WARNING

The court hearing this matter directs that the following notice be attached to the file:

A non-publication and non-broadcast order in this proceeding has been issued under subsection 486.5(1) or (2) of the Criminal Code. These subsections and subsection 486.6(1) of the Criminal Code, which is concerned with the consequence of failure to comply with an order made under subsection 486.5(1) or (2), read as follows:

486.5 ORDER RESTRICTING PUBLICATION — VICTIMS AND WITNESSES

(1) Unless an order is made under section 486.4, on application of the prosecutor in respect of a victim or a witness, or on application of a victim or a witness, a judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the victim or witness shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way if the judge or justice is satisfied that the order is necessary for the proper administration of justice.

(2) JUSTICE SYSTEM PARTICIPANTS — On application of the prosecutor in respect of a justice system participant who is involved in proceedings in respect of an offence referred to in subsection (2.1), or on application of such a justice system participant, a judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the justice system participant shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way if the judge or justice is satisfied that the order is in the interest of the proper administration of justice.

(2.1) OFFENCES – The offences for the purposes of subsection (2) are

(a) an offence under section 423.1, 467.11, 467.111, 467.12, or 467.13, or a serious offence committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with, a criminal organization;

(b) a terrorism offence;

(c) an offence under subsection 16(1) or (2), 17(1), 19(1), 20(1) or 22(1) of the Security of Information Act; or

(d) an offence under subsection 21(1) or section 23 of the Security of Information Act that is committed in relation to an offence referred to in paragraph (c).

(3) LIMITATION – An order made under this section does not apply in respect of the disclosure of information in the course of the administration of justice if it is not the purpose of the disclosure to make the information known in the community.

486.6 OFFENCE

(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.

Court Information

Ontario Court of Justice

Date: 2018-07-20

Court File No.: Toronto 4817-998-15-75009547-00, 4817-998-15-75008633-00

Between:

Her Majesty the Queen

— AND —

B.H.

Before: Justice R. Rutherford

Guilty Plea Entered: August 4, 2015

Court Appearances: July 28, August 4, September 8, 21, 28 & 30, November 3 & 18, December 17, 2015; March 1 & 29, April 28, July 18 & 20, September 13, October 4 & 31, December 1, 2016; January 16, February 27, March 23, April 28, May 3 & 8, May 30, 2017; January 19 & June 19, 2018

Dangerous Offender Hearing: November 14, 15 & 17, 2017 & April 3, 2018

Reasons for Judgment Released: July 20, 2018

Counsel:

• Christine Jenkins, for the Crown
• Daniel Brodsky, for the accused B.H.

Decision

RUTHERFORD J.:

Guilty Plea and Dangerous Offender Application

[1] On August 4, 2015 Mr. B.H. pleaded guilty to Mischief Under $5000, Assault with Weapon, Overcome Resistance to Commission of Offence, Forcible Confinement, Assault Cause Bodily Harm, three counts of Fail to Comply – Probation and Assault. Thereafter the Crown gave notice of its intention to have Mr. B.H. declared a dangerous offender. An assessment under s. 752.1 of the Criminal Code was ordered on consent. There were many delays in obtaining the assessment however after its receipt the Deputy Attorney General provided his consent to the dangerous offender application.

Circumstances of the Offence

[2] Mr. B.H. and the victim B.A. were domestic partners for seven years. There is a history of domestic violence between them. Mr. B.H. has repeatedly threatened and assaulted B.A.

[3] In 2015 after being released from prison Mr. B.H. returned to live with B.A. Violence erupted. Mr. B.H. after consuming crystal methamphetamine started arguing with B.A. He also began punching himself while threatening suicide. B.A. tried to kiss Mr. B.H.. He bit her lip causing it to bleed and swell.

[4] On a separate occasion Mr. B.H. became agitated when he thought he heard the police. He blamed B.A. For several hours he refused to allow B.A. to leave the apartment. Mr. B.H. slapped B.A. multiple times on the side and on the head. He also squeezed both of her breasts. The bruising on her breasts lasted for one week.

[5] On May 5, 2015 Mr. B.H. smoked crystal methamphetamine and used cocaine in B.A.'s home. He became agitated and began to argue with B.A. Mr. B.H. jumped on top of B.A. and choked her with both of his hands. He proceeded to slap her multiple times. He threatened to kill her. B.A. managed to break free. She ran to the door. Mr. B.H. threw an iron chair at her. He grabbed B.A.. He choked her again. He then slapped her multiple times in the face. He refused to allow her to leave the apartment. He barricaded the door with a chair. She pleaded with him to let her leave. At some point Mr. B.H. tried to hang himself with a dog leash. She pleaded with him to stop. After several hours Mr. B.H. fell asleep. B.A., without wearing shoes, ran out of the apartment in search of help. B.A. contacted the police and remained in a nearby alley until Mr. B.H. was arrested.

[6] B.A. sustained a swollen lip, bruising and soreness to her face, neck, hip and back.

[7] Mr. B.H. was arrested. While in bail court Mr. B.H. lost his temper. He punched the glass in the prisoner's box and banged his head against the cement wall in anger.

Issue on the Dangerous Offender Application

[8] It is conceded that Mr. B.H. committed serious personal injury offences. It is also conceded that the evidence has established that Mr. B.H. has engaged in a pattern of repetitive behavior similar to the offences before me and that he has demonstrated a pattern of persistent aggressive behavior.

[9] The question at the designation stage of the application is whether the Crown has established beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. B.H. poses a future threat to the safety of the public. In other words has the Crown proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. B.H. is unable to surmount his violent conduct.

Circumstances of the Defendant

[10] Mr. B.H. is a 38 year old indigenous offender. Mr. B.H.'s indigenous ancestry stems from his father. Mr. B.H. is non-status Blackfoot from Alberta.

[11] He was raised in British Columbia. His life can only be described as chaotic. Mr. B.H. lived with his mother until he was 13 years old. He described her as an alcoholic and drug addict. He was physically and emotionally abused by her.

[12] Mr. B.H.'s mother voluntarily placed Mr. B.H. into the care of Child Services. Many of the reports filed at the hearing describe Mr. B.H.'s intense feelings of abandonment and anger towards his mother.

