a witness who is under the age of eighteen years, or any person who is the subject of a representation, written material or a recording that constitutes child pornography within the meaning of that section, shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way.

486.4(4) An order made under this section does not apply in respect of the disclosure of information in the course of the administration of justice when it is not the purpose of the disclosure to make the information known in the community. 2005, c. 32, s. 15; 2005, c. 43, s. 8(3)(b); 2010, c. 3, s. 5; 2012, c. 1, s. 29; 2014, c. 25, ss. 22, 48; 2015, c. 13, s. 18.

486.6(1) Every person who fails to comply with an order made under subsection 486.4(1), (2) or (3) or 486.5(1) or (2) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

486.6(2) For greater certainty, an order referred to in subsection (1) applies to prohibit, in relation to proceedings taken against any person who fails to comply with the order, the publication in any document or the broadcasting or transmission in any way of information that could identify a victim, witness or justice system participant whose identity is protected by the order. 2005, c. 32, s. 15.

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Date: 2017-02-16

Docket: C59855

Panel: MacPherson, Rouleau and Brown JJ.A.

Between

Her Majesty the Queen Respondent

and

John Siscoe Appellant

Counsel

John Siscoe, acting in person

Mabel Lai, for the respondent

Heard: February 9, 2017

On appeal from the sentence imposed on December 13, 2013 by Justice John B. McMahon of the Superior Court of Justice, sitting without a jury.

Endorsement

[1] The appellant pleaded guilty to and was convicted of aggravated assault, sexual assault, forcible confinement, and uttering threats. The sentencing judge found the appellant was a dangerous offender and imposed an indeterminate sentence.

[2] After hearing the appeal from sentence, we dismissed it with reasons to follow. These are those reasons.

[3] The appellant provided us with a letter he prepared expressing remorse, together with a desire to make a contribution to the community during his remaining years. We have read the letter and appreciate the appellant's expression of his desire to learn from his past mistakes. However, as an appeal court, our function is to correct any errors committed by the court below.

[4] The appellant appeals the imposition of an indeterminate sentence. At his sentencing hearing, the appellant submitted that a sentence of 10 years further imprisonment followed by a 10-year long-term supervision order would adequately protect the public from him committing a serious personal injury offence or murder: Criminal Code, s. 753(4.1). The appellant repeats that submission before us.

[5] The sentencing judge did not accept that submission. He conducted a detailed review of the evidence regarding several factors: (i) the practical availability of community supervision under a lesser measure; (ii) the challenge posed by the appellant's limited cognitive ability in assessing the efficacy of future counselling; (iii) the challenges posed by the combined operation of the three serious mental disorders suffered by the appellant – antisocial personality disorder, substance dependence disorder (cocaine and alcohol), and coercive sexual preference; (iv) the opinions of the forensic psychiatrist, Dr. Woodside, about (a) the high risk of the appellant reoffending by committing a violent sexual offence, (b) the appellant's lack of insight into the horrific nature of the predicate offences, and (c) the appellant's need for a life-time treatment plan and 24/7 supervision until he proved himself reliable in the community; and (v) the evidence that the degree of violence of the appellant's conduct was escalating as he grew older. Having considered that evidence, the sentencing judge concluded the appellant's proposed release and treatment plans could not adequately protect the public.

[6] We see no error in the sentencing judge's analysis or conclusion.

[7] The appeal from sentence is dismissed. We encourage the appellant to continue with the efforts described in his letter; they will be relevant to future reviews by the Parole Board.

"J.C. MacPherson J.A."

"Paul Rouleau J.A."

"David Brown J.A."