ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

CITATION: R. v. Paroski, 2022 ONCJ 473

DATE: 2022 10 14

COURT FILE No.: Toronto Region – College Park Court

Information No. 18-75004636

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

— AND —

MARC PAROSKI

Before Justice M. Wong

Heard on April 25, 26; May 2, 5, 9, 10, 12, 13, 16, 17; June 7, 10, 24, 28; July 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14; Written Submissions (August 8, etc.) and Oral Argument August 30, 2022

Reasons for Judgment released Electronically on October 13, 2022, and filed in Court on October 14, 2022

Jennifer Stanton and Gabriel Ho................................................... counsel for the Crown

Anik Morrow .......................................................... counsel for the accused Marc Paroski

Contents

Procedural History: 3

The Statutory Framework: 4

Position of the Parties: 5

Issue: 6

Evidence: 6

a) The Predicate or Index Offence: 6

b) Criminal Antecedents: 6

c) Institutional Record. 11

d) Mr. Paroski Currently. 15

i) Institutional Behaviour: 15

ii) SAFER Program.. 16

iii) Programs and Education.. 17

iv) Dr. Rajko Seat 18

v) Medication – Biphentin. 18

vi) Substance Abuse: 18

vii) Family. 19

viii) Mr. Paroski’s Section 726 Code Statement 21

e) Expert Evidence: 21

i) General Role of Expert Witnesses in Dangerous Offender Applications: 21

ii) Diagnosis of Mr. Paroski 22

iii) Actuarial Tools. 24

a) PCL-R.. 24

b) VRAG.. 29

c) HCR-20. 29

d) HCR-20 v.3 and SAPROF.. 30

e) Opinion on Future Risk. 30

f) Other Witnesses: 34

i) Karen Salo, Provincial SOLGEN.. 34

ii) Angela Pace. 35

iii) Brad Tamcsu.. 35

iv) Dr. Harinder Mrahar 37

a) Assessment (Intake) Unit at OCI 38

b) Treatment Unit at OCI 39

c) Anti-Social Personality Disordered Residents at OCI 39

d) Dangerous Offenders or Long-Term Offenders at OCI 39

e) Discharge Planning at OCI 40

v) Joseph Dixon.. 40

a) Community Correctional Centres (CCC’s) 41

b) Community Residential Facilities (CRF’s) 42

c) Long-Term Offenders in CCC or CRF.. 42

Analysis: 42

a) The Designation Stage. 44

i) Serious personal injury offence. 44

ii) Pattern of Repetitive Behaviour 44

iii) High Likelihood of Harmful Recidivism and Intractability. 46

High Likelihood of Harmful Recidivism.. 46

Intractability at the Designation Stage. 48

b) The Penalty Stage. 54

Conclusion: 58

Appendix A - Detailed Exhibits List 60

Wong, J.:

[1] This is a ruling on a dangerous offender application brought by the Crown after the Court found Marc Paroski guilty of aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, and two breaches of probation.

Procedural History:

[2] It has been four years since Marc Paroski’s arrest on August 17, 2018, and two and a half years since he was found guilty after a trial on May 17, 2019. On October 23, 2019, the Court ordered pursuant to s.752.1 of the Criminal Code, an assessment report by Dr. Elizabeth Coleman. Her report is dated March 9, 2020. On June 11, 2020, Mr. Paroski’s original counsel brought an application to be removed from the record. Ms. Morrow was subsequently retained and by July 2020, she was appearing for Mr. Paroski. There was further delay because Ms. Morrow needed time to review the Crown’s materials and to retain experts. By January 2021, the first set of dates for this sentencing hearing were set: 19 days were scheduled to commence on September 30, 2021. However, Mr. Paroski brought an application to adjourn those dates, and the second set of sentencing dates were set for April 2022.

[3] Starting April 25, 2022, the Court has heard 21 days of evidence from ten witnesses, received substantial amounts of documentary evidence, plus had both written and oral submissions.[^1]

[4] The Crown called Dr. Coleman, Karen Salo (Area Manager for the Ministry of the Attorney-General); Angela Pace (Superintendent at the Thunder Bay Jail to discuss programming in provincial institutions); Joseph Dixon (Correctional Services of Canada); and Brad Tamcsu (Manager overseeing the Mental Health and Addictions Program for SOLGEN).

[5] The Defence called Dr. Harinder Mrahar (Chief Psychologist at the Ontario Correctional Institute); Dr. Derek Pallandi (psychiatrist); Dr. Rajko Seat (psychologist at the Toronto South Detention Centre); Shannon Mason (Addictions Counsellor at the Toronto East Detention Centre); and Shannon Paroski (Marc Paroski’s sister).

The Statutory Framework:

[6] The leading case is R. v. Boutilier 2017 SCC 64, [2017] 2 S.C.R. 936 (SCC). The dangerous offender scheme is designed as a "two stage" process.

[7] Section 753(1) of the Criminal Code lists the statutory requirements that must be met before a court can designate an offender as dangerous ("designation stage"):

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 expressed 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….

[8] Subsections (4) and (4.1) of s. 753 of the Code relate to the sentencing of a dangerous offender ("penalty stage"):

s. 753(4) If the court finds an offender to be a dangerous offender, it shall

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

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

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

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

the commission by the offender of murder or a serious personal injury offence.

[9] The long-term offender regime applies in respect to certain offenders who, notwithstanding they meet the criteria of dangerousness, are not, in the end, designated as dangerous offenders, but instead designated as long-term offenders. To do so, however, the Court must be satisfied that there is a “reasonable possibility of eventual control of risk in the community”[^2]: s. 753.1(1)(c) of the Code.

Position of the Parties:

[10] The Crown submits Mr. Paroski meets the statutory criteria to be designated a dangerous offender. The Crown argues first, Mr. Paroski’s conviction for aggravated assault constitutes a serious personal injury offence. Second, that Mr. Paroski constitutes a threat to the life, safety, or physical or mental well-being of other persons, as evident from his pattern of repetitive behaviour or, alternatively, based on his pattern of persistent aggressive behaviour. Lastly, that Mr. Paroski poses a high likelihood of harmful recidivism, and his violent conduct is intractable.

[11] With respect to the penalty stage, the Crown submits Mr. Paroski should be sentenced to an indeterminate term.

[12] The Defence argues the dangerous offender designation should not apply to Mr. Paroski. Counsel concedes that Mr. Paroski’s conviction for aggravated assault constitutes the first criteria, namely, the defendant has been found guilty of a “serious personal injury offence”. However, Defence counsel argues Mr. Paroski’s conviction for aggravated assault is not part of a broader “pattern” of violence. Additionally, counsel submits the Court cannot be satisfied there is a “high” likelihood of harmful recidivism and that Mr. Paroski’s violent conduct is “intractable”.

[13] The Defence argues in the alternative: first, that the Court could find that Mr. Paroski is neither a dangerous offender nor a long-term offender and sentence him to a determinate period of incarceration. In the alternative, if the Court finds that Mr. Paroski fits the criteria of a long-term offender, then he asks for a sentence of imprisonment no more than two years less a day with a strong recommendation that he serve the sentence at the Ontario Correctional Institute (OCI), followed by a long-term supervision order (LTSO) in the range of 7 years up to a maximum of 10 years.

Issue:

[14] The question is whether the evidence supports Mr. Paroski’s treatability that can bring about sufficient risk reduction to ensure protection of the public should he eventually be released into the community. Put another way, does the evidence lead the Court to the reasonable possibility of managing Mr. Paroski in the community despite his lengthy criminal history, his past refusal to undertake treatment, his poor institutional record, and his psychiatric diagnosis.

Evidence:

a) The Predicate or Index Offence:

[15] Mr. Paroski’s date of birth is February 15, 1986. He was 32 years old when he committed the offence of aggravated assault:

[16] On August 9, 2018, Mr. Paroski without any provocation, slashed a stranger across the face with a knife. At 8:00 am., the victim Christopher Phillips, was smoking a cigarette outside of a men’s shelter, when a male and a female approached him. The male, who was later identified as Mr. Paroski, said his name was “Polo” although his speech was rambling and incoherent. Mr. Paroski showed the victim a 4-inch “dagger”, but initially he put the knife away. Mr. Paroski began talking to an unknown third-party male, but then suddenly without any provocation, Mr. Paroski turned and slashed Mr. Phillips across the left side of his face. It took 42 stitches to close the wound.

[17] All of this was captured on video. After slashing the victim, Mr. Paroski is seen walking quickly away followed by his female companion. The two went between and behind nearby apartment buildings. On video, the female is seen beckoning Mr. Paroski to a door leading to a stairwell of an underground parking lot. The pair disappeared through the door and three minutes later, the couple re-surfaced. Mr. Paroski had changed some clothing and the two walked away.

[18] When police later arrived on scene, they located a pair of brown cargo pants in the stairwell. Forensic testing revealed Mr. Paroski’s DNA on the inside waistband.

[19] Eight days later on August 17, 2018, Mr. Paroski and a female were arrested on a TTC bus. This, too, was captured on video. As police approached them, Mr. Paroski is seen looking down and reaching his right arm behind the female. Police located a collapsible buck knife beneath the seat where the pair had been sitting. The victim’s DNA was later located on the knife’s blade.