[13] While in care Mr. B.H. lived in different foster homes. In the 2011 Gladue Report, Ms. K.B., one of his foster parents, commented that Mr. B.H.'s mother admitted that when he was a baby she blew marihuana smoke in his face and put beer into his bottle. Ms. K.B. was concerned for Mr. B.H.'s wellbeing. Ms. K.B. described Mr. B.H. as a smart young man that needed a lot of help and support.

[14] In another report filed at the hearing, Ms. K.B. explained that she tried to help Mr. B.H. but eventually had to return him to Child Services because of his violent behaviour.

[15] He started drinking alcohol and using drugs at a very young age. Mr. B.H. lived on his own at 16. He turned to crime to support himself. He struggled in school. He was often truant and got into fights. He eventually left school.

[16] Mr. B.H. has no connection to his father. Mr. B.H.'s mother and father separated when he was an infant. Mr. B.H. expressed that he felt excluded from the indigenous community. Most of his knowledge about his indigenous background was learned in jail. He has participated in indigenous programs while in youth facilities and provincial jails including the Toronto South Detention Centre.

[17] Although Dr. Klassen does not agree, Ms. K.B. believed that Mr. B.H. struggled with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder. The 2011 Gladue Report writer advised that Mr. B.H. meets many of the criteria set out in the Asante Centre for FAS's Screening and Referral Tool for Youth Probation Officers. Although the tool does not allow for a formal diagnosis it suggests that a diagnosis is reasonable and that more screening should take place for the following reasons:

(1) Mr. B.H. had behaviour and learning difficulties in school.

(2) He was in foster care.

(3) His mother was alcohol and drug dependent.

(4) He is drug dependent.

(5) He has a need for acceptance.

(6) He has poor decision making skills.

(7) He has anger management issues.

(8) He often displays frustration.

[18] Mr. B.H. has a lengthy criminal record. He has multiple convictions for violence and multiple convictions for breach of court orders.

[19] He has been convicted of committing at least 21 violent acts against B.A. He has also amassed several more convictions for breaching court orders in relation to B.A., namely contacting her when prohibited from doing so.

[20] While awaiting disposition on this case Mr. B.H. wrote multiple letters to B.A. He was charged with criminal harassment and disobey court order. He had a trial before me. I found him guilty and sentenced him to two years less pre-sentence custody.

[21] Past sentencing hearings (transcripts which were filed on this application) show that Mr. B.H. has consistently been sentenced to incarceration and probation for violence and violating court orders in relation to B.A.

[22] Mr. B.H. has attended for counselling programs over his lifetime but has not fully engaged in any particular program or regime. He has done some mainstream and indigenous anger management and a PAR type program. He advised the Court that in his view he has not been directed to the kind of treatment that he needs. He says that he wants counselling to address past trauma.

[23] Mr. B.H. does not think that he requires substance abuse counselling. Mr. B.H. however agrees that he has abused drugs and alcohol since childhood. During the preparation of the 2011 Gladue Report, Mr. B.H. acknowledged a connection between his abuse of substances and his violent behaviour. Other reports filed at this hearing suggest the same thing.

[24] Mr. B.H. advised the court that since his incarceration he has been meeting with Alexander Nesovic, a psychologist at the Toronto South Detention Centre. The 2015 Gladue Report sets out many of the meetings that Mr. B.H. has had with Dr. Nesovic. Mr. B.H. advised that with the help of Dr. Nesovic he attended a number of programs including Men and Anger, Cage Your Rage, Mind over Weed, Substance Abuse, Dialectical Behavior Therapy for Anxiety and PTSD, Facing your Feelings, Back from the Blues and Panic Stations which is a program that addresses panic attacks and anxiety. Mr. B.H. appears to willingly engage with Dr. Nesovic and follow up with his recommendations.

[25] Mr. B.H. also enrolled in the John Howard Society Native Spiritual Program. In a letter Mr. B.H. was described as a respectful participant. During sessions he was willing to confront many of his challenges and displayed sincerity in learning more about indigenous culture and history.

[26] Mr. B.H. is remorseful for his actions. He knows the impact that his behaviour has had on the victim.

[27] Mr. B.H. made a statement to the Court. As noted earlier Mr. B.H. believes that he has never been directed to appropriate counselling and treatment. He believes that his past experiences of abuse and trauma are directly related to his violent behavior towards B.A. and others. He wants help and acknowledges that he needs help to overcome this anger. He urges me to sentence him to something that would allow him to serve a sentence at the Algoma Treatment Facility followed by a period of probation. He is afraid that if he is subject to a long term supervision order he will end up in jail for a lengthy period of time.

Crown Submissions Regarding the Designation Stage

[28] Ms. Jenkins submits that Mr. B.H. ought to be designated a dangerous offender.

[29] Ms. Jenkins submits that Mr. B.H.'s criminal record is replete with multiple convictions for violence against B.A. He regularly disobeyed court orders prohibiting contact with B.A.

[30] Ms. Jenkins submits that Mr. B.H. has no control over his violent behaviour. She argues that Dr. Klassen diagnosed Mr. B.H. with anti-social personality disorder, borderline personality disorder and a substance use disorder. Dr. Klassen testified that Mr. B.H. denied an alcohol abuse problem making him a risk to violently re-offend and a high risk to re-offend in a domestic context. The Crown submits that Mr. B.H.'s lack of insight into the role drugs and alcohol play in his violent offending coupled with his refusal to accept treatment for his addictions makes him a substantial risk to the safety of both B.A. and the public.

[31] Ms. Jenkins argues that Dr. Klassen says that left untreated and unmanaged Mr. B.H. will likely decompensate in the community and likely re-offend. Ms. Jenkins points out that Mr. B.H. has recidivated quickly in the past by engaging in repeated domestic violence.

[32] Ms. Jenkins argues that Mr. B.H.'s history predicts that Mr. B.H. will not engage with treatment. He has previously refused to attend PAR. Ms. Jenkins submits that Mr. B.H.'s lack of insight in this regard poses a threat to the safety of B.A. and the public.

