ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

CITATION: R. v. Dockery, 2022 ONCJ 382

DATE: August 16, 2022

COURT FILE No.: Toronto 21-75002609

BETWEEN:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

— AND —

CHRISTOPHER DOCKERY

Before Justice Hafeez S. Amarshi

Written reasons for judgment released on August 16, 2022

J. Stanton.................................................................................................. counsel for the Crown

P. Alexander .......................................................................... counsel for Christopher Dockery

H.S. Amarshi J.:

ADMISSIBILITY RULING AND REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

SECTION 810.2 HEARING

A. Introduction

[1] On June 12, 2021, Christopher Dockery completed a two year and seven-month sentence for aggravated assault.[^1]

[2] The Crown now seeks an order requiring Christopher Dockery enter into a recognizance pursuant to section 810.2.

[3] Section 810.2 is a special preventative order. The purpose of the recognizance is to maintain order and preserve the peace and may be issued, where there exists, objectively, reasonable grounds to fear that a person will likely commit a “serious personal injury offence.”[^2]

[4] A judge may order the respondent to enter into a recognizance to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for a period that does not exceed 12 months.[^3] The court may impose reasonable terms and conditions. However, if the court is also satisfied that the respondent was convicted previously of a “serious personal injury offence,” then the judge may order the respondent to enter into a recognizance for a period that does not exceed two years. In this case there no dispute that the index offence, an aggravated assault committed by Mr. Dockery in March 2017 meets these criteria.

[5] The onus is on the Crown to establish on a balance of probabilities, that the applicant’s fears are reasonable. There is both a subjective and objective component to the applicant’s belief.

[6] The applicant in this case is Detective Constable Michael Arzaga of the Toronto Police Service.

[7] In this hearing, hearsay evidence, which may include documentary records, is admissible, as long as it is determined to be “credible and trustworthy.”[^4]

[8] In addition, unlike a criminal proceeding, evidence of Mr. Dockery’s conduct and criminal record is admissible in assessing the future likelihood or potential for serious injury.

[9] To emphasize, an order pursuant to s. 810.2 order is not meant to be a punitive provision. The aim of the provision is to not punish the respondent for his past offences and criminal behavior, but to prevent future harm. In this case the applicant’s primary concern is the alleged danger Mr. Dockery presents to his future intimate partners.

[10] In undertaking this assessment, I am mindful, that the respondent has completed serving his federal sentence, and should be free to return to the community without further state-imposed conditions on his liberty.

B. Proceedings

[11] The Crown called one witness, the applicant, Detective Constable Arzaga. In addition, Ms. Stanton filed a Crown application record, entitled “Grounds for Fear.” The record which is accessed electronically contains 22 digital bookmarks. The index is Appendix A in this decision. The application record contains documents including, but not limited to, Mr. Dockery’s criminal record, National Parole Board decisions, Correctional Service Canada’ (CSC) profiles and performance reports. Also included is Justice S.M. Chapman’s sentencing decision for aggravated assault.

[12] The application record provides a significant level of detail and background about Mr. Dockery.

C. The admissibility of documents

[13] Before I address the merits of the Crown’s application for a preventative order, I will address issues of admissibility at this hearing. Specifically, the respondent challenges the admissibility of a number of documents included in the Crown’s application record largely related to CSC records and police synopses, which includes withdrawn and dismissed charges.

[14] As noted, this Court may properly receive evidence on this application so long as it is “credible and trustworthy,” this may include hearsay and other secondary information.

[15] Although there is a lower evidentiary threshold to receive evidence when compared to a criminal trial, it is not an evidentiary free for all, and the hearing judge must exercise due caution. In R. v. Francis, 2005 ONSC 24259, [2005] O.J. No. 2864 (SCJ), for example, Ratushy J. when assessing the credible and trustworthy standard in the context of s. 540 (7) application at a preliminary hearing, determined the intended evidence meet a "prima facie air of reliability." This threshold, the Court determined, is meant to protect the accused from having to deal with information that would not amount to being considered as any evidence at all upon which a reasonable trier of fact properly instructed could convict.[^5]

[16] I will consider each of the documents for which the respondent contests admission:

(i) Assessment for Decision – withdrawn and dismissed charges

[17] Assessment for Decision is a document prepared by a parole officer summarizing information from various sources and includes recommendations in support of or against statutory release. The author of the report recommended Mr. Dockery not be granted parole.