[20] Mr. Paroski was arrested on August 17, 2018, and he has remained in custody ever since.

b) Criminal Antecedents:

[21] To designate the offender under section 753(1)(a)(i) of the Code, the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that:

• the predicate offence is part of a pattern of repetitive behaviour;

• this pattern of behaviour shows a failure by the offender to restrain this behaviour; and

• this pattern shows a likelihood that the offender will cause death or injury or inflict severe psychological damage because of a failure in the future to restrain this behaviour.

[22] The Crown relies on Mr. Paroski’s prior youth and criminal record, which they argue is part of a long pattern of violence that spans close to 20 years starting when he was 13 years old. Mr. Paroski is now 36 years old. He has 35 convictions for violence including aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, assault peace officers, robbery, forcible confinement, and threatening offences. His longest term of imprisonment has been a four years, eight month sentence as a result of continuing to reoffend and receiving consecutive sentences.

[23] Mr. Paroski’s first offence as a youth was in 1999, when he threw a rollerblade at his stepmother, and he grabbed a knife as he fled. He was found guilty or pleaded guilty and was given 15 months probation. That same year while at Syl Apps Youth Centre, and while on probation, Mr. Paroski assaulted another resident, who was charged with sexual offences. He was placed in open custody for 7 days and received a 15-month probation term. His next entry was for a residential break and enter, assaulting someone at a public school, and breaching his bail. Mr. Paroski was given credit of 39 days spent in secure detention and placed on probation for 24 months. Still in 2000, Mr. Paroski was found guilty twice of assaulting, first, another youth in a group home and later of assaulting staff at Syl Apps. In 2001, he was found guilty or pleaded guilty to robbery, wherein the victims ages 10 and 12, were leaving a variety store when Mr. Paroski along with others demanded money. He received credit of 3 months of pre-trial detention. In 2002, Mr. Paroski threatened someone at school and was given credit for 158 days of pre-trial detention and place on 18 months probation. In 2003, he pleaded guilty or was found guilty of assaulting another student at school. That same year, he was found guilty or pleaded guilty to assault resist arrest, assault, break and enter, and fail to comply with a disposition. Mr. Paroski received pre-trial custody credit of 33 days, and he was given a 120-day custody and supervision order followed by 20 months of probation.

[24] Mr. Paroski’s adult criminal record begins in 2004 with the first of three convictions for aggravated assault.

[25] In the first aggravated assault, Mr. Paroski stabbed a 15-year-old victim, who was in a park with some friends around midnight. A dispute arose when Mr. Paroski spoke to the victim’s girlfriend. Mr. Paroski stabbed the victim in the chest. The victim also suffered injuries to the back of his head and his teeth were damaged. In a second incident, Mr. Paroski also pleaded guilty to assaulting a court officer. The Court accepted a joint submission for the equivalent of 11 months of custody less time served of the equivalent of 4 months, plus 2 years of probation.[^3]

[26] The next year in 2005, Mr. Paroski pleaded guilty to assaulting his father, and breaching both a recognizance (a condition of house arrest) and probation order. Mr. Paroski and his father were arguing in the family’s kitchen about the defendant’s behaviour. Mr. Paroski spat in his father’s face and pushed him against the wall. He followed his father into a hallway and punched and kicked him. Mr. Paroski received credit for the equivalent of 3 months less time served of 34 days.[^4]

[27] The next entry on his adult criminal record was on June 13, 2006, when at age 22, Mr. Paroski received his first penitentiary sentence of 28 months on a series of separate offences. According to the transcripts of the proceedings,[^5] the first offence occurred on July 8, 2005, whereby Mr. Paroski was sitting in a car with some friends. He was asked to get out, and he reacted by pulling out a sharp object and threatening the victims. He left and later kicked out a window at a Salvation Army. Mr. Paroski was released from custody with his father as surety. On February 6, 2006, Mr. Paroski admitted two domestic incidents involving his then-girlfriend, Sheila Hearn, with whom he had a 4-month-old child. The first occurred at a Walmart and the victim wanted to leave. Mr. Paroski grabbed her arm and yelled at her. Later that same day, the couple was walking with Ms. Hearn pushing the baby stroller. Mr. Paroski pushed the victim to the ground. The victim ran into the median to get help and call 911. Mr. Paroski followed her grabbing the phone and striking Ms. Hearn on the left side of her head. Ms. Hearn also revealed to police that on October 5, 2005, as she was recovering in hospital after just having given birth to their daughter Adriana (now age 17), Mr. Paroski began arguing about the sleeping arrangements. Mr. Paroski wrapped his arm around Ms. Hearn’s neck and choked her until she passed out. Mr. Paroski consented to his detention.

[28] While in custody Mr. Paroski was found guilty or pleaded guilty to three separate incidents of assaulting court officers (March 17, March 27, and April 11, all in 2006).

[29] Things did not go well for Mr. Paroski while serving his federal sentence. What began as a 28-month sentence ended up being 4 years, 8 months and 12-days following convictions for these offences:

(1) On June 22, 2007, Mr. Paroski was housed in the Segregation Unit at Millhaven Institution. He became upset because some mail he had received had been pushed under his cell door and had gotten wet. The floor was wet because the day before Mr. Paroski had damaged the sprinkler head in his cell. Mr. Paroski began yelling and screaming at the officer and spat on them. He received an additional 45 days consecutive to the time he was serving.

(2) On October 23, 2007, while still in Millhaven’s Segregation Unit, he threatened to throw urine and punch a guard. While speaking to the Correctional Manager, Mr. Paroski stood up from his chair and spat in the officer’s face and continued to kick at him. Once back in his cell, he again damaged the sprinkler.

(3) In March 2008, Mr. Paroski was released on statutory release to the Keele Community Correctional Centre (CCC). Two months later, a suspension warrant was issued after Mr. Paroski was found to have been calling Sheila Hearn, the victim on the previous domestic incidents, and leaving threatening messages because he wanted to see their child plus he was enraged that the victim was dating someone he knew. On August 20, 2008, Mr. Paroski was found guilty after a trial of two counts of threatening and sentenced to 12 months consecutive.[^6]

(4) Lastly, while incarcerated at Millhaven, on February 3, 2009, Mr. Paroski stabbed another inmate and pleaded guilty to assault with a weapon. Mr. Paroski stabbed the victim three times in the neck and torso, while both men were in the Millhaven gym. He also admitted assaulting a peace officer on April 8, 2009 by spitting on him. Mr. Paroski received 12 months custody consecutive for the assault with a weapon, and six months concurrent for the assault peace officer. [^7]

[30] On June 2, 2009, the National Parole Board ordered Mr. Paroski’s detention until the expiration of his sentence having been satisfied that, if released, he would likely commit an offence causing serious harm to another person before the expiration of his sentence. His release expiry date became February 24, 2011. The day before his release on February 23, 2011, Mr. Paroski entered into a s. 810.2 recognizance, known colloquially as a “serious injury peace bond”, with certain conditions in particular that he report to the York Regional Police High Risk Offender Unit.[^8]

[31] Six months after his release on August 16, 2011, he committed his second aggravated assault. The victim had just received $90 that someone else owed him. Mr. Paroski began striking the victim in the face, breaking his orbital bone and palate. He also took $30. Mr. Paroski was sentenced to eight months of custody in addition to three months pre-trial detention.[^9] (I note that Mr. Paroski gave a different version of the events to Dr. Coleman, who at page 36 of her report, she noted that Mr. Paroski said he punched someone in the face after someone slammed a door too hard)[^10]

[32] On January 8, 2013, Mr. Paroski appeared before a Court and pleaded guilty to breaching the s 810.2 order on June 11, 2012, by possessing drugs and possess of a substance. The Court accepted the joint submission of time served in lieu of the 7 months of pre-trial detention.[^11]

[33] The next entry several entries on Mr. Paroski’s criminal record related to a different intimate partner, Ashley Flint:

(1) On September 7, 2013, Mr. Paroski killed Ms. Flint’s cat by throwing it over a 11^th floor balcony. Mr. Paroski grew jealous because Ms. Flint’s phone kept ringing and he accused her of cheating on him. The next day, he wanted to have sex, but she refused. Mr. Paroski was irate and began smashing some figurines. He then threw her cat off the balcony. Mr. Paroski blocked Ms. Flint as she tried to run outside to her cat.[^12] He pleaded guilty and received enhanced credit for pre-trial detention of 142 day for the equivalent of 6 months of jail and 18 months probation.

(2) On June 2, 2014, Mr. Paroski has an entry of fail to comply with recognizance related to Ms. Flint, but no transcript was provided.

(3) On April 7, 2015 – Fail to comply with recognizance and probation – on same victim, which was referred to the December 2, 2016, transcript.