[33] Ms. Jenkins points out that while awaiting disposition on this application Mr. B.H. sent multiple letters to B.A. She argues this shows that Mr. B.H. is indifferent to the impact his actions have had on B.A. Ms. Jenkins submits this undermines any remorse that Mr. B.H. has in relation to the index offences and demonstrates a lack of insight into the intense level of intimate partner violence counselling that is required. Ms. Jenkins submits that without insight and commitment from Mr. B.H. there is no realistic prospect of treatment that will adequately address Mr. B.H.'s risk to the public.

[34] Ms. Jenkins argues that Mr. B.H. is incapable of overcoming his pattern of violent conduct. She submits that he is unable to surmount his behaviour in the community to the extent that public safety would not be at risk. Ms. Jenkins submits therefore that Mr. B.H.'s behaviour is intractable and accordingly the Court should find that Mr. B.H. is a dangerous offender.

Defence Submissions Regarding Designation Stage

[35] Mr. Brodsky submits that the court should designate Mr. B.H. a long term offender.

[36] Mr. Brodsky submits that because Mr. B.H. is at a stage to accept intense treatment it is likely that he will succeed. Mr. Brodsky argues that what Mr. B.H. requires is intensive culturally informed supervision. Mr. Brodsky urges the Court to make appropriate treatment recommendations to the Parole Board of Canada.

[37] Mr. Brodsky submits that the evidence discloses that Mr. B.H.'s conduct is not intractable and that Mr. B.H. is capable of surmounting his past violent behaviour. Mr. Brodsky points out that:

(1) Mr. B.H. is treatment ready.

(2) He is remorseful.

(3) He does not blame the victim;

(4) He has insight into his past violence:

(5) He understands his offence cycle;

(6) He has engaged in counselling while at the Toronto South Detention Centre:

(7) He does not have a poor institutional record;

(8) He has engaged in some past counselling;

(9) He was able to maintain an amicable relationship with his probation officer; and

(10) He has never engaged in the type of intensive treatment that would be part of a long term supervision order.

[38] Mr. Brodsky argues that the evidence of Dr. Klassen and Ms. Jones demonstrates that Corrections Canada, unlike probation services, has the type of intensive counselling and treatment that Mr. B.H. requires. Mr. Brodsky points out that Mr. B.H.'s actions will be strictly monitored. He will be required to check in, be subject to urinalysis, and provide information regarding his daily whereabouts.

[39] Mr. Brodsky submits that this type of supervision and treatment is very different from what Mr. B.H. was subject to while on probation.

[40] Mr. Brodsky points out that Dr. Klassen called Mr. B.H. an untreated man. He submits that the supervision and treatments offered by Corrections Canada are not only what Mr. B.H. needs but are treatments that Mr. B.H. is ready to take part in. Mr. Brodsky submits that there is a reasonable expectation that Mr. B.H. will be able to surmount any future threat to the public. Mr. Brodsky argues that Mr. B.H.'s future risk can be controlled and is not intractable.

The Evidence

Dr. Klassen

[41] Dr. Klassen was qualified in the area of risk assessment and risk management in the community.

[42] He extensively reviewed records and information regarding Mr. B.H.. Dr. Klassen diagnosed Mr. B.H. with anti-social personality disorder, borderline personality disorder and stimulant use disorder, likely alcohol. Dr. Klassen is of the opinion that Mr. B.H. likely suffered with ADHD as a child. He opined that because Mr. B.H. was not diagnosed at a young age treatment opportunities were missed.

[43] Dr. Klassen testified that Mr. B.H. has challenges with self-regulation and trust. Dr. Klassen suspects this is due to the insecurity of his early years.

[44] Dr. Klassen agreed that Mr. B.H. partly acknowledges a stimulant use disorder but says that Mr. B.H. is equivocal about alcohol. This concerns Dr. Klassen. He is of the view that the use of alcohol will heighten Mr. B.H.'s risk to reoffend, particularly in a domestic context. Mr. B.H.'s borderline personality disorder informs his anti-sociality. According to Dr. Klassen Mr. B.H.'s behaviour focuses around an unstable attachment that Mr. B.H. sees as vital to him. His emotional need, his separation anxieties and sense of panic are heightened when he thinks a relationship is ending. With inhibitors such as alcohol or other stimulants Mr. B.H. will likely begin to offend. Since 2009 Dr. Klassen concluded that Mr. B.H.'s anti-sociality is about the expression of anger in the context of attachments.

[45] Mr. B.H. did not score high on the PCLR. The PCLR is the gold standard measure of personality problems that generally lead to crime. Dr. Klassen testified that Mr. B.H. is at an average risk of criminal re-offence and should be averagely amenable to treatment. However Dr. Klassen also concludes that there are concerning factors at play, namely addictions and borderline personality features.

[46] Mr. B.H. scored high on the V-RAG and HCR20 indicating that violent recidivism is likely. Mr. B.H. was also tested on the ODARA and DVRAG which are intimate partner violence test measures. Mr. B.H. received a high score.

[47] After reviewing the test scores Dr. Klassen opined that Mr. B.H. does not have a massively serious criminal personality. The issue of concern is violence, particularly intimate partner violence (IPV). Dr. Klassen testified that risk management for Mr. B.H. must be directed to IPV. In an untreated state Mr. B.H. is at a very high risk of partner violence. Significant intervention is needed.

[48] Dr. Klassen noted that although Mr. B.H. is at a high risk of IPV, the risk may change depending on his partner. It will depend on the dynamic between the parties. Dr. Klassen warns that the dynamic between Mr. B.H. and B.A. is a concern. If Mr. B.H. resumes a relationship with B.A. her safety would be at risk.

[49] Dr. Klassen reports that Mr. B.H. was honest and candid about IPV offending. He thinks that Mr. B.H. has insight into many of his challenges and behaviours. He said that Mr. B.H. is sincere about a better comportment in his relationships. Dr. Klassen is of the view that Mr. B.H. engages with treatment very well while in custody. Dr. Klassen testified that the treatment providers must have a thoughtfulness around their approach with him.

[50] Dr. Klassen says that when Mr. B.H. is released into the community he will need intensive support. If he does not have that support he will become ambivalent and will fall back into addictions and violence. This concerns Dr. Klassen because Mr. B.H. does not have family or community support. This heightens his risk of re-offending.

[51] Dr. Klassen is of the view that for Mr. B.H. to have success with treatability he needs to gradually re-enter the community through a Community Correctional Centre or a Community Residential Facility so intensive treatment can be provided.

