COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

CITATION: R. v. Hope, 2025 ONCA 31

DATE: 20250120

DOCKET: C70274

Huscroft, Harvison Young and Zarnett JJ.A.

BETWEEN

His Majesty the King

Respondent

and

Ronald Craig Hope

Appellant

Richard Litkowski, for the appellant

Lilly Gates, for the respondent

Heard: January 14, 2025

On appeal from the conviction entered on June 18, 2019, and the sentence imposed on January 12, 2021, by Justice John A. Desotti of the Superior Court of Justice, sitting with a jury.

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1] A jury found the appellant guilty of assault causing bodily harm, uttering threats, criminal harassment, and breach of probation and recognizance. The trial judge designated him a dangerous offender and sentenced him to a term of seven years’ imprisonment followed by a ten-year long term supervision order (“LTSO”). He appeals his conviction and his dangerous offender designation and sentence.

The conviction appeal

[2] The appellant challenges only the assault causing bodily harm conviction. He argues that although the trial judge recited the elements of the offence and the positions of the parties, he failed to set out the factual issues the jury was required to resolve and the evidence that was relevant to those issues. Specifically, the trial judge did not outline the defence theory, nor did he invite the jury to consider the photographs in evidence or some inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence, all of which might have caused the jury to question her credibility. The appellant submitted that this case is similar to R. v. J.B., 2019 ONCA 591, 378 C.C.C. (3d) 302, in which this court overturned a conviction for similar reasons.

[3] We did not call on the Crown to respond to this argument.

[4] The charge was tailored to a short trial that, with regard to the assault causing bodily harm charge, raised a single issue. The only question was whether the appellant intended to assault the complainant. The other essential elements of the offence were not in doubt. The complainant testified that the appellant thrashed her. The appellant testified that the complainant’s injuries were the result of an accident, when he fell into her and she hit her head on the fireplace.

[5] The trial judge reviewed the positions of the Crown and the defence and some of the evidence relevant to the question of intention. The trial judge did not review all of the evidence, but he was not required to. The test is not whether the jury was charged perfectly; it is whether it was charged properly: R. v. Abdullahi, 2023 SCC 19, 483 D.L.R. (4th) 1, at para. 35. We are satisfied that the jury would have understood its task based on the instructions provided. The absence of any objection to the charge from trial counsel supports the conclusion that the charge was adequate.

The dangerous offender designation appeal

[6] The appellant argues that the trial judge erred in finding that the Crown met its burden to establish that his conduct was intractable. He points out that he completed several rehabilitative programs while in custody, and that Dr. Pearce had outlined a potential risk management strategy. The appellant argues, further, that the trial judge erred in finding that the Crown met its burden to establish a repetitive pattern.

[7] We do not agree.

[8] Although the appellant completed four treatment programs since his arrest for the assault in this case, he has a lengthy history of violence against women. His record includes 48 convictions, 20 of which are offences of violence or threats of violence, mostly against his former intimate partners. Moreover, he has a history of continuing to assault intimate partners after completing rehabilitative programming. Dr. Pearce’s opinion expressed concern about the appellant’s risk of future violence, and described the appellant as “manifest[ing] indifference to the reasonably foreseeable consequences of his behaviour”.

[9] In sum, there was ample evidence from which the trial judge could reasonably conclude that intractability and a repetitive pattern were established, and he made no error in so concluding.

The dangerous offender sentence appeal

[10] The appellant argues that the trial judge erred by overvaluing the risk assessments, failing to give proper weight to the appellant’s age and health and his reduced risk of violent recidivism, and by failing to give proper weight to the proposed methods for controlling the appellant.

[11] We do not accept these arguments.

[12] The trial judge was entitled to accept Dr. Pearce’s assessment that the appellant was a moderate to high risk of violent reoffending. Dr. Pearce’s evidence was that despite the appellant’s age, there was no reduction in the severity or frequency of his offending. Moreover, Dr. Pearce remained concerned about the appellant’s recidivism despite his health, albeit that it might contribute to a risk reduction ten years from now.

[13] We are satisfied that the trial judge properly considered the appellant’s age and health in determining the appropriate sentence. The trial judge considered Dr. Pearce’s risk management suggestions but chose to incorporate them into the terms of the LTSO rather than relying on them to reduce the custodial portion of the sentence he imposed. That choice was open to him. The seven-year term and ten-year LTSO are fit and there is no basis for this court to interfere with them.

Disposition

[14] The appeal is dismissed.

“Grant Huscroft J.A.”

“A. Harvison Young J.A.”

“B. Zarnett J.A.”