(4) On August 29, 2016 – Mr. Paroski was found guilty after a trial on not reporting to probation on September 14, 2015, because, as the judge noted in their reasons, Mr. Paroski had fled to Calgary knowing that he had charges pending in respect of Ashley Flint. He was given credit for the equivalent of 7 ½ months and was given a further 60 days in jail and 3 years probation.[^13]

(5) On December 2, 2016, Mr. Paroski pleaded guilty to offences of assault and forcible confinement on Ashley Flint, with an offence date of November 17, 2016. On this date, Mr. Paroski admitted being intoxicated at 2:00 pm and going to the victim’s house. Later that evening, he was checking Ms. Flint’s Facebook account, and they began arguing. He punched her in the mouth several times with a closed fist. She tried to leave, but Mr. Paroski blocked her and pulled her back inside the apartment. Counsel jointly recommended a 45-day sentence less pre-trial custody and 2 years probation.[^14]

[34] In 2017, while in custody at the Toronto South Detention Centre (TSDC), Mr. Paroski also pleaded guilty to the following:

(1) On May 25, 2017, Mr. Paroski admitted kicking and damaging a cell door window in the Special Handling Unit at the TSDC. He also pleaded guilty to Uttering Threats on March 14, 2017, when the correctional officer was slow to turn on the television set. Mr. Paroski received credit for 60 days of pre-trial detention, plus 1 day in jail. [^15]

(2) On September 10, 2017, Mr. Paroski assaulted a TSDC correctional officer engaged in the execution of his duty. Officers wanted to search his cell and Mr. Paroski became assaultive, struggled with the officers, and bit one of them in the thigh area. On December 22, 2017, he received pre-trial detention credit of 66 days.[^16]

[35] Next, on June 13, 2018, Mr. Paroski received a $100 fine for fail to comply probation order and possession of crack cocaine (.3 gms.).[^17]

[36] On June 29, 2018, Mr. Paroski was either found guilty or pleaded guilty to Fail to comply with probation and received time served the equivalent of 5 days.

[37] On July 20, 2018, Mr. Paroski pleaded guilty to theft under (alcohol from the LCBO) and fail to comply probation (not keeping the peace and being of good behaviour). The Court imposed a one-day jail sentence having consider pre-trial custody credit of 5 days.[^18]

[38] On August 9, 2018, 20 days later, Mr. Paroski committed the aggravated assault before this Court when he slashed Christopher Phillips across the face with a knife.

c) Institutional Record

[39] While in custody as a youth, Mr. Paroski was difficult to manage. In a pre-disposition report (PDR) dated March 17, 2000, his prime worker noted that overall, his behaviour was very poor. He was often verbally abusive towards staff, physically assaultive and threatening towards peers. Often, Mr. Paroski needed to be restrained and placed in an isolation unit.[^19] A year later in a report dated February 21, 2001, it noted that Mr. Paroski had 50 incident reports where he had been involved in some form of physical or verbal confrontation with staff and other residents since June 2000. It noted that some of his disruptive behaviour was “attention seeking” and that Mr. Paroski wanted to portray himself as “tough”. A counsellor at Peel Children’s Centre wrote they believed that Mr. Paroski’s aggressive behaviour was a “defense mechanism to survive while in detention” and that it was important to him “not to be seen as weak in front of his peers”. At 15 years old, Mr. Paroski had been at Syl Apps for over a year, and his probation officer was advocating for him to leave Syl Apps because his behaviour and mental health were deteriorating rapidly.[^20]

[40] The next youth pre-disposition report (PDR) is dated September 28, 2001. In February 2001 Mr. Paroski had returned to school where he received a half credit in civics. Unfortunately, he discontinued his counseling sessions at the Peel Children’s Centre and there were angry outbursts reported in the family home. Upon returning to school in September, there was an incident on the second day, which resulted in a 20-day school suspension and a new charge.[^21]

[41] The Initial Plan of Care from Syl Apps which covered the period between September 17, 2001, to October 25, 2001, was relatively optimistic. It noted that Mr. Paroski was “able to keep up with the Unit program, meeting and often exceeding expectations”. It noted that he “always completes his required chores and constantly offers to complete extra chores”. His relations with staff since his last stay at Syl Apps, was described as “greatly improved” and it was noted that he was able to interact on a “mature level”. His level had positively increased to Level 3, and it was expected that he would be soon moving to Level 4.[^22]

[42] However, four months later, in a PDR dated February 6, 2002, Mr. Paroski now 16 years old, had incurred 14 documented incidents involving aggressive behaviour, assaults, verbal aggression towards staff and peers, destruction of property, and inciting others to riot. [^23] The report noted some improvement when Mr. Paroski was moved to a different cottage, and that he was doing some schoolwork.

[43] As Mr. Paroski graduated from youth courts to adult courts, he continued to re-offend and his motivation ebbed and flowed. In a stand-down presentence report (PSR) dated November 26, 2003, it was reported that in September 2003, Mr. Paroski was working full-time for a company called Body Care Manufacturer. He had also enrolled in at INDEC South Foundations program that was aimed for older students interested in obtaining school credit, but which had a long-waiting list. The probation officer arranged a special meeting for Mr. Paroski with the Peel District School Board’s Superintendent, who agreed to allow the defendant back into their district school system. Unfortunately, by the end of October 2003, Mr. Paroski had quit both his job and he had stopped attending school.[^24]

[44] In a report prepared December 22, 2004, probation had designated Mr. Paroski now age 18, “Max Very High Supervision Overridden from Medium” [^25].

[45] Mr. Paroski’s stepmother, Willa Aplyn hoped that with a proper diagnosis and medication, then her stepson might not be so quick to turn violent (at the time, Mr. Paroski had been diagnosed with bi-polar disorder and was prescribed lithium. At other times, he was diagnosed with Rapid Cycling Mood Disorder with the possibly of Tourette’s Syndrome, Severe Personality Disorder, and “very strong anti-social traits”). [^26] However, it was noted that Mr. Paroski, “did not participate in any counselling or activities” although he told his probation officer that he wanted “to stay out of custody”. [^27]

[46] Fast forward to Mr. Paroski receiving his first federal penitentiary sentence where, as noted, Mr. Paroski’s original sentence of 28 months doubled in length because of his reoffending. However, on October 4, 2006, at his admission interview, his parole officer noted promisingly that Mr. Paroski identified anger as his main concern and that he made the connection because his reactiveness including physical aggression mirrored his father’s treatment of him as a child. It was noted that Mr. Paroski was “starting to feel more responsible for his own actions” and he was asking for help for “educational upgrading, programs, psychology, and any other interventions”. As well, Mr. Paroski’s plan was to avoid institutional conflict, especially with correctional officers in hopes to reduce his level of security. Mr. Paroski was told he needed to complete family violence programming before they would support his request for private family visits. Also, his parole officer discussed substance abuse counselling as Mr. Paroski admitted to using and selling marijuana. Mr. Paroski reported that his main motivation for improvement was his newborn daughter, who was then one year old.[^28]

[47] Mr. Paroski was successfully transferred from Millhaven Institution to medium secure Joyceville Institution on March 14, 2007. He did reasonably well for a short time and initially he had no new institutional charges.

[48] However, on July 3, 2007, Mr. Paroski was returned to Millhaven because he had been identified as an aggressor in an assault, he had damaged the sprinkler system in his cell, and had spat on a correctional officer. As noted, he was charged with assault peace officer in October 2007.

[49] In January 2008, it was noted that Mr. Paroski threatened to stab a sex offender, but Mr. Paroski explained that he was merely venting because he had had a bad day.[^29]

[50] On March 31, 2008, however, Mr. Paroski was released on parole from Millhaven, and he was ordered to reside at the Community Correctional Centre (CCC) located at Keele Street in Toronto. This was Mr. Paroski’s first attempt at community release while serving a federal sentence. He was deemed “high risk”, but his risk was considered manageable because of his plan of release which included work so he support his infant daughter, programming including AA, programs for family violence, and substance abuse. On April 24, 2008, the family court granted Mr. Paroski joint custody and for several months he enjoyed successful day passes where he went to his parents’ home and visited his daughter. However, on May 30, 2008, Mr. Paroski was charged with uttering a death threat to the child’s mother, convicted, and a received a consecutive jail sentence of 1 year for an aggregate sentence remaining of over three and a half years.[^30]

[51] Mr. Paroski returned to Millhaven very angry and resentful towards the complainant, and he was eventually deemed unmanageable at maximum security Millhaven Institution and transferred to the Special Handling Unit in Quebec. The supervisors based this recommendation on Mr. Paroski’s institutional history including a whole list of infractions[^31], new charges while in custody including the 2009 stabbing of another inmate, and his refusal to complete any substantive programing.[^32]

[52] It is noted that on March 8, 2010, Mr. Paroski completed the Motivationally Based Intervention Strategy (MBIS) with his parole officer described as a “therapeutic intervention …created to help offenders increase their motivation to participate in correctional programming[^33]. Mr. Paroski’s participation was described as “active and genuine”. He made gains developing some insight into his problematic behaviour and how his attitude and behaviour have prevented him from attaining some of his goals. It was noted in part that Mr. Paroski would try taking “time outs” when he felt disrespected or diminished, and that he would focus on his goals and possible consequences of his acting out. Mr. Paroski wanted to make changes in order not to get into more trouble and because he did not like to lose control of himself.[^34]

[53] However, soon after, Mr. Paroski stopped participating instead choosing “to abide by a stance adopted by the general population of inmates”. [^35] Often in the various reports, Mr. Paroski was described as a “follower”, a “conformist”, and “very impulsive”.[^36]

[54] In 2011, Mr. Paroski, as noted, was ultimately released on his parole expiry date, and signed a s. 810.2 preventative recognizance.

[55] A report dated May 11, 2012, also concluded that Mr. Paroski remained a “high risk and a high needs offender”. Referring to a psychological/psychiatric assessment report written by Dr. Nathan Mandelzys, a contract psychologist at Kingston Penitentiary dated June 19, 2009, Mr. Paroski’s file indicated that he had “significant interpersonal conflict, distorted cognitions, problem solving deficits, and deficits in other areas of interpersonal functioning”. The report cited his difficulties both in institutions and in the community. It noted that he “had not profited from his experience of federal incarcerations, and it appears that he continues to lack insight into his criminal behaviour”.[^37] At the time of the report, it noted that the “longest stretch of time [Mr.] Paroski [had] been in general population was 10 days, due to [his] committing misconducts and being placed back in segregation”. He had completed programming for Anti-Criminal Thinking, but failed Substance Abuse and Anger Management programs due to his poor attendance. It was also noted that he refused to meet with psychiatry even though he had been diagnosed a decade earlier with bi-polar disorder, and he refused to take any medication.[^38]

[56] Throughout this institutional records, Mr. Paroski has typically been classified as “high risk for re-offending”. The reports also refer to Mr. Paroski’s behavioural instability, lack of impulse control, and the need for anger management counselling.