[52] Dr. Klassen testified that Mr. B.H. has never had the type of treatment that he requires. He testified that Mr. B.H.'s anger has been untreated. He categorized Mr. B.H.'s past treatment as low intensity treatment.

[53] Dr. Klassen candidly acknowledged that it is challenging for him to offer a firm psychiatric opinion about Mr. B.H.'s reasonable expectation or possibility of eventual risk control in the community for two reasons. First Mr. B.H. is getting older meaning his risk will diminish and secondly Mr. B.H. has had no solid history of trial treatment.

[54] For these reasons Dr. Klassen testified that he cannot conclude that there is no reasonable possibility or reasonable expectation that his risk can be controlled.

[55] Dr. Klassen is of the opinion that when Mr. B.H. is released he will likely breach a condition of a release order and the breach will likely be of a technical nature. Dr. Klassen explains that Mr. B.H. will likely be subject to alcohol screening and could fail a urinalysis test. Dr. Klassen testified that in his view this would not be an unsuccessful supervision because there have been no prior efforts at treatment. If there were past efforts Dr. Klassen would have a different opinion.

[56] Dr. Klassen supports Mr. B.H.'s engagement with the indigenous community. His opinion regarding risk management however is not altered.

[57] Dr. Klassen testified that Mr. B.H. requires intensive treatment. He agreed that a long term supervision order would be in order. Dr. Klassen recommends that Mr. B.H. take Dialectic Behavioral Therapy (DBT). He stated that this therapy would address Mr. B.H.'s reactivity. Dr. Klassen advises that Mr. B.H.'s violence stems from impulsivity and not callousness. Dr. Klassen believes that DBT is not available in the penitentiary.

[58] Dr. Klassen agreed that there is always a management benefit to getting treatment even when there is no treatment benefit.

[59] He testified that motivational interviewing, would be required for Mr. B.H.. The interviewer would have to direct Mr. B.H.'s attention to a risk benefit equation. Dr. Klassen said that this form of counselling is likely to take place in a community setting rather than inside a jail. The person does not have to be treatment ready for it to be offered.

[60] Dr. Klassen does not find Mr. B.H. to be a fundamentally callous person. He testified that Mr. B.H. does not trivialize his behaviour history and is actually distressed by it. He agrees that Mr. B.H. is motivated to take treatment and has insight into many of his behaviours. Dr. Klassen is of the view that Mr. B.H. is treatment ready but cautions that the biggest hurdle to Mr. B.H.'s treatment is the lack of insight around alcohol and cannabis use. Dr. Klassen worries that if things get chaotic in the community Mr. B.H. could turn to these stimulants and would fail.

[61] Dr. Klassen added however that it is unknown whether Mr. B.H. will be successful because he has never had the intense treatment options that are available through Corrections Canada. Dr. Klassen opined that Mr. B.H. should be managed for 13 years or until he is able to show good progress. Dr. Klassen testified that even if supervision is a challenge by age 50 the residual risk is rarely significant.

[62] Dr. Klassen testified that he did not think that probation services could properly manage Mr. B.H.

Mr. Geer

[63] Mr. Geer has been a probation officer for 25 years.

[64] He began supervising Mr. B.H. in June 2013. Mr. B.H. was an intensive supervision client. He was also assessed at being a risk to his domestic partner. Mr. B.H. was required to report twice per month.

[65] Mr. Geer testified that Mr. B.H. complained about reporting but reported well. Mr. Geer said that he had a good rapport with Mr. B.H.

[66] Mr. Geer tried to motivate Mr. B.H. to take substance abuse and PAR counselling. Mr. Geer thought that PAR counselling at Native Child and Family Services would be beneficial for Mr. B.H.. Mr. Geer was also of the view that substance abuse treatment was key for Mr. B.H.. He said that Mr. B.H. consistently refused these options. Mr. Geer eventually gave up.

[67] Mr. Geer said that Mr. B.H. wanted to select his own counselling in order to address childhood trauma. Mr. Geer testified that Mr. B.H. was concerned about his own victimization however acknowledged an awareness of his behaviour towards his domestic partner. He recognized that he presented a risk to her safety. There was some insight on his part. Mr. Geer testified that Mr. B.H. expressed regret about how he treated his domestic partner. At no time did he blame her for his actions. He said that Mr. B.H. attributed his past violence to his drug use.

[68] Mr. Geer agreed that Mr. B.H. was motivated to find work and a home. He had success at both.

[69] Mr. Geer saw Mr. B.H. a total of 10 times. His supervision was interrupted by many incarcerations.

[70] Mr. Geer testified that probation services does not monitor urinalysis. Probation officers rely on reports from the programs or self-reports from their clients.

[71] Mr. Geer testified that in order for a probationer to get into a substance abuse program that person must admit there is a problem. If there is no admission they would be turned away from the program.

[72] Mr. Geer is of the view that Mr. B.H. would fail if he were to be released on probation.

[73] Mr. Geer testified that the Algoma Treatment Centre has an intensive domestic violence program where St Lawrence Valley deals with inmates who primarily have mental health issues.

Meghan Jones

[74] Ms. Jones is a community parole officer in the City of Toronto. She supervises adult male federal offenders on community release, including long term supervision orders (LTSOs).

[75] She testified that Corrections Canada has developed an Integrated Correctional Program Model that is offered to inmates in the penitentiary. It is a holistic skills based program. After undergoing a risk assessment each offender is assigned a case management team. She testified that indigenous offenders are subjected to different risk assessments. She testified that the needs of the individual offender are taken into account.

[76] Ms. Jones testified that only high and moderate risk offenders are eligible for this program. High risk offenders take 90 sessions and moderate risk offenders take between 50 and 60 sessions. There are both group and one on one sessions. There are several modules. Risk factors of each person is assessed.

[77] She advised that the program deals with substance abuse, domestic abuse and will provide motivational techniques for those who do not want to attend programs. All these issues are integrated into modules. The offender works through each of the modules and ultimately a report will be provided to the Parole Board for release consideration.

[78] Ms. Jones testified that in addition to the modules each person will have one on one sessions with a psychologist and with an institutional parole officer. It is the institutional parole officer who assists the offender with a correctional plan and reintegration into the community.