[18] I have concluded that this document is to be admitted in this hearing, although not all the information contained in the assessment is to be considered. Specially, the document outlines, at times at length, the allegations underlying withdrawn charges. The unproven allegations I note are serious and are highly prejudicial yet have limited probative value. The s. 810.2 order being sought by the Crown has the potential to significantly limit the respondent’s liberty. It further includes continued contact with law enforcement via weekly reporting conditions. I appreciate criminal charges are withdrawn for a variety of reasons unrelated to the veracity of the allegations, however, to rely on the withdrawn summaries in the assessment document is problematic. The summaries, very likely gleaned from the original police synopsis prepared at the bail stage are unsourced and untested. A fuller appreciation of the facts often emerges later such that the synopsis can significantly diverge from the facts proven at trial or admitted on a guilty plea.[^6]

[19] In R. v. L. (J.K.), 2012 ONCA 245, for example, the Court of Appeal concluded in the context of a dangerous offender hearing that the police synopses, standing alone, could not meet the “credible and trustworthy” threshold.

[20] While I accept police synopses may be admissible and can provide the court with valuable perspective about an offender’s conduct or reveal a pattern of persistent behavior, the summaries of withdrawn charges included in the Assessment for Decision are lacking sufficient detail and context, making it difficult to assess the reliability or trustworthiness of such information.[^7]

[21] As a result, I will not consider the police summaries of unproven allegations contained in the report.

(ii) Psychological Risk Assessment

[22] The Assessment for Decision makes reference to a 2019 psychological risk assessment dated June 29, 2019, and authored by Raymond Yokubynas, psychologist. Mr. Dockery was referred for an assessment at the Joyceville Correctional Centre by his parole officer. The respondent refused to participate. A psychological risk assessment was then completed based on a file review alone, which included a review of existing institutional files and previous psychological reports compiled during past periods of incarceration.

[23] Mr. Yokubynas’ report contains the following caveat, “The reader is cautioned that a psychological risk assessment carried without interview and psychometric testing data can be of limited accuracy and has the potential to yield misleading results.” The psychologist further notes that he could make only very limited recommendations based on the file review.

[24] Given this caution, even had I deemed the report admissible in this hearing, I would have attached limited weight to its conclusions and recommendations.

[25] A further challenge is the report contains no information about Mr. Yokubynas’ academic training or experience. There is no mention of the authors’ scope of expertise to form an opinion about Mr. Dockery’s future risk. Mr. Yokubynas was not made available by the Crown for cross-examination and there is no basis upon which to assess the reliability and trustworthiness of his expert’s report given the limited information contained in the assessment.

[26] A psychological assessment based on file review alone may well be deemed admissible in a s. 810.2 hearing, but in this case, the report that the Crown seeks to proffer is not sufficiently "credible and trustworthy". As a result, those portions of the Assessment for Decision that refer to Mr. Yokubynas’ report and Officer Arzaga’s conclusions based on that report are not to be considered.

[27] Further, included in the Crown’s application record is a stand-alone copy of the psychological assessment contained at page 231. That report is not admissible in this hearing.

(iii) CIPS Entries

[28] The “Grounds for Fear” application record contains information downloaded by Officer Arzaga from CIPS (Criminal Information Processing System). CIPS is a digital database accessed by police which includes arrest data and disposition information. The Crown's application includes information from this database including a police synopsis, show cause notes and case disposition related to two separate incidents involving the same victim in 2002. The female victim was in a romantic relationship with Mr. Dockery.

[29] The synopses for both incidents are admissible.

[30] In relation to the March 2, 2002, offences, Mr. Dockery was found guilty of assault and threating death. A criminal harassment count on the same information was dismissed.

[31] In relation to the July 22, 2002, offences, Mr. Dockery pled guilty to assault bodily harm and forcible confinement. A number of serious charges from the same incident were withdrawn.

[32] In both cases there is no clear delineation in the facts contained in the synopses that support entries on his criminal record and facts related to withdrawn and dismissed charges. Although no clear delineation or excision is possible, I recognize, and I have considered that Mr. Dockery’s most serious charges were either dismissed or withdrawn in relation to the 2002 offences.