[57] In 2015, Dr. Angus MacDonald diagnosed Mr. Paroski at the Brief Assessment Unit at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) with “severe antisocial personality disorder”.[^39]

[58] In a 2016 presentence report, it was noted in 2015, Mr. Paroski spent five months in custody at Maplehurst Correctional Centre but that he had not participated in any programming. However, Mr. Paroski told the probation officer that he would like the Court to give him “another opportunity” to be compliant in the community. [^40]

[59] On April 12, 2017, Mr. Paroski was identified as a gang member and his case was transferred to the Toronto Anti-Guns and Gangs Unit.

[60] In a January 2018, a probation and parole officer, who was supervising Mr. Paroski at the Toronto Anti-Guns and Gangs Unit in the Intense Supervision Stream scored him a 29 on the LSI-OR[^41] describing Mr. Paroski as “very high risk to reoffend”. It noted that Mr. Paroski “minimized his behaviour” and blamed what he said was the “victim’s (Ashley Flint’s) …. mental health” issues. It noted Mr. Paroski had failed to comply with probation orders and that he made “contradictory statements regarding his substance use” relating to alcohol and marijuana although no mention was made of harder drugs such as crystal methamphetamine. The report also described as “alarming” Mr. Paroski’s “apparent lack of remorse and [his] willingness to continuously defy court-ordered tasks” and his “fixation on the “victim” who he had “violently assaulted in the past” although it was unclear whether Mr. Paroski was under the influence of substances at the time. It was noted, “Unfortunately, due to vague responses by Mr. Paroski, it is unknown how much of a concern [substance use} may be. Mr. Paroski’s mental health diagnoses would have an effect on his ability to control his emotions as well as resolve problems in an effective manner thus resulting in further criminal involvement”. The report stated that Mr. Paroski’s ASPD (anti-social personality disorder) had “no cure or treatment”. [^42]

d) Mr. Paroski Currently

[61] That report was prepared in January 2018, and Mr. Paroski was arrested on August 17, 2018, on the index offence of aggravated assault. He was ordered detained in custody, first at the Toronto South Detention Centre “Toronto South”) and then in August 2021 he was transferred, at his request to the Toronto East Detention Centre (“Toronto East”)

i) Institutional Behaviour:

[62] Since August 17, 2018, Mr. Paroski has incurred nine misconducts while detained at the Toronto South Detention Centre on the index offence:

(1) October 12, 2018 – Threatens assault

(2) October 15, 2018 – Threatens assault

(3) January 9, 2019 – Threatens assault

(4) March 15, 2019 – Gross insult

(5) March 21, 2019 – Gross insult

[63] On December 10, 2018, Mr. Paroski spent 15-30 days on the Behavioural Management Unit, where staff noted “very positive attitude, respectful to other officers, no issues”. His interaction with other inmates was described as “positive” and he kept his cell clean.[^43]

[64] However, even after the Crown served Notice in April 2019 that they were bringing the dangerous offender application, Mr. Paroski incurred four additional institutional misconducts on his file:

(1) June 7, 2019 – Threatens assault

(2) July 4, 2019 – Threatens assault

(3) September 12, 2019 – Threatens Assault

(4) July 21, 2020 – Willfully disobey order of officer

[65] In August 2021, Mr. Paroski transferred to Toronto East Detention Centre, where he has not been found guilty of any misconducts.[^44] Also, since arriving at Toronto East, Mr. Paroski has displayed considerable effort and has made significant gains in many areas of his life.

ii) SAFER Program

[66] At the Toronto East, Mr. Paroski’s level of security has steadily been reduced from maximum down to medium and as of July 13, 2022, from medium to now minimum security. Toronto East uses what is called the SAFER (Security Assessment for Evaluation Risk) tool to assess an inmate’s risk of committing violent or frequent misconducts. The tool uses information from the Offender Tracking Information System (OTIS) and puts the data into an algorithm which then produces a score and a SAFER classification level: Minimum, Medium, or Maximum. Inmates are then housed according to their level of the same SAFER classification level. Inmates are encouraged to lower their score by not committing misconducts and participating in Ministry Core Programs. Inmates housed on the maximum unit do not receive anything extra beyond what is required by the Ministry., i.e.. programs, yards, access to health care, social workers, and so on. Inmates housed on a medium unit receive some incentives beyond what is required to give them. Minimum units receive the great number of incentives, as they have the lowest score in the institution. [^45]

[67] Mr. Paroski was on the SAFER maximum unit from March 8, 2022, through to April 12, 2022. He was moved to a medium security level on April 11, 2022, because he had completed six Ministry Core Programs and had no misconducts. On July 13, 2022, he was moved to a minimum security until, which is a dorm setting of which Toronto East only has one.

[68] It is also noted that during the COVID pandemic which caused disruption in the jails for the past two years starting in March 2020, Mr. Paroski was at times tripled bunked, yet he remained compliant.[^46] On three occasions Mr. Paroski was placed under a COVID droplet protocol, whereby inmates were let out of their cells for only a 30-minute period to access showers, telephone, and television. Mr. Paroski also contracted COVID, and he was taken to hospital after collapsing on the unit.

iii) Programs and Education

[69] Defence counsel filed a long list of all the programs Mr. Paroski has completed while in custody since 2018.[^47] Counsel describes Mr. Paroski’s achievements as “steady, “multi-pronged”, and that his programing and treatment efforts are “inter-related”. Here are some highlights of the programs and college course, he has undertaken:

(1) The multi-session John Howard Society Drug and Alcohol Awareness Program (DAAP) plus he has applied to St. Mike’s House, a long-term rehabilitation centre for substance abuse. In a letter dated May 13, 2019, John Howard will continue to support Mr. Paroski in the community.

(2) He completed numerous Life Skills programs approximately 60 minutes each as well as fourteen, 10-hour programs offered by Brighter Dayz on topics such as life skills, communication skills, anti-criminal thinking, stress management, and substance abuse as well as numerous workshops on self-accountability, self-esteem, cognitive skills, healthy relationship, and effective parenting. Counsel submitted a one-and-a-half page, single spaced list of all of Mr. Paroski’s programing starting with “Goal Setting” on December 6, 2018 and ending with Planning for Discharge on January 4, 2022.[^48]

(3) Mr. Paroski registered in the General Arts and Science Certificate program offered by Northern College and supervised by Amadeusz, a charitable organization that supports incarcerated young people between the ages of 18 to 35 to make changes in their lives through education and community support. Mr. Paroski has completed four psychology courses attaining grade averages of 75%, 80% and two 83%.[^49] In a letter dated April 19, 2022, the Education Manager at Amadeusz described Mr. Paroski as “dedicated, capable, and engaged”. They commended him for attending the program regularly, completing assignments, taking initiative in his learning, and asking for help, when needed.[^50]

iv) Dr. Rajko Seat

[70] Dr. Rajko Seat testified that, as a full-time staff psychologist at the Toronto South Detention Centre, he first met Mr. Paroski five times in 2017 until Mr. Paroski was released from jail. When Mr. Paroski returned after being arrested for the index offence, Dr. Seat again saw him 17 more times and gave him psychoeducational material until Mr. Paroski requested a transfer to the Toronto East Detention Centre. Citing the academic work of Prochaska and DiClemente in the Transtheoretical Model of Change[^51], Dr. Seat opined that Mr. Paroski has moved from the “preparation and contemplative stage”, or the midpoint of the process, to now the “action stage”. Dr. Seat credits himself with helping Mr. Paroski internalize the material and to become motivated and deeply engaged in taking concrete steps to make change.

v) Medication – Biphentin

[71] In early 2022, the contract psychiatrist at Toronto East switched Mr. Paroski’s ADHD medication from Strattera, which gave him headaches, to Biphentin with startling results. Dr. Pallandi observed noticeable changes in Mr. Paroski when he was interviewing him for the risk assessment. Once, when Mr. Paroski was without his ADHD medication, Dr. Pallandi described Mr. Paroski’s thoughts were “scattered and disorganized” and he was more agitated.

[72] Additionally, according to Dr. Pallandi, ADHD shares symptoms with antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) thus treating ADHD may assist Mr. Paroski in attenuating some of the symptoms or traits of ASPD, for example, impulsivity.[^52] Dr. Pallandi testified that drugs addicts with ADHD tend to like using crystal methamphetamine because it helps them with mental clarity, reduces their distractibility, and they are less hyper. He said at first, he was quite skeptical when his clients reported profound improvement with their ADHD symptoms while using crystal meth: “My brain is working perfectly”, they would report. Similarly, Mr. Paroski told Dr. Pallandi that crystal meth made him feel “alert”, he stayed “focused” and was “able to concentrate”.[^53] Dr. Pallandi explained that like Ritalin, which for years was the drug of choice for children with ADHD, crystal methamphetamine, at its core, is also a stimulant. The problem with using crystal meth is, as Dr. Pallandi pointed out, things spiral out of control extremely quickly and the loss of control over the substance leads to psychosis, aggressiveness, insomnia, medical complications, plus the social aspect of the drug which includes criminal behaviour, trafficking, and financial loss. Dr. Pallandi described crystal meth as “one of the nastiest and problematic drugs” he had ever seen.

vi) Substance Abuse:

[73] While at Toronto East, Mr. Paroski initiated contact with Shannon Mason, their sole addiction counsellor where he admitted that he has had a long-standing addiction to substances, most recently and most acutely to crystal methamphetamine.