[79] Ms. Jones testified that DBT is not available in the men's penitentiary. When DBT is required a referral is made when the offender is released into the community. She testified that the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health has a DBT program.

[80] Escorted and unescorted temporary absence passes can be authorized by the Parole Board for specific treatments including residential treatment. Ms. Jones told the Court that this assists with gradual re-integration into the community.

[81] She testified that there are many half-way houses that offer programs to address the different needs of offenders. Sagatay offers a program for indigenous offenders. The offender can stay for 12 months in order to access culturally competent programs. The program is affiliated with Anishnawbe Health Toronto. Corrections Canada has five beds at this residence. If an offender wants to attend the program a request must be made for a community assessment. Once done and approved a referral can be made.

[82] Ms. Jones testified that a residence condition is almost always attached to a LTSO. This usually means the person will go to a Community Residential Facility (CRF) or a Community Correctional Centre (CCC). A LTSO residency condition can only be imposed for a total of 365 days at one time. The condition can be prolonged. Ms. Jones testified the purpose of a CRF is to encourage and allow the offender to re-integrate into the community. This allows the supervisors to monitor how the offender is doing. They can determine whether more or less restrictions are necessary or whether more or less supports are needed. Regular reviews take place.

[83] Ms. Jones testified that CRFs are staffed all day and night. Each resident must sign in and out. Security systems are in place. Itineraries are provided to each resident. There are consequences when a resident fails to follow the itinerary. Each CRF has access to Corrections Canada at all times. Non-compliance warrants can issue.

[84] When a resident arrives at a CRF or CCC a risk assessment takes place. This dictates how often a resident must report to his parole officer. Minimum reporting requirements are eight times per month. When risk is assessed as high then more frequent reporting will be required. Risk is constantly evaluated.

[85] Ms. Jones testified that when a resident presents with addictions issues urinalysis may be required. Ms. Jones said this usually takes place when there is a condition prohibiting the consumption of drugs or alcohol.

[86] CRFs and CCCs will monitor issues surrounding domestic violence. Residents must provide the name of their partner or the name of any potential intimate partner. When concerns arise CRF supervisors will contact the local police to assist with surveillance of the resident. There are also occasions when supervisors ask the resident to provide a detailed phone bill so all incoming and outgoing calls can be monitored. Supervisors will meet with victims and potential partners to discuss the resident's risk factors. Home visits take place to ensure safety to the victim. Ms. Jones testified that Corrections Canada is required to consider the impact of the offence on the victim and accordingly will ensure that any release plan has conditions to ensure the safety of the victim.

[87] Ms. Jones testified that CCCs have a higher level of security than CRFs. She explained that everything happens on site at the CCC. A resident's movement is more restricted in a CCC. Security staff is employed fulltime.

[88] Ms. Jones testified that when the resident breaches a condition of release the first thing Corrections Canada considers is the impact of the breach on risk. The parole officer will consider whether or not risk can be managed without a suspension warrant. If a warrant is necessary Corrections Canada will decide whether to recommend that parole be revoked or whether further conditions should be added to the release.

[89] Ms. Jones told the Court that any breach of a LTSO condition is a criminal offence. She explained however that not all breaches lead to criminal charges. She said parole officers use discretion. Alternative consequences are available. She explained that risk is considered when exercising discretion. If risk cannot be safely managed the police are contacted and a criminal charge is laid. Ms. Jones testified that any sentence served on a breach of a LTSO will be served in the federal penitentiary. The order would be suspended pending sentence.

[90] Ms. Jones testified that the resident's parole officer maintains regular contact with the CRF or CCC supervisor. Daily memos are provided. The parole officer will talk to the resident's friends and family. They will talk to service providers and on occasion will attend programs with the resident.

[91] Ms. Jones testified that some CRFs refuse entry to men who have been designated dangerous offenders. She quickly added that this thinking is changing.

[92] Ms. Jones testified that when a person is designated a long term offender and is sentenced to less than two years it is possible for Corrections Canada to begin readying the file for review by the Parole Board of Canada. Once the offender has served his sentence the intake process will begin. Ms. Jones explained that depending on the length of the sentence referrals can be made to different programs.

[93] She testified that a LTSO will start when the offender is released from serving the sentence.

[94] Ms. Jones testified that the Parole Board of Canada will take a holistic approach regarding terms on a LTSO but agreed that it will also take into consideration the reasons and/or recommendations made by the trial judge.

The Law

[95] The dangerous offender provisions are in place to protect the public against offenders who present a continuing danger to the community due to repeated violent behaviour. The consequence of being designated a dangerous offender can lead to indefinite incarceration, therefore, the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the offender falls within the criteria established by the Code. Recently in R. v. Boutilier, 2017 SCC 64, the Supreme Court of Canada repeated that the dangerous offender provisions are a preventative sanction that can be "imposed only upon offenders for whom segregation from society is a rational means to achieve the overriding purpose of public safety." (See also R. v. Steele, 2014 SCC 61 and R. v. Johnson, 2003 SCC 46).

[96] Section 753 states:

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

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

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

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

(b) that the offence for which the offender has been convicted is a serious personal injury offence described in paragraph (b) of the definition of that expression in section 752 and the offender, by his or her conduct in any sexual matter including that involved in the commission of the offence for which he or she has been convicted, has shown a failure to control his or her sexual impulses and a likelihood of causing injury, pain or other evil to other persons through failure in the future to control his or her sexual impulses.

Intractability

[97] The only issue for me to determine is whether Mr. B.H.'s behaviour is intractable. Recently in R. v. Broadfoot 2018 ONCJ 215, Greene, J. reviewed the issue of intractability as set out in R v. Boutiler, supra. I agree with Greene, J's interpretation of Boutiler, supra, Greene, J wrote at paragraphs 75 and 76:

In R. v. Boutilier, the Supreme Court of Canada held that the Crown must prove intractability at both the designation stage and the sentencing stage. While the Supreme Court of Canada noted that the concept of intractability may be different at the designation than it is at the sentencing stage, it is nonetheless still a key aspect at the designation stage. Cote J. stated at para 27

The language of s. 753(1), which led Justice La Forest to develop the four criteria outlined above, has never been amended since its enactment in 1977. Before designating a dangerous offender, a sentencing judge must still be satisfied on the evidence that the offender poses a high likelihood of harmful recidivism and that his or her conduct is intractable. I understand "intractable" conduct as meaning behaviour that the offender is unable to surmount. Through these two criteria, Parliament requires sentencing judges to conduct a prospective assessment of dangerousness.