[33] The CIPS package from 2002 also includes biographical information which is not contentious. The show cause notes are to be excised since they contain both irrelevant information and opinion evidence from the officer in charge of those cases. I note the language used by the officer in reference to Mr. Dockery is problematic.

(iv) CPIC printout

[34] Information obtained from the Canadian Police Information Centre, which consists of the respondent’s criminal record is admissible. I have disregarded the withdrawn charges which comprise five pages of the CPIC printout.

(v) Victim Impact Statement

[35] The statement of the victim of the aggravated assault is admissible in this hearing. I have accepted Mr. Alexander’s argument that it should be subject to some brief excision. That portion where the victim makes references to the respondent’s potential for future violence is excised. Section 722 of the Criminal Code addresses victim impact statements. The statement is to address the harm done by and loss suffered as a result of the commission of the offence.[^8] That part of the statement that goes beyond the intended scope of a victim impact statement is not to be considered.

(vi) Correctional Plan

[36] The Crown is relying on a Correctional Plan dated April 15, 2020. It was completed by Catherine Staubin, parole officer, in advance of Mr. Dockery statutory release date which was August 3, 2020. The report relies in part on an intake correctional plan, prepared soon after the respondent commenced his federal sentence.

[37] The report includes a summary of Mr. Dockery’s activities in custody and participation in various programming and is clearly relevant to assessing future risk and is admissible. Also admissible are comments made by Mr. Dockery to the parole officer about the nature of his relationship with women as well as his struggles with grief and loss. These comments provide some insight into the respondent’s background and conduct. I accept the parole officer had a duty of care to capture accurately and correctly convey Mr. Dockery’s comments in the report.

[38] I placed limited weight on the parole officer’s opinion about Mr. Dockery’s potential for recidivism since they were based in part on Mr. Yokubynas’ psychological assessment which I have deemed inadmissible. The report further references results from various testing protocols, entitled “Static Factors Assessments.” These include, for example, scores related to the respondent's criminal history and sex offence history. These results remain unexplained in the report and were not supplemented by evidence at the s. 810.2 hearing to assist this Court in appreciating their relevance in assessing Mr. Dockery’s future risk. These test results were given no weight.

[39] I should note however, many of the reports and results of behavioral testing included in the Crown’s application materials were prepared for a very different purpose, that is for the classification of inmates within the penitentiary system or in preparation of Mr. Dockery appearance before the parole board and not for the purpose of a s. 810.2 hearing, where considerations are different and the threshold for receiving evidence is higher. My comments should not be construed as this Court casting doubt on the validity of opinions by parole officers or the results of risk assessment testing conducted for institutional purposes. These reports are valuable in identifying suitable programming for the respondent while incarcerated, addressing safety concerns in the institution and to assist the parole board in their determinations. In the context of a s. 810.2 hearing, however, I am unable to place the same value or accept the validity of the assumptions in the reports without further evidence to satisfy this Court that the conclusions about Mr. Dockery’s future risk are sufficiently trustworthy.

(vii) Criminal Profile Report

[40] The preparation of the Criminal Profile Report was based on a preliminary assessment interview with the respondent that was conducted at the Toronto South Detention Centre on November 26, 2018, soon after Mr. Dockery was sentenced for aggravated assault. It was authored by a parole officer. The purpose of the report is to provide the CSC with a comprehensive profile of an offender about to serve a federal sentence.

[41] The report details comments made by Mr. Dockery about the index offence while being interviewed. For the same reasons I considered Mr. Dockery’s comments made during the preparation of the Correctional Plan admissible, I have also considered his responses to questions about the index offence to be similarly admissible.

[42] The rest of the Criminal Profile Report includes information derived from CPIC.

[43] The report also summarizes multiple psychiatric and psychological assessments (prior to the one prepared by Raymond Yokubynas). They are brief summaries of dated opinion-based reports and cannot be assessed as trustworthy without supporting expert opinion evidence. Conclusory comments made by the parole officer, based on these assessments were similarly disregarded.

(viii) Warrant Expiry Detention package

[44] This document contains a summary of the index offence and additional institutional history, which is not contentious. It further outlines the Parole Board’s reasoning for detention. The document was shared with Mr. Dockery upon completion and contains information found elsewhere in the Crown's application material.