[74] To Dr. Coleman, Mr. Paroski admitted drinking at age 12, while in group homes. Both his biological father and stepmother have problems with drinking. At age 11, Mr. Paroski reported that he started using cannabis. At 13, he tried hallucinogenic mushrooms. In January 2018, Mr. Paroski reported that he and his then girlfriend began using crystal meth with, at times, heroin and/or cocaine. He noted that he increased his use of crystal meth over time starting with one “hit” a day, upwards for one to two grams per day. At first, Mr. Paroski said he smoked it, then snorted it and eventually used it intravenously. [^54] He reported to Dr. Pallandi, that crystal meth made him feel “alert”, it helped him to stay focused, and he was able to concentrate. [^55] Mr. Paroski told Dr. Coleman that he would stay up for five to six days at a time while using. He would snort or inject Fentanyl or take Xanax to “come down” from his high from crystal meth. He noted that nine times he almost died from an overdose but was given Narcan. Twice he ended up in hospital.

[75] To Dr. Pallandi, Mr. Paroski said he had been “binge-using” crystal meth and using Xanax, which is why he said he could not recall the index offence.[^56] He also admitted using injectable substances and trafficked drugs to finance use.

[76] While in custody at the Toronto South, Mr. Paroski admitted to Dr. Coleman that he smoked marijuana.[^57]

[77] Moving forward, both Dr. Coleman and Dr. Pallandi strongly recommend abstinence as opposed to harm-reduction for Mr. Paroski.

[78] Shannon Mason, the Addiction Counsellor at Toronto East, contacted residential facilities on Mr. Paroski’s behalf: three in Toronto and to one just outside of Hamilton. She also gave Mr. Paroski applications to residential facilities in Orillia, which is closest to where Mr. Paroski’s family lives, but that program does not accept applications until the person is released from custody.

[79] As well, when Mr. Paroski inquired about the AA program, Ms. Mason provided him with the materials, which he eagerly completed, and he valued her input.

vii) Family

[80] Mr. Paroski’s family history is well-documented in decades’ worth of assessment, court ordered reports including a 2016 Pre-Sentence Report[^58], as well as Drs. Coleman and Pallandi’s assessments. As well, Mr. Paroski’s family history has been discussed in numerous court proceedings for which the Crown has filed transcripts.

[81] Marc Paroski was born in Toronto to Branislav Paroski (now 62) and Carol Jersak. His mother left when he was a baby. Ms. Jersak reportedly had mental health and addiction issues.

[82] Mr. Paroski was raised by his father and his stepmother, Willa Aplyn, who came into his life when he was five years old, as well by his paternal grandmother (Tereza Paroski). His father and stepmother still reside together in Orillia, where Mr. Paroski Sr., works full-time at the post office; a job he has held for about 15 years. Ms. Aplyn is a supervisor for a storage and U-Haul company.

[83] His grandmother, now 87 years old., lives nearby in assisted living, and she has good health.

[84] Mr. Paroski has a younger half-sister, Shannon (age 29), who testified at this hearing. Shannon Paroski, who has no criminal record and who attended college, lives with her partner of two-and-a-half years, and the couple are expecting their first child in November 2022. Ms. Paroski lives about an eight-minute drive from their parents.

[85] Sadly, Mr. Paroski grew up in a very abusive household. His father has been described in the past as a “violent alcoholic”[^59] Peel Children’s Aid Society intervened in January 1999 and placed Mr. Paroski into care, when it was reported that Mr. Paroski Sr., had punched and struck the child with a belt.

[86] As well, at age 5, Mr. Paroski reported having been sexually assaulted by an adult babysitter.

[87] Mr. Paroski reported that he has not spoken to his father for several years. However, Mr. Paroski Sr. attended these proceedings by Zoom on August 30, 2022, to hear the final submissions in this case.

[88] Shannon Paroski described having a different relationship with their father, perhaps, in part because Mr. Paroski left the home when he was 16 years old, and she is almost a decade younger. Ms. Paroski described her life as “vanilla”. She spoke about the difficulties between Mr. Paroski and their father and the abuse that her brother received, but for which she was spared. Ms. Paroski acknowledged her brother spiralling into drugs and alcohol while he was home and often on bail, which led to him being kicked out of the family home. Ms. Paroski said when her brother was 16 or 17 years old, he began to defend himself against their father. More recently, Ms. Paroski says their father has curbed his drinking and he has attended anger management. For her part, Ms. Paroski testified that she has gone to counselling and that both she and her mother have learned to set boundaries with the father, which has improved their overall relationships. Ms. Paroski says that their father is open to attending family counseling.

[89] Throughout the past four years while Mr. Paroski has been detained in custody, Ms. Paroski says she and her mother have maintained contact through frequent phone calls and visits to the jail. She says that she sees and hears changes in her brother’s manner and voice. She described his thoughts as “collected” and “no longer scattered”. His voice is calm, and he listens. They have discussed his education and his goals for the future. Ms. Paroski is committed to supporting her brother with any court order or direction from a parole officer. However, Ms. Paroski said her priority will be her newborn child, and she will not put up with any “drama or chaos”.

[90] Defence counsel also went through with Ms. Paroski several Google Maps, outlining her physical proximity to Georgian College, where Mr. Paroski could attend classes, to Hillcrest Lodge a mental health and addiction facility, and nearby Probation and Parole office. [^60]

[91] In her mind, her brother is not an angry or aggressive person despite his lengthy criminal record, which Shannon Paroski says she is aware of. She feels that it was only because Mr. Paroski was on drugs that he could stab a stranger. Ms. Paroski believes that her brother has never been given the tools to make any meaningful changes to his life. She stated, “the system” always “spat him out” and “put him back on the street. According to Ms. Paroski, it was the court’s fault for never having put him into a rehabilitation centre.

[92] Lastly, Mr. Paroski has a daughter, Adriana, who is now 17 years old and who continues to have contact with the Paroski’s. In turn the Paroski’s also have contact with Adriana’s mother, Sheila Hearn, who in 2005 and 2006 was victimized by Mr. Paroski soon after their daughter was born.

viii) Mr. Paroski’s Section 726 Code Statement

[93] At the conclusion of the dangerous offender hearing, Mr. Paroski addressed the court. He described the DO hearing as a “real eye opener”, a “wake-up call”. Mr. Paroski said he has repeatedly read Dr. Coleman’s report and that he wants to prove to her that he can do better. He outlined that has completed every program offered to him, some more than once, and he proudly noted his four college level psychology credits. Mr. Paroski said that in the past, he has not taken his sentences seriously. At 36 years of age, Mr. Paroski said he does not want to spend the rest of his life in jail and lose the support of his family especially his sister, Shannon. Mr. Paroski thanked everyone including his counsel. He apologized to everyone, and he asked the Court to give him “a final chance”.

e) Expert Evidence:

i) General Role of Expert Witnesses in Dangerous Offender Applications:

[94] Dangerous offender applications will necessarily involve evidence from an expert witness given the requirements of s. 752.1 of the Criminal Code. As in other contexts, the court is not bound by the opinion expressed by an expert witness.

[95] The role expert witnesses play in dangerous offender applications was expressly considered by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Lyons, 1987 CanLII 25 (SCC), [1987] 2 S.C.R. 309, at p. 366. The court held that in determining the likelihood of risk of reoffence and the possibility of controlling that risk in the community, expert opinion evidence of psychiatrists is "clearly relevant to the issue whether a person is likely to behave in a certain way". As noted by the court in R. v. R.M., [2005] O.J. No. 4977 (S.C.), at para 70, aff'd 2007 ONCA 872, 228 C.C.C. (3d) 148, leave to appeal refused, [2008] SCCA No. 91:

That is not to say that the trial judge is bound to accept the opinion of one psychiatrist or the other, but rather that the expert evidence is relevant to the judge's inquiry, with determinations as to the weight and reliability of that evidence left to the judge: R. v. Currie, 1997 CanLII 347 (SCC), [1997] 2 S.C.R. 260. In this regard, the Supreme Court in R. v. Lyons referred with approval ... to the following "common sense observations" of Ewaschuk J. in Re Moore (1984), 1984 CanLII 2132 (ON SC), 10 C.C.C. (3d) 306 (Ont.H.C.) at 310-311:

I accept the submission that the evidence of a psychiatrist, psychologist or criminologist is at times highly speculative and in certain instances a lay person is in as good a position to make a prediction as to future dangerousness. In the final say, the court, however, must be so satisfied and not the expert witnesses. That is not to say that the experts may not assist the court, especially as to whether the offender currently suffers from a psychological disorder, e.g. psychopathy, which may be relevant to the likelihood of future dangerous conduct.[^61]

ii) Diagnosis of Mr. Paroski

[96] The Court heard from two forensic psychiatrists: Dr. Elizabeth Coleman prepared the s. 752.1 assessment, and she testified on behalf of the Crown[^62], and Dr. Derek Pallandi, who also prepared a report and who testified on behalf of the defendant[^63].