Cote J. defined intractable conduct as meaning "behaviour that the offender is unable to surmount". Wilson J. in R. v. V.M. [2003] O.J. No. 436 (S.C.J.) provided a very helpful summary of the law around intractability. She wrote,

106 The designation as a dangerous offender requires that the offender's condition be "substantially or pathologically intractable." See Lyons, supra at 338. In R. v. Johnson (2001), 2001 BCCA 456, 158 C.C.C. (3d) 155 (B.C.C.A.), the Court affirmed that this is a continued requirement under the 1997 amendments. The Court states, at para. 84, that "a pattern of conduct will be intractable if it is deep-seated and difficult to treat." Furthermore, the Court emphasizes that the concept of "eventual control in the community" is the counterpart to "substantially or pathologically intractable," saying, at para. 86, if there is "a reasonable possibility that a cure or control would be effected within [a determinate sentence], it cannot be said that the offender's pattern of conduct is substantially or pathologically intractable."

107 As noted in R. v. B.R.B., 2002 BCCA 420, [2002] B.C.J. No. 2363 (B.C.C.A.) at para. 15, this means that the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there is no reasonable possibility of eventual control of the offender in the community in order to prove that the offender has a condition that is "substantially or pathologically intractable," and, hence, is a dangerous offender.

108 In R. v. J.F.H., [2002] O.J. No. 362 (Ont. Sup. Ct.) at para. 197, Hill J. noted that "reasonable possibility of eventual control" requires something more than "a speculative hope without the robust foundation necessary to safely predict community safety." On the other hand, as Hill J. notes in R. v. Payne (2001), 41 C.R. (5th) 156 (Ont. Sup. Ct.) at para. 114, "[p]possibility does not of course require anything approaching certainty."

109 Garton J. considered the meaning of the phrase "reasonable possibility of eventual control" in R. v. Hosten (unreported), Garton J., February 26, 2002 (Ont. Sup. Ct.). She cites R. v. J.G.T., 2000 ABQB 551, [2000] A.J. No. 938 (Alta. Q.B.), at 50, saying "reasonable possibility of eventual control does not require a cure – only that the risk be controlled." Garton J. notes, at 50, that in another decision, R. v. D.R.A., [201] A.J. No. 1649 (Alta. Q.B.), this threshold was determined by answering the following question: "Is there a fairly good chance that the offender's behaviour will be controlled within an appropriate time?"

110 In Payne, supra at para. 110, Hill J. suggests that the Court should consider the psychological and medical evidence relating to control and then ask whether, "on a case specific basis, the accused is himself treatable and amenable to control." Hill J. then analyzes the negative and positive factors relating to the treatability of the specific offender in Payne, supra.

[98] In order to determine intractability at the designation stage the Court must decide whether the offender's conduct can be treated. If it cannot then at the sentencing stage the Court must determine how it can be managed absent an indeterminate sentence.

Can Mr. B.H.'s Violent Conduct Be Treated?

[99] In the case at bar it is conceded that absent significant intervention Mr. B.H. poses a high likelihood of harmful recidivism particularly as it relates to intimate partner violence. Given Mr. B.H.'s offence pattern and lack of insight into his alcohol and cannabis addictions this type of re-offending puts B.A. at risk. This means that left untreated Mr. B.H. poses a threat to the safety of the public.

[100] There have been many attempts in the community through probation orders to direct Mr. B.H. to appropriate counselling programs. These attempts have been unsuccessful and in my view will continue to be unsuccessful because of Mr. B.H.'s refusal to attend programs that address an alcohol and cannabis addiction. Having said that I also find that the level of programing that Mr. B.H. has been previously offered was insufficient for Mr. B.H.'s needs.

[101] Mr. Geer told the court that when a probationer tells a service provider that s/he does not have an alcohol problem the probationer will be told to return when s/he is ready. Allowing Mr. B.H. to make that decision would end in failure. Mr. B.H. needs consistent and persistent supervision to ensure engagement. He requires motivation to attend. Probation services cannot do that. To place Mr. B.H. on probation would put the public at risk. The programs and supervision offered do not offer the intense supervision Mr. B.H. requires. Mr. B.H. would not be able to surmount his violent conduct if placed on probation.

[102] Dr. Klassen points out that Mr. B.H. has never been offered high intensity treatment. He has never been on a strict regime of treatment where he was forced to engage and delve into areas that he objects to. Dr. Klassen refers to Mr. B.H. as an untreated man.

[103] Corrections Canada offers many treatments and programs both inside and outside the federal penitentiary that suit Mr. B.H.'s needs. All programs are strictly monitored.

[104] Once an offender is in the community Ms. Jones advised that daily logs are kept regarding their routines. Victims are consulted. Supervisors are assigned. Treatment programs are monitored. There is regular consultation and contact between the offender, service providers, supervisors and parole officers.

[105] Ms. Jones testimony suggests that Corrections Canada personnel work hard to assist an offender with re-integration into the community. At the same time there is also an expectation that the offender must assume responsibility for his treatment. The consequences are significant when an offender breaches a community supervision order.

[106] Dr. Klassen says that Mr. B.H. will likely be reasonably successful in the community if there is a safety net. It appears that the intense treatment offered by Corrections Canada can potentially offer one.

[107] Although Mr. B.H. is defiant and oppositional he gets along with his supervisors. He is honest and speaks his mind. He has insight into a lot of his conduct. He is remorseful and accepts responsibility for his actions. Most importantly Mr. B.H. wants treatment.

[108] In the areas where he lacks insight he will be offered motivational interviewing. This will assist Mr. B.H. to develop an understanding of his needs and issues.

[109] Mr. B.H. is aware of treatments such as DBT. He has been meeting with a psychologist at the Toronto South Detention Centre and has discussed the therapy. He knows he requires it.

[110] As Dr. Klassen says Mr. B.H. is treatment ready. Mr. B.H. is getting older. He has been in custody for over three years. He has consistently attended programs while awaiting disposition. He has consistently said that he wants help. Although he wants help on his own terms the evidence seems to suggest that he has not had the opportunity to embark on an intensive treatment regime. The programs offered by Corrections Canada suit Mr. B.H.'s needs and can realistically address any future risk he poses.