[45] The document is admissible.

(ix) Parole Board of Canada decision

[46] The Parole Board’s decision is admissible. The Board was satisfied Mr. Dockery was likely if released, to commit an offence causing death or serious harm to another person before the expiration of his sentence. The decision is well reasoned, but I did not attach weight to the Board’s conclusion since it was based in part on the respondent’s score in various recidivism models that are left unexplained in the decision. It reflects the same concern I had about the parole officer’s reliance on various unexplained testing protocols in the Correctional Plan, which I concluded requires qualified expert evidence to explain and substantiate.

[47] I did attach weigh to other portions of the decision, which I found to be relevant to my determination of whether a special preventive order is warranted in this case. Specifically, the Board’s decision reviews Mr. Dockery’s participation in pro-social and rehabilitative programming at Warkworth Institution. The decision also details the respondent’s past performance on previous parole releases. This information is largely factual and I deemed reliable.

[48] The Board’s decision also includes information already found and sourced from other sections of the Crown’s application materials and which I have concluded is admissible, including biographical information, details about the index offence derived from Justice Chapman’s sentencing decision and the respondent’s criminal record.

(x) CSC Institutional Programs Performance Reports

[49] The “Grounds for Fear” application record included two program performance reports, one dated April 17, 2020 - an interim report, and a final report dated August 12, 2020.

[50] I found the reports to meet the threshold for admissibility. The reports rely to some degree on behaviourial testing results that inform the author’s conclusion, but not overly so. Instead, the reports largely detail the efforts and progress in various rehabilitative programs Mr. Dockery was enrolled in while incarcerated.

[51] The reports are sufficiently detailed that I have a good sense of the content of the programming. Of note, the CSC documents are not expert reports.

[52] Conclusions about Mr. Dockery’s level of participation and engagement were based on direct observations by program facilitators.

[53] I did not have the same concerns with the performance reports as I did with the psychological assessments and propensity testing reports, which were either unsourced or unsupported by qualified expert evidence.

[54] The two documents included in the Crown’s application were not particularly technical and the content relevant to this Court’s determination in this hearing.

(xi) Synopsis prepared by the Edmonton Police Service

[55] The Crown’s application contains a three-page summary of a serious domestic allegation in Edmonton in August 2007. Cross-referencing this synopsis with Mr. Dockery’s criminal record, it becomes apparent that these charges were ultimately withdrawn and are unproven allegations. They are not admissible given my earlier comments.

Merits of the Crown's Application

D. The evidentiary record

[56] Mr. Alexander conceded that the affiant has a subjective belief in grounds. The task therefore in this hearing is whether the Crown has established reasonable grounds to fear that Mr. Dockery will commit a "serious personal injury offence." In other words, does the evidence support an objectively reasonable basis to conclude the respondent poses a present danger.

(i) Criminal Record

[57] The respondent’s criminal record commences in November 1987 in Brampton when he was 19 years old. It contains 46 entries and runs unabated throughout the 1990’s and early 2000’s. There is however a significant 12-year gap between his most recent conviction in 2018 for aggravated assault and an immediately preceding entry for obstruct police officer in April 2006. His criminal record contains multiple entries for acts of violence, including assault, assault bodily harm, aggravated assault, assault with intent to resist arrest, uttering threats and forcible confinement.

[58] In addition, he has an entry for sexual assault in 1996 for which he was sentenced to 4 years in jail.

[59] The respondent’s criminal record contains multiple breaches of court orders and acts of dishonesty, including fraud, personation with intent, possession of counterfeit money and uttering forced document.

[60] The most pressing concern in this case according to the affiant relates to Mr. Dockery interactions with intimate partners or former intimate partners and the potential for future risk. The application record details multiple acts of violence committed on women in Mr. Dockery’s life.

(ii) Summary of offences

[61] Included in the Crown’s Application Record is a section entitled “Prior Criminal Convictions” which is a summary of the allegations that comprise his criminal record.[^9] It was compiled by the affiant. I have attached the most weight to those summaries, where Detective Constable Arzaga reviewed the reasons for sentence.[^10] Some of the summaries were derived from police synopses which I treated with some caution, because of the potential for the allegations contained in the summary to diverge from the facts proven at trial or admitted on a guilty plea. That said, even with this consideration in mind, a pattern quickly emerges of the respondent attacking, threatening and seeking to control his romantic partners.