[97] Dr. Coleman is currently the Medical Director of the Forensic Program at Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences in Whitby, Ontario. She is also Executive Medical Director for Quality Standards at the same location. Since 2011, Dr. Coleman has been a consultant forensic psychiatrist preparing assessment reports for the Ontario Review Board (ORB) and the Capacity and Consent Board (CCB). Since 2012, Dr. Coleman has also run a private practise in Ontario for both civil and criminal cases. Mr. Paroski’s is the seventh out of a total of 10 DO/LTO assessments. Prior to her career in Canada, Dr. Coleman practised in the United Kingdom.[^64]

[98] Dr. Pallandi has spent much of his 22-year career assessing risk in his various roles as consultant psychiatrist at the Ontario Correctional Institute (7 years) and The Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) (22 years); staff psychiatrist at same Ontario Shores Centre where Dr. Coleman is the Medical Director (8 years); a contract psychiatrist at a Probation and Parole office in downtown Toronto and two offices in York Region, plus he has a private practise. Dr. Pallandi is well-known in the criminal courts having lectured for decades at various education conferences for lawyers and judges, and police agencies.[^65]

[99] Additionally, Dr. Pallandi is familiar with Keele Centre having provided intermittent psychiatric care for residents when the regular psychiatrist was away. Dr. Pallandi has been retained by both the Crown and the Defence for between 80 to 100 DO/LTO applications.

[100] Both experts agree on the following diagnoses for Mr. Paroski:

(1) First, they agree that Mr. Paroski was properly diagnosed as a youth with Conduct Disorder;[^66]

(2) Second, there is agreement that Mr. Paroski developed Anti-Social Personality Disorder (ASPD) in adult life;[^67]

(3) Third, they concur that Mr. Paroski also meets the diagnostic criteria for Substance Use Disorder;[^68]

(4) They also agree Mr. Paroski suffers from Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder.[^69]

(5) Lastly, they agree that Mr. Paroski does not have any major mental illness diagnosis.

[101] Most alarming is #2 –ASPD (anti-social personality disorder). In her report starting at page 151, Dr. Coleman instructs that personality disorders tend to become evident by late adolescences or early adulthood and continue throughout a person’s life although some of the more dramatic personality traits may attenuate with age. The symptoms of a personality disorder may worsen with psychosocial stress for example, homelessness, substance abuse, and failure to follow-up with psychiatric or psychological treatment. Typically, treatment of persons with personality disorders tends to be psychological as opposed to pharmacological.

[102] Dr. Coleman describes ASPD is characterized as a pervasive pattern of disregard for, and violation of the rights of others, as indicated by three or more of the following:

(1) Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviours.

(2) Deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others.

(3) Impulsivity or a failure to plan ahead.

(4) Irritability and aggressiveness.

(5) Reckless disregard for the safety of self or others.

(6) Consistent irresponsibility as indicated by a repeated failure to sustain consistent work behaviour or honour financial obligations.

(7) Lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another.[^70]

[103] Dr. Coleman notes that the likelihood of developing ASPD in adult life is increased if the individual experienced conduct disorder as a child or as an adolescent with accompanying ADHD. She also notes that child abuse or neglect, unstable or erratic parenting, or inconsistent parental discipline may increase the likelihood that conduct disorder will evolve into ASPD.

[104] Anti-social personality disorder is chronic but may become less evident or remit as the individual grows older. [^71]

[105] Dr. Coleman opined that Mr. Paroski has a severe antisocial personality disorder, which is complicated by residua of trauma, and severe substance abuse problems. Dr. Pallandi agrees Mr. Paroski suffers also from post-traumatic symptomology although Dr. Pallandi found that Mr. Paroski’s symptoms fell short of the threshold for a formal diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder.[^72]

iii) Actuarial Tools

[106] In preparing their reports, both Drs. Coleman and Pallandi employed well recognized actuarial risk management tools that are used to predict future violence. These tools such as the PCL-R, VRAG, HCR-20, and others are violence and criminal recidivism risk assessment tools often used by professionals to measure and predict empirically or mathematically the potential of a person who will present a danger to other people They are not designed to develop risk management strategies, rather they are designed to predict risk.

a) PCL-R

[107] Dr. Coleman and Dr. Pallandi each used the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R), which is a checklist to get a score on a construct of psychopathy. Dr. Coleman scored Mr. Paroski 33 out of a possible 40 points. She testified that “33” is a “very high score” and places Mr. Paroski on the 94% percentile of North American male offenders, meaning that he scored higher than 94% of that reference sample. She noted that a score of 33 falls within that required for a diagnosis of psychopathy (generally considered to be a score of 30 or higher on the PCL-R). Dr. Coleman concluded that Mr. Paroski’s score suggests that his antisocial and psychopathic personality traits are “significant” and this would typically be considered a “negative prognostic indicator” because those individuals who score high on the PCL-R tend to fail faster on community release than individuals with lower score and as they get older, their ability to remain crime free decreases.[^73]

[108] On the PCL-R, Dr. Pallandi yielded Mr. Paroski a score of “26” out of the possible 40. Dr. Pallandi noted that “while this score is elevated and somewhat higher than average scores in federally detained inmates (24/40), Mr. Paroski falls below the margin to make a formal diagnosis of psychopathy”.[^74]

[109] The PCL-R measures two sets of factors: Factor 1 items measure personality or traits dealing with interpersonal traits related to psychopathy (for example glibness/superficial charm, pathological lying, shallow affect, manipulativeness, callousness/lack of empathy), whereas Factor 2 items deal with symptoms related to antisocial behaviour (impulsiveness, irresponsibility, poor behaviour controls, youth misconduct, lack of realistic long-term goals).

[110] Factor 2 items are potentially more responsive to treatment than are Factor 1 items.

[111] The PCL-R response format is based on a 3-point scale: a person receives a score of 0 where the item does not apply; 1 where the items apply “somewhat”; 2 where the item applied “definitely”.

[112] Dr. Coleman and Dr. Pallandi scored Mr. Paroski the same on most categories, but they differed on the following:

(1) Pathological Lying (Factor 1 item)– Dr. Coleman scored Mr. Paroski a 1; Dr. Pallandi scored him a 0.

(2) Conning/Manipulative (Factor 1 item) – Dr. Coleman scored Mr. Paroski a 2; Dr. Pallandi scored him a 1;

(3) Lack of Remorse or Guilt (Factor 1 Item)– Dr. Coleman scored Mr. Paroski a 2; Dr. Pallandi scored him a 1;

(4) Callousness/Lack of Empathy (Factor 1 item) – Dr. Coleman scored Mr. Paroski a 2; Dr. Pallandi scored him a 1

(5) Lack of Realistic Long-Term Goals (Factor 2 item)– Dr. Coleman scored Paroski a 2; Dr. Pallandi scored him a 1.

[113] Under Pathological Lying, Dr. Pallandi’s score of 0 meant that he found “no” evidence of pathological lying. Yet when challenged by the Crown, Dr. Pallandi agreed there is evidence that Mr. Paroski has repeatedly promised Courts at his sentencing hearings that he would take treatment and counselling to address his anger and substance use issues, yet consistently he has refused to follow through and engage in any programs.

[114] The Crown provided several examples of this by way of transcripts where Mr. Paroski has promised sentencing judges and Justices of the Peace, that he will change, but hindsight proves that he did not follow through:

(1) On June 16, 2004, before Justice Kastner on the aggravated assault finding of guilty after stabbing the 15-year-old victim in the chest, Mr. Paroski told the court at page 42 – “Yes, I want to make an apology to the victim and the victim’s family, and I want to apologize to the Court too. I just hope everyone can forgive me. I want to apologize to the court officer as well. Even though I felt pressure, I still shouldn’t have reacted that way, and I want to be on the road so I can take care of my grandmother because my grandmother’s sick and she doesn’t have anyone else in the family to look after her. I’m the only one that looks after her and I just hope that everyone can forgive me”.[^75]

(2) On July 12, 2005, at a bail hearing before Justice of the Peace Hudson on the charges from 2005 that lead to his first penitentiary sentence, Mr. Paroski Sr. and the defendant both testified. At page of 19 of the transcript, Mr. Paroski told the Court that his plans were to support his girlfriend and [eventually] his daughter, attend Alcoholics Anonymous daily, if required, and attend anger management. The Court released Mr. Paroski on a $10,000 recognizance with his father as surety. However, by April 19, 2006, Mr. Paroski was before the same Justice of the Peace with new allegations of domestic violence against his girlfriend, and he consented to his detention. [^76]

(3) On June 16, 2006, after pleading guilty to assaulting his father and failing to comply with a release order and a probation order, Mr. Paroski submitted a letter through his counsel to Justice Hawke where he asked the court to impose conditions to take “anger management and counselling”.[^77]

(4) On January 8, 2013, before Justice Clement, Mr. Paroski stated, “Sir, I’d just like to say that I’m going to take my conditions very serious and there’s a lot of changes I want to make in my life so I’m…..no more…where I’m going to be causing trouble, sir. I’d like to apologize to the courts too”.[^78]

(5) On June 13, 2018 after pleading guilty to possession of crack cocaine and breaking probation before Justice Khawly, Mr. Paroski stated: “I’d like to apologize for taking up the court’s time and, and I realize that when I get out on the street…I have to, you know, I have to keep myself more busy and …work every day, not just a couple of times a week, I got to work every day. I got to look for…you know, a job, right, so…..The system’s not helping me, sir, it’s just putting me in…an environment with more violent people and it’s….not helping me being inside jail”. [^79]