[111] For these reasons I am of the view that there is a realistic possibility that Mr. B.H.'s violent behaviour can eventually be controlled. This possibility in my view goes beyond mere hope. Accordingly I cannot say beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. B.H.'s violent behaviour is intractable. Accordingly I decline to declare him a dangerous offender.

[112] Pursuant to section 753.1 of the Criminal Code, an offender can be designated a long term offender where:

i. It would be appropriate to impose a sentence of two years imprisonment or more for the offence;

ii. There is a substantial risk the offender will re-offend

iii. There is a reasonable possibility of eventual control in the community.

[113] Unlike the dangerous offender provisions, the Court need not find that the conduct is intractable before making a long term offender order.

[114] I find that absent meaningful intervention Mr. B.H. poses a high risk of re-offending in a manner that involves a high level of violence and harm to others. I also find that there is reasonable possibility of eventual control in the community. I am therefore satisfied that Mr. B.H. meets the legal definition for a long term offender.

Sentence

Crown Submissions

[115] The Crown submits that five years followed by a ten year LTSO is appropriate. Ms. Jenkins adopts many of the submissions that she made in relation to the designation phase of the dangerous offender provisions.

[116] She points out the Mr. B.H. is a repeat offender. He has over 30 convictions for violence and breach of court orders in relation to B.A. The impact of Mr. B.H.'s offending has had a devastating impact on B.A.

[117] Ms. Jenkins submits that Mr. B.H. needs intensive treatment and counselling surrounding his addictions and his anger. Ms. Jenkins points out that this type of treatment can be commenced in a federal institution and continue with the help of Corrections Canada in the community. Culturally competent counselling is available throughout.

[118] She argues that Dr. Klassen testified that Mr. B.H. should be monitored on a long term supervision order with treatment conditions to meaningfully address his underlying addictions issues and personality disorders. Ms. Jenkins argues that a five year sentence followed by a 10 year LTSO will take Mr. B.H. to about the age of 50. She points out that Dr. Klassen testified that likely by 50 Mr. B.H.'s risk to public safety will have attenuated.

[119] Ms. Jenkins argues that a lengthy LTSO will provide proper checks and balances for Mr. B.H.'s supervision. This will ensure that the public is protected but still allows for his rehabilitation.

[120] Ms. Jenkins pointed to a number of cases to support her position. She argues that Mr. B.H.'s moral blameworthiness is high given his criminal antecedents. At the time of the offences he was on probation for violence against B.A. He regularly breached court orders. He committed further offences against B.A. while awaiting disposition on this matter. The impact on the victim is high. Ms. Jenkins submits that nothing has deterred Mr. B.H.

[121] Ms. Jenkins argues that deterrence, denunciation and protection of the public are paramount. She argues that a five year sentence followed by the maximum length for a LTSO is necessary given Mr. B.H.'s history of recidivism. It is necessary to manage Mr. B.H.'s risk to public safety.

Defence Submissions

[122] Mr. Brodsky argues that Mr. B.H. is treatment ready. He is remorseful, has insight into his behavior and has been engaging in programs and counselling while awaiting sentence.

[123] Mr. B.H. has been in custody for three years. Mr. Brodsky concedes that a portion of Mr. B.H.'s pre-sentence custody was for other offences involving the same victim. He submits however that once Mr. B.H. was arrested and charged with those offences there has been no further communication with the victim, meaning for over two years he has not attempted to contact B.A.

[124] Mr. Brodsky submits the intensive programs that Mr. B.H. needs are in the community. He points out that according to Ms. Jones DBT and family violence programs are not available in the federal institution. He argues this is concerning because Mr. B.H. is treatment ready. In order to minimize Mr. B.H.'s risk to public safety he should begin treatment immediately. He acknowledges that Mr. B.H. will likely be a challenge during supervision and treatment but points out that Dr. Klassen found Mr. B.H. to be honest. Mr. Brodsky argues this is a positive indicator that Mr. B.H. can be properly managed in the community.

[125] Mr. Brodsky tells the Court that Corrections Canada requires a period of time to properly prepare and organize for the supervision of a person on a LTSO. Accordingly Mr. Brodsky submits that Mr. B.H. should be sentenced to four months followed by a LTSO for less than 10 years. He argues that with intensive treatment Mr. B.H.'s risk to public safety will be managed long before he is 50 years old.

Sentencing Principles

[126] The criminal law is a system of values. In criminal proceedings, sentencing is meant to reflect and reinforce the basic values of our society. Accordingly, the fundamental purpose of sentencing is to contribute to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful, and safe society by imposing just sanctions.

[127] The sentence should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. The sanction that the Court imposes should have one or more of the following objectives:

• to denounce unlawful conduct,
• to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences,
• to separate offenders from society where necessary,
• to assist in rehabilitating offenders,
• to provide reparations for harm done to victims or the community,
• to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders and
• to acknowledge the harm done to victims and to the community.

[128] How much emphasis a Court places on each of these objectives will vary according to the nature of the crime and the circumstances of offender.

[129] The aggravating factors are as follows:

(1) Mr. B.H. has a criminal record. He has multiple convictions for violence against B.A. He has been previously convicted of using weapons against her, forcibly confining her, threatening her and assaulting her. Mr. B.H. has multiple convictions for breaching court orders particularly in relation to B.A.

(2) The impact on the victim is significant.

(3) Mr. B.H. was on probation at the time of the commission of the offences.

(4) Mr. B.H. has no insight into his alcohol and cannabis addiction.

(5) Mr. B.H. lacks an appreciation of the significant connection between his addiction to alcohol and cannabis and his violent conduct.

(6) Mr. B.H. has historically refused to engage in the PAR program.

(7) Mr. B.H. is at a high risk to reoffend in a domestic context.

(8) Mr. B.H. has no family or community support.

[130] In mitigation:

(1) Mr. B.H. pleaded guilty. He is remorseful for his actions. He accepts full responsibility for what he did to the victim.

(2) Mr. B.H. has insight into his anger and behaviour. He understands how his actions have affected the victim. He wants help to address his anger.