[62] The prior criminal convictions summary includes the following details:[^11]

[63] A March 1989 entry relates to an assault of a woman on a bus, that Mr. Dockery was romantically involved with.[^12]

[64] A May 1989 entry, where Officer Arzaga reviewed and summarized reasons for sentence. The entry relates to an incident at a Brampton shopping mall, where Mr. Dockery kicked and punched a former girlfriend. A security guard intervened and was assaulted by the respondent. At the time of the incident the respondent was bound by a condition not to have any contact with the victim.

[65] September 1989 entries of aggravated assault and assault causing bodily harm involving the same female victim from March 1989. The affiant reviewed the reasons for sentence. Mr. Dockery during an argument headbutted the victim causing two black eyes and further prevented her from leaving a residence. At the time he was bound by a no-contact order. The aggravated assault relates to a tenant in the unit who attempted to intervene and was slashed in the abdomen with a knife by the respondent.

[66] A January 1996 entry of sexual assault involving a young victim. Mr. Dockery forced the victim to perform fellatio in a locked bathroom after she informed him that she wanted to end their relationship. The respondent was sentenced to a penitentiary term. Mr. Dockery was on parole at the time of the offence.[^13]

[67] Entries of assault bodily harm and forcible confinement in February 2003 involved an intimate partner. Mr. Dockery, confined the victim in a bathroom, pushed her against the wall and choked her until she lost consciousness. The respondent was further found guilty of assault and threatening death in relation to the same victim in an incident that occurred on March 2, 2002.[^14]

[68] April 2004 entries of uttering threats, attempt break and enter and fail to comply with a probation order involved a former girlfriend. The victim had recently ended the relationship and changed the locks on her door. According to the reasons for sentence reviewed by the affiant, Mr. Dockery attended at the victim’s home and had partially removed a portion of the door handle mechanism when police arrived. The threat was directed at the victim’s roommate over the phone when Mr. Dockery was attempting to contact the victim.

[69] As a result of the conviction from April 2004, Mr. Dockery was put on probation. One of the conditions being he have no contact with his former partner. On May 22, 2004, police located the respondent outside the victim’s home. Mr. Dockery subsequently gave a false name to police.[^15]

[70] Five days later while being bound by an additional probation order that he have no contact with his ex-girlfriend, and while serving an intermittent sentence, Mr. Dockery attempted to gain access to the victim’s building. He was sentenced to 60 days custody for breaching his probation.

(iii) Index Offence

[71] I had the benefit of reviewing Justice S.M. Chapman’s thorough reasons for sentence.

[72] The respondent pled guilty to aggravated assault. A Gardiner Hearing was held to determine whether the offence occurred in the context of a domestic relationship. If so, s. 718.2(a)(ii) is applicable. That section expressly provides that where an offender in committing an offence “abused the offender’s spouse or common-law partner” this shall be deemed to be an aggravating circumstance of the offence.

[73] The facts were undisputed – on the afternoon of March 27, 2017, Mr. Dockery walked into the Piccola Citta Bar and Café on Keele Street in Toronto and sat at a table occupied by the victim. There was a brief conversation and Mr. Dockery slapped the victim's face with his right hand, grabbed her by the hair, pushed her to the ground and stomped on her face. She was rendered unconscious.

[74] The assault was captured by surveillance video. There were several patrons in the restaurant at the time of the assault.

[75] The victim suffered serious injuries. Her jaw was broken in multiple places and permanent titanium plates had to be installed in her mouth. Two teeth had to be removed as part of reconstructive surgery. The psychological harm was immense.

[76] Chapman J. found that Mr. Dockery was in an intimate relationship with the victim and the assault occurred in the context of a domestic relationship.

[77] In imposing a five-year sentence, the Court stated that the victim was “brutally and publicly attacked for no apparent reason.” And sustained, “Devastating, life altering injuries as a result of the attack.”

[78] The Court further noted that the respondent has a “lengthy and very serious history of acts of violence against women that he is involved with.” Chapman J. concluded the respondent was a “serial domestic abuser.”

(iv) History on parole

[79] While serving his first penitentiary sentence Mr. Dockery was granted full parole in March 1994 and he resided with his mother. Parole was suspended two months later after the respondent was arrested for a number of serious criminal offences, related to a domestic partner.