[115] Dr. Pallandi tried to draw a distinction between a person who tries yet fails in treatment and Mr. Paroski’s pattern of non-participation. He added that we don’t know “what was going on in [Mr. Paroski’s] head” at the time. However, Dr. Pallandi agreed that he never asked Mr. Paroski, but said that even if he had, Mr. Paroski’s answers would not have assisted him in determining whether he deliberately lied to Courts. Dr. Pallandi described these false promises to the Courts as “duplicitous behaviour”. Dr. Pallandi said in order for deceitfulness to qualify as “pathological lying” it needed to have “inherent value” which gave the individual “pride in the ability to deceive for personal pleasure or profit or gain”. [^80]

[116] Under Conning and Manipulative, Dr. Pallandi similarly scored Mr. Paroski with a “1”. Dr. Pallandi agreed that the Children’s Aid Society (CAS) and authors at various institutions have often described Mr. Paroski as “manipulative” and that he “will lie to get what he wants”. However, Dr. Pallandi countered that rather than being manipulative, Mr. Paroski is the opposite describing him as “emotionally reactive” where his response to circumstances is “quite overt, not with subtlety or manipulation”. Dr. Pallandi noted that Mr. Paroski threatens and fights with people, whereas manipulation is a skill or a psychological tactic that saves the need to resort direct confrontation.

[117] Next, Lack of Remorse: here, Dr. Pallandi agreed with the Crown that Mr. Paroski’s behaviours “matched in most respects” the criteria for Lack of Remorse, yet because the examples were not “prototypical”, he scored Mr. Paroski a “1”. Dr. Pallandi agreed with the Crown that Mr. Paroski has, in the past, blamed the victims including his former domestic partners, society and the courts for not helping him.[^81]

[118] Also, under “Callousness/Lack of Empathy”, Dr. Pallandi did not feel the “cat incident” was “gratuitous violence” because it was not for personal pleasure which is why he scored Mr. Paroski a “1”. Dr. Pallandi stated that throwing the cat to its death was yes, “unpleasant and unnecessary”, but unless there was other evidence he engaged in other forms of animal cruelty, he considered it was a one-off incident that has never been repeated. The fact that the animal killing was in the context of a domestic incident did not change Dr. Pallandi’s opinion.[^82]

[119] When asked about whether Mr. Paroski demonstrated gratuitous violence in the incident, when as a young person, he stabbed the victim in the chest, cut his head with a bottle, and damaged his teeth, Dr. Pallandi preferred to characterize it as a “two adolescents fighting” “sort of school related”. When challenged further, Dr. Pallandi capitulated only to the extent that Mr. Paroski “assaulted people without mutuality in the engagement”.[^83]

[120] Dr. Pallandi also did not agree that the predicate or index offence was an example of “gratuitous violence”. Dr. Pallandi accepted Mr. Paroski’s position that he was extremely intoxicated and, as such, he concluded that there was other “dynamic variables that would have influenced [Mr. Paroski’s} behaviour in part due to intoxication, impulsivity, disinhibition, and poor judgment related to intoxicants”. [^84] Dr. Pallandi opined that Mr. Paroski likely would not have slashed the victim had he not been using drugs so heavily.[^85]

[121] Yet the Crown pointed out to Dr. Pallandi that the majority of Mr. Paroski’s violent offences occurred without drugs or alcohol being involved.[^86] Dr. Pallandi could not dispute the Crown’s suggestion that despite the length of his criminal record, only twice before had Mr. Paroski claimed he had been intoxicated: the youth conviction for aggravated assault (offence date June 16, 2004) and the convictions for domestic assault and forcible confinement (offence date December 2, 2016) [^87]

[122] Dr. Pallandi said he asked Mr. Paroski about how he felt about slashing the victim, a complete stranger, across the face with a knife, and that Mr. Paroski expressed “embarrassment and stupidity”. Dr. Pallandi testified that Mr. Paroski “felt quite badly about what he had done or potentially done to the victim as a consequence”.[^88]

[123] Dr. Pallandi agreed that he did not challenge Mr. Paroski on his past criminal conduct including his history of domestic abuse[^89]. Dr. Pallandi claims to have reviewed the Crown’s materials including details of Mr. Paroski’s past convictions as carefully as Dr. Coleman. However, Dr. Pallandi was unable to point any place in his report where he wrote Mr. Paroski’s response to any inquiry about his criminal record. Instead, Dr. Pallandi said that he tried to integrate the information available to him in coming to his conclusions.[^90]

[124] Dr. Pallandi reluctantly agreed with the Crown that had he challenged Mr. Paroski’s responses to his past behaviour that his answers may have shed light on how he viewed his offences, which in turn may have been significant in scoring the PCL-R in particular the traits of manipulation and remorse.[^91]

[125] Dr. Pallandi rejected the Crown’s suggestion that when scoring the PCL-R, he focused on the last twelve months when Mr. Paroski has made gains while at the Toronto East Detention. Dr. Pallandi insisted that he had taken a “balanced” view of both Mr. Paroski’s past and present behaviour.[^92]

[126] It was obvious that Dr. Pallandi was very impressed with Mr. Paroski’s recent accomplishments. Dr. Pallandi reviewed some of Mr. Paroski’s AA workbooks and was amazed at the quality of its content: “not just filling in pages”, but instead “thoughtful, articulate, and on point”. He described Mr. Paroski’s effort as “quite striking and self directed”. He also pointed out that unlike some other clients, Mr. Paroski is intelligent and capable of learning.

[127] On the last item on the PCL-R, Lack of Realistic Long-Term Goals, Drs. Coleman scored Mr. Paroski a “2” but she acknowledged she submitted her assessment over a year before Mr. Paroski was transferred to Toronto East, and months before he began completing most programs and all his college credits.

b) VRAG

[128] Drs. Coleman and Pallandi both also scored Mr. Paroski on the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG). On this instrument, Dr. Coleman scored Mr. Paroski a +23. Dr. Coleman testified that this scored placed Mr. Paroski in the 96% percentile with respect to the reference or standardization sample. She testified that similar scoring individuals recidivate violently at a rate of 82% over 10 years opportunity in the community.[^93]

[129] Dr. Pallandi scored Mr. Paroski a +20. A score of +20 was associated with recidivism rates of 55% and 64% over 7 and 10 years of opportunity in the community.[^94]

c) HCR-20

[130] Both experts employed the Historical Clinical and Risk Management-20 (HCR-20) although Dr. Coleman and Dr. Pallandi used different versions of it. The HCR-20 was described as a “structured professional judgment (SPJ) risk assessment tool generally employed to assess the risk of future violent behaviour in criminal and psychiatric populations”. As its name suggests HCR-20 stands for historical (H), clinical (C), and risk management (R).

[131] The HCR-20 includes variables which capture relevant past, present, and future considerations, some of which are dynamic variables (that is, variables that are thought to be modifiable). The HCR-20 helps to identify those areas that need intervention.[^95]

[132] Dr. Coleman used the HCR-20 and Dr. Pallandi used the HCR-20 v.3. Dr. Coleman explained that she did not used the HCR-20 v.3 because it is a more recent version which, in her view, did not have the same extensive review and validation as the HCR-20. She said the HCR-20 v.3 has its place in “developing risk management plans in a clinical setting”, but that was not her task in preparing the section 751 of the Code assessment.[^96]

[133] On the HCR-20, Dr. Coleman scored Mr. Paroski 32 out of a possible 40 points, assuming “near immediate release” from custody[^97]. Dr. Coleman explained that she chose that context, i.e.., “near immediate release” because she felt that it was meaningful in comparison to the other risk assessment tools she used.[^98]

[134] Dr. Coleman describe Mr. Paroski’s score of 32 out of 40 as a “fairly high score” that suggested “a high risk of future violent behaviour, absent significant interventions”.[^99] Dr. Coleman also added that both the C and R-factors, i.e. clinical factors and factors in the risk scale can change, which is why optimally, higher-risk risk individuals need to be monitored for change more closely.

[135] Dr. Coleman agreed that her HCR-20 score is “dated”, i.e., a “snapshot in time”, because she interviewed Mr. Paroski in November 2019 (November 15 and 19) and on December 15, 2019, for her report dated March 9, 2020. At the time of her assessment, Dr. Coleman said it was impossible to know what interventions would be available to him. She agreed that when she met with Mr. Paroski, he “had not done a lot of those things where I can say, even if they were in place, that they would be effective, because you have to know that they’re going to be effective in order to reduce the risk management score here”.[^100]

[136] As well, Dr. Coleman agreed she noted Mr. Paroski’s “lack of personal support”, but that she did not speak to his sister, Shannon, but only to the stepmother Willa Aplyn.[^101] Dr. Pallandi, on the other hand, spoke to all of Mr. Paroski’s family members and professionals such as Dr. Seat, the psychologist at the Toronto South.

[137] However, Dr. Coleman maintained that even after hearing from Defence counsel the current update of Mr. Paroski’s progress and treatment plans, given the degree of Mr. Paroski’s psychopathy and severe ASPD, she still held “little optimism” of his risk being managed in the community.[^102]

d) HCR-20 v.3 and SAPROF

[138] Dr. Pallandi noted the HCR-20 v.3 is used both to assess risk for violence and to guide treatment planning. No formal score is calculated. Dr. Pallandi used the HCR-20 v.3 together with the Structure Assessment of Protective Factors of Violence Risk (SAPROF), which Dr. Pallandi said better balances risk assessments, providing guidance for intervention and in motivating change.