(3) Mr. B.H. is an indigenous offender. He has engaged with the indigenous community and has sought out counselling from the indigenous community.

(4) Mr. B.H. has been involved in counselling while awaiting disposition.

(5) Mr. B.H. has developed a successful therapeutic relationship with the psychologist at the Toronto South Detention Centre.

Analysis

[131] Mr. B.H. is a violent man. Over the past several years he has repeatedly and violently assaulted and threatened B.A. He continually breached court orders prohibiting contact with B.A. B.A. is terrified of Mr. B.H.. Her life has changed forever. This is evident from the Victim Impact Statement filed at the hearing.

[132] Although attending for counselling at the Toronto South Detention Centre Mr. B.H. remains untreated. Mr. B.H. poses a high risk to B.A.'s safety. The public, therefore, demands that the Court protect B.A. and any other potential domestic partners.

[133] Courts have repeatedly stated that domestic violence in any context calls for condemnation. The public must be assured that when there is repeated domestic violence Courts will step in to send a clear message that it will never be tolerated. Deterrence, denunciation and protection of the public demand it.

[134] I have reviewed the cases submitted by the Crown. It goes without saying that sentencing is a highly individualized process. It is almost impossible for two offenders to have the exact same background and be faced with the exact same circumstances. What is clear from the cases however is that crimes of domestic violence, particularly repetitive violent conduct will always attract an exemplary sentence.

[135] Having said that I must take into consideration that Mr. B.H. pleaded guilty. He is remorseful for his actions. He does not blame the victim for any of his conduct. He wants treatment. I accept that Mr. B.H. is treatment ready. He knows about DBT. He has discussed it with Dr. Nesovic, a psychologist at the Toronto South Detention Centre. It can be offered to him on a LTSO.

[136] I am troubled by the fact that Mr. B.H. thinks he knows better than the professionals about the nature of his required treatment. I am also troubled that Mr. B.H. lacks insight into his substance use disorder and how it is connected to his violent conduct however as I have set out in my reasons Mr. B.H. has never been confronted with the intense treatment that Corrections Canada can offer. He will be subject to motivational interviewing styles. He will be offered a myriad of programs to deal with anger and substance abuse. Once in the community he will be monitored daily. Accordingly any sentence I impose must not totally ignore the real possibility that Mr. B.H. can be successful with his rehabilitation.

[137] Mr. B.H. is an indigenous man. He was separated and isolated from the indigenous community at a young age. He has no connection to his father. He was not taught a lot about his history. He was subject to and witnessed violence and substance abuse all of his life. He was in care at a young age and lived on his own after that. Through it all Mr. B.H. has always felt a connection to his indigenous culture. He actively embraced it. Mr. B.H. attended at Anishnawbe Health in Toronto for anger management counselling. While in custody he has successfully attended indigenous programs through the John Howard Society. Mr. B.H. seems to benefit from having a culturally competent perspective to his treatment and counselling. I accept that he will continue to engage with indigenous programs while serving his sentence both in jail and in the community.

[138] I find that Mr. B.H.'s circumstances as an indigenous man have played a role in Mr. B.H.'s criminal conduct. Accordingly pursuant to R. v. Gladue and R. v. Ipeelee, 2012 SCC 13, I must ensure that any sentence I impose is done with restraint. Courts are required to take judicial notice of the over-representation of indigenous persons in prisons as well as the systemic and background factors that have led to this over-representation. While the Gladue factors may have little impact on Mr. B.H.'s present risk to re-offend, in my view they are still relevant to his level of moral blameworthiness and may have impact on the issue of his treatment potential.

[139] Mr. B.H. has been in custody just over three years. While awaiting disposition on this matter Mr. B.H. was charged with criminal harassment and disobey a court order. I presided over the trial. I found Mr. B.H. guilty of the offences and sentenced him to two years. When imposing sentence on that matter I took into consideration that Mr. B.H. committed the offences while awaiting disposition on this matter. I found it to be an aggravating factor. I decline to make a similar finding on this application. Although the principle of totality is not really engaged in these circumstances I cannot ignore that Mr. B.H. has been in custody for over three years. Since his arrest (March 2016) on the intervening offences Mr. B.H. has refrained from contacting the victim. He has also continued to try to make rehabilitative efforts within the institution. This is a sign of some progress. I take this into consideration in determining the appropriate sentence.

[140] In all of the circumstances I sentence Mr. B.H. to three years concurrent on the counts of Assault with Weapon, Overcome Resistance to Commission of Offence, Forcible Confinement, Assault Cause Bodily Harm, and Assault. It is conceded that on an enhanced basis Mr. B.H. has served two years in pre-sentence custody. He will therefore serve a further 12 months concurrent on each count. In relation to those counts Mr. B.H. will also be subject to a 10 year long term supervision order. This will allow Mr. B.H. to meaningfully engage in all necessary and appropriate treatments. It will also ensure that Mr. B.H.'s risk to the community and to B.A. is managed and monitored. If Mr. B.H. is successful with treatment he can apply to reduce the term of the LTSO.

[141] Mr. B.H. will serve six months concurrent on the each count of Fail To Comply-Probation, concurrent to each other and 60 days concurrent on the count of Mischief Under $5000.

[142] I recommend that Mr. B.H. serve his sentence at the Algoma Treatment Centre. There he will be able to engage in culturally competent programing with an emphasis on domestic violence.

[143] While Mr. B.H. is subject to the LTSO I recommend that he be ordered:

(1) To live in an approved residence;

(2) To engage in Dialectic Behavioural Therapy;

(3) To attend for substance abuse counselling including alcohol and cannabis counselling;

(4) To attend for IPV counselling;

(5) To have no contact directly or indirectly with B.A.;

(6) To notify his parole officer or designate of any intimate or potential intimate relationships;

(7) To not be in possession of weapons as defined by the Criminal Code;

(8) To comply with any other conditions directed by the Parole Board of Canada.

[144] There will be a DNA order on all primary designated offences.

[145] There will be a section 109 order for life.

[146] While serving sentence Mr. B.H. is prohibited from having any contact directly or indirectly with B.A.

[147] The victim surcharges apply. Mr. B.H. will have 18 months to pay.

Released: July 20, 2018

Signed "Justice Rutherford"