[80] During his second federal sentence, Mr. Dockery was granted parole in January 1999. His release was suspended three months later. The respondent was again granted parole in January 2000. That parole was revoked in March 2000 when Mr. Dockery breached a no-contract order with a former girlfriend.

(v) Additional background

[81] Mr. Dockery is 54 years old. He is a Canadian in citizen. He was raised in Toronto and for a three-to-four-year period was in the care of child protection services before returning to his mother’s care at the age of 16. He has a grade 12 education and employment experience in construction.

[82] The respondent has sporadic contact with his mother, who no longer lives in Canada. His father passed away.

[83] The respondent has six children. Mr. Dockery expressed particular concern over his 12-year-old daughter living in the U.S. The respondent was married to her mother, who was recently killed in a car accident. Mr. Dockery has struggled with grief and loss.

[84] According to Officer Arzaga’s affidavit Mr. Dockery has committed offences against ten female intimate victims. Whether this an accurate number is hard to confirm, that said, based on the materials I have reviewed it is clear that the respondent has assaulted and threatened multiple intimate partners. He has consistently and brazenly breached no contact orders in place to protect these women.

[85] During his most recent period serving a penitentiary sentence Mr. Dockery did not incur any institutional charges or convictions. However, during past periods of incarceration he incurred seven institutional convictions. They are noted as minor.

(vi) Counselling and rehabilitation

[86] The respondent’s attempts at counselling are mixed. Mr. Dockery initially refused to participate in the Sex Offender Primer Program, but subsequently agreed. He completed the program and was deemed to be an active participant who put significant thought and effort into his written work. However, he did not complete one essential component of the program and as a result did not receive a “successful completion” designation despite attending all of the required sessions.

[87] The respondent also initially declined to participate in the Sex Offender High Intensity Program, but subsequently agreed.

[88] The program was interrupted due to the Covid-19 pandemic, and a modified version developed. Mr. Dockery’s attendance and participation prior to the disruption was good, however according to facilitators the respondent’s motivation in the program seemed to diminish over time.

[89] Of particular concern during his presentation on the index offence as part of correctional counselling Mr. Dockery attempted to minimize his abusive behaviour and shift blame. Specifically, he felt angry that the victim’s actions had brought him to the attention of police. Further, despite multiple convictions for violent offences against women, Mr. Dockery stated to a facilitator that, “He never had issues with women.”

[90] There are some positive aspects noted in the Program Performance Report prepared by the CSC. For example, Mr. Dockery during his participation in the primer program appeared to develop a better understanding of the characteristics of a healthy intimate relationship. The respondent also demonstrated some insight into the repercussions of his past behaviour and expressed a desire to do better in the future, believing his current period of incarceration would be his last.

E. Analysis and conclusion

[91] Upon a review of the Crown's application record and the affiant’s viva voce evidence, I have concluded that Officer Arzaga’s fear that Mr. Dockery will likely commit a “serious personal injury offence,” unless bound by a recognizance to be objectively reasonable.

[92] Mr. Dockery’s criminal antecedents are striking. The respondent has a long and serious criminal record dating back to 1989. There are 46 entries of which 12 relate to offences committed against intimate partners. On more than one occasion, Mr. Dockery brazenly ignored a no-contact order to inflict further harm on a victim. Of note, the respondent violated his parole by contacting the victim of a previous serious sexual assault and was recommitted.

[93] Mr. Dockery has inflicted high levels of violence on his female victims and caused significant harm. His most recent victim is physically and psychologically broken by the respondent’s actions.

[94] What becomes evident upon review of the admissible documentary evidence is a steady and concerning pattern of behaviour, that is, consistent acts of domestic violence over many years, despite gaps in his record. Mr. Dockery is particularly dangerous when his partners wish to end the romantic relationship. On multiple occasions the respondent attacked bystanders that tried to assist his female victims.

[95] Neither has Mr. Dockery shown much progress in developing insight into his abusive behaviour despite access to correctional programming and counselling over multiple federal sentences and probation orders. The respondent has made some progress and there is positive institutional feedback on his rehabilitative efforts, but the CSC reports also indicate that Mr. Dockery continues to minizine his criminal behaviour and fails acknowledge his history of domestic violence.

[96] The respondent’s history of breaches of court orders and parole violations demonstrate poor self-regulation skills.

[97] The analysis in this s. 810.2 hearing is focused on an evaluation of present risk. Based on the evidence I do accept I readily conclude that Mr. Dockery poses a present and ongoing danger to his domestic partners. In coming to this conclusion, I have placed the most weight on the respondent’s own criminal record, which clearly establishes a pattern of violent offending towards women.

[98] Further, I have limited confidence given his modest achievements in rehabilitative programming that he has the requisite insight into his actions or the awareness and skills to be able engage in healthy non-violent relationships.

[99] The applicant has satisfied their burden based on sufficient and credible evidence, that a preventative order is required in this case.[^16]

H.S. Amarshi J.

Appendix A

Crown’s Application Record

Index:

Page 1 – Section 810.2 notice, Grounds for Fear, and proposed conditions

Page 4 – Grounds for Fear

Page 6 – Criminal Record

Page 27 – Parole Board Decision, July 29, 2020

Page 33 – 810.2 Information

Page 52 – Assessment for Decision, Parole Board of Canada

Page 64 – Criminal Harassment, case information

Page 90 – Agg assault, assault, FC, sex assault, etc., case information

Page 115 – CSC Correction plan, 2019

Page 132 – CPIC

Page 141 – CSC Criminal Profile Report

Page 157 – WED package and CSC Information

Page 167 – Former Bail, June 2021

Page 183 – Decision of Chapman, J., Ontario Court of Justice

Page 198 – Parole Board of Canada decision, July 29 2020

Page 204 – Police Report, August 2007

Page 207 – CSC Program Performance Report

Page 221 – CSC Program Performance Report

Page 231 – CSC Assessment Report

Page 237 – Victim Impact Statement

Page 245 – Government of Canada, Warrant Expiry Memo

Page 251 – Warrant Expiry Release Package, CSC

[^1]: The respondent was sentenced to a period of incarceration for five years, minus pre-trial custody.

[^2]: "Serious personal injury" is defined in s. 752 of the Criminal Code as an indictable offence, involving (i) the use or attempted use of violence against another person, or (ii) conduct endangering or likely to endanger the life or safety of another person or inflicting or likely to inflict severe psychological damage on another person, and for which the offender may be sentenced to imprisonment for ten years or more.

[^3]: Section 810.2 refers specifically to a Provincial Court Judge.

[^4]: See R. v. Budreo, 128 O.A.C.105, at para. 51.

[^5]: At paras. 27-28. See also R. v. Mackie, 2020 ONCJ 360, for a thorough discussion on the “credible and trustworthy” threshold.

[^6]: See R. v. Williams, 2018 ONCA 437.

[^7]: For example, in many of the summaries the complainant is not even named.

[^8]: See also discussion in R. v. McDunough, [2006] O.J. No. 2199, (SCJ) at paras. 27-30.

[^9]: The summary includes withdrawn charges and dismissed charges which I did not consider

[^10]: The affiant also relies on documentation prepared by the CSC, specifically the Criminal Profile Report, in compiling the summaries.

[^11]: For the purposes of this decision, I have only included summaries of offences involving intimate partners and not any other criminal offences.

[^12]: The nature of the relationship is revealed in the September 1989 summary.

[^13]: It is unclear whether the affiant relied on reasons for sentence or a police synopsis in compiling this summary. As a result, I have not considered additional aggravating facts contained in the summary that are unrelated to the sexual assault. That said, the assault was considered serious. Mr. Dockery was initially sentenced to 7 years in jail, which was reduced on appeal to 4 years. Clearly the Court of Appeal deemed the offence to have been sufficiently serious that it warranted a penitentiary sentence.

[^14]: These two entries are not contained in Mr. Dockery’s criminal record but are found via a CIPS summary. The disposition is noted at page 88 of the Crown’s Application Record.

[^15]: The factual summary for this offence is contained in Justice Chapman’s decision.

[^16]: A further hearing was held to consider the conditions being sought by the Crown as part of the preventative order. Ultimately Mr. Dockery was bound by s. 810.2 order for 14 months. This duration takes into account a number of months Mr. Dockery was bound by a recognizance before the commencement of this hearing.