[139] On the HCR-20 v.3, Dr. Pallandi concluded Mr. Paroski’s risk of causing serious physical harm was “moderate” and that the risk of imminent violence was in the “low range” citing Mr. Paroski’s recent successes in the detention centre. On the SAPROF coding when combining the results on the HCR-20 v.3, Dr. Pallandi concluded Mr. Paroski’s risk to act violently was “moderate-high” but emphasized the protective factors, noting again, the gains Mr. Paroski has made over the last two years.[^103]

[140] Dr. Coleman agreed in cross examination that the SAPROF tool identifies protective factors in order that a person can develop or inherently has. However, Dr. Coleman again explained that she did not use the SAPROF tool because she was tasked to assess “risk”.

e) Opinion on Future Risk

i) Dr. Coleman

[141] Dr. Coleman concluded that there were “few reasons for optimism that [Mr. Paroski] will be manageable in the community upon expiry of an LTSO (long-term supervision order) given his escalating criminal history, his significant substance abuse disorder, and the presence of antisocial personality disorder”.[^104] Dr. Coleman highlighted Mr. Paroski having to be moved from Millhaven Institution to the SHU – a specialized unit to protect maximum security inmates. As she put it, if Mr. Paroski cannot be adequately controlled in Millhaven with professional supervisors, then this reflects very poorly on his prospects of being controlled in the community. She added that his continuing to engage in violence also speaks to the severity of his antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) and high psychopathy score.

[142] Dr. Coleman stated that “one of the best predictors of future is past behaviour or past offending and with regards to violence, one of the best predictors of future violence is historical violence”. [^105] For Mr. Paroski, Dr. Coleman said that “one of the predictors for [Mr. Paroski] is his long criminal record”.[^106]

[143] Dr. Coleman noted that actuarial tools are the best tools to predict future violence. They are not designed to develop risk management strategies, rather they are designed to predict risk.

[144] Based on Mr. Paroski’s actuarial risk assessment Dr. Coleman noted that “similar scoring individuals recidivate violently at a rate of 82% over 10 years’ opportunity in the community”. The actuarial risk considers that “dynamic variables do fluctuate”. Dr. Coleman agreed with Defence counsel who suggested that the tool does not tell us when within those 10 years, most individuals reoffend whether, for example, at the 3-year or 7-year mark, nor does it assist with measuring the severity of the re-offending. Nor does the data show whether those individuals who did reoffend were receiving treatment and/or medication.

[145] The 10-year mark equals the maximum length of time on a LTSO.

[146] Dr. Coleman also noted that Mr. Paroski’s high PCL-R score indicates that he would be less likely to make changes even with intervention. In similar cases with individuals with a combination of ASPD and his high PCL-R scores like Mr. Paroski’s, “have shown to make minimal progress in treatments and to have poor outcomes when released into the community”. [^107]

[147] In cross-examination, Dr. Coleman agreed that some individuals do make some change explaining that actuarial tools like the PCL-R applies mathematical and statical methods to assess risk: she agreed that you cannot say “one specific individual will in fact absolutely be a certain way, but you can liken them to individuals who are similar, and we’ve seen their outcomes”. [^108] She agreed that criminogenic risk factors or dynamic variables can be modified somewhat with intervention, for example with programing, counselling, family support, the subject evolving, and so on, but she added “it’s not a guarantee”.

[148] When asked by the Crown if she would expect any significant change in Mr. Paroski’s risk if he were ordered to an LTSO for 10 years, Dr. Coleman stated that there would need to be a reassessment to see if there were any changes in the dynamic variables with any intervention. Dr. Coleman agreed with Defence counsel that she has never worked with anyone on a long-term supervision order (LSO), and she was only aware of some, but not all the “mechanisms” that Corrections Canada put in place.

[149] Dr. Coleman agreed with Defence counsel that her report dated March 9, 2020, was a “snapshot of [Mr. Paroski] at the time” having used all the data and records available at the time. She agreed that Mr. Paroski had just started his first college course, and there was insufficient “time or opportunity to demonstrate the benefits of that to any meaningful degree”[^109] Dr. Coleman agreed that it would be important if Mr. Paroski has since engaged voluntarily into programming as well as his response to treatment.

[150] Dr. Coleman agreed that predicting someone’s success or failure at treatment also required knowing what that treatment looked like.

ii) Dr. Pallandi

[151] Dr. Pallandi began by explaining how his approach to interviewing a client like Mr. Paroski differed from Dr. Coleman’s method. Instead of categorizing, for example, all of Mr. Paroski’s offences in chronological order, his approach is to “stand back and ask, ‘What am I gleaning from this?” looking more broadly at categories such as when did the record begin (early onset), the type or categories of offences more broadly, the density of the record and the severity of the sanctions. In Mr. Paroski’s case, Dr. Pallandi found that Mr. Paroski’s criminal record started at a young age, his criminal offending he described as “versatile” with almost every category of offence represented except firearm offences; there were no major gaps in Mr. Paroski’s record between offending, and Mr. Paroski has spent significant time incarcerated. Dr. Pallandi agreed with the Crown that Mr. Paroski’s criminal record is “extensive, significant, and functionally almost uninterrupted”.[^110]

[152] The Crown suggested to Dr. Pallandi that his report is mainly focused on therapeutic measures, and he agreed: he described his diagnosis as “brief”, the risk assessment “focused” and the risk management section “more fulsome”.

[153] Dr. Pallandi concluded at page 32 of his report that, after considering all available information, Mr. Paroski’s risk remains moderate-high for violent recidivism absent comprehensive and targeted intervention and management (his emphasis). He went on to conclude that Mr. Paroski has shown through his action and his word that he is willing and is motivated to attenuate his risk through all available measures that are being recommended to him for treatment and/or supervision. Dr. Pallandi, wrote that while Mr. Paroski’s risk may be nominally high, he is of the opinion that Mr. Paroski is in the process of changing favourably, provided that he maintains his motivation and commitment.[^111]

[154] Dr. Pallandi said proper supervision of Mr. Paroski in the community must include:

(1) structured, specialized supervision including a gradual reintegration into the public with Dr. Pallandi strongly recommending Ontario Correctional Institute (OCI);

(2) by a substance abuse specific residential programming,

(3) mandatory urine drug screening, abstinence of any substances,

(4) a maintenance program in the community,

(5) a structured and supportive environment with clear expectations upon his behaviour and conduct,

(6) close and unrestricted supervision of his relationships, associated, and prospective intimate/romantic partners, and

(7) a supportive relationship with family members as opposed to a supervisory role.

[155] Dr. Pallandi testified that Mr. Paroski’s prognosis of remaining violent-free will be “markedly enhanced” only if these measures are in place.[^112]

[156] Dr. Pallandi is convinced that Mr. Paroski is in the process of change. Referring to the Model of Change[^113], Dr. Pallandi opines that Mr. Paroski may have been in the “contemplative phase” when he was interviewed by Dr. Coleman, but when he assessed him two years later, Mr. Paroski had moved into the “action” phase.[^114] For positive change to continue Dr. Pallandi says Mr. Paroski will requires specialized treatment and management as noted above including learning a number of strategies to change and manage his behaviour and which are relevant to his criminogenic features, which Dr. Pallandi was quick to point out is not a completed exercise.[^115]

[157] However, Dr. Pallandi agrees that Mr. Paroski’s “gains remain untested in the ‘real world’ and that it is up to Mr. Paroski to continue to be motivated, engaged, and participatory. Dr. Pallandi agreed with potential obstacles as put to him by the Crown including but not limited to Mr. Paroski’s diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder, his two-decade resistance of treatment, and his history of recidivism often acting in a violent way shortly after he has been released. As well, Dr. Pallandi agreed that Mr. Paroski’s most recent motivation to seek counseling and to improve his education appears to have accelerated after he learned that the Crown was bringing a dangerous offender application. As the Crown notes, of the list of Mr. Paroski’s completed programming, he may have only completed five or, perhaps, upwards of seven, one-day programs prior to April 2020 when the Crown served Notice they were seeking a dangerous offender designation[^116]. Dr. Pallandi acknowledged, “that’s how humans make change, sometimes we need to be put under…duress to make change. That does not make it illegitimate. We’d like to see change and the motivation to be completely internal, but it isn’t. That’s …not reality. So could [the DO application] be motivating him to say, ‘Okay, I think this is a really a big problem and I have to make the change in addition to the efforts I’ve made, I have to do something really serious now?’ Okay.”

[158] Mr. Paroski is “making changes actively”, but “there’s more to be done…without question”[^117]. Change is a dynamic process and while some of Mr. Paroski’s issues, such as substance abuse, will be a “lifetime” problem, Dr. Pallandi stated this does mean that Mr. Paroski must remain in a residential facility for the rest of his life. There is a process: “You use more acuity at the front end to get the problems under control, you teach and work with people and treat them, so they develop more internal control over those problems and you therefore, in concert with that, lessen the direct degree of oversight”.[^118]

[159] Dr. Pallandi stressed that Mr. Paroski’s “constellation of problems” are really quite common” amongst his usual clientele, and that there are resources available to make his problems manageable. However, Dr. Pallandi agrees that the success or failure is entirely driven by Mr. Paroski, who must maintain his motivation, engagement, and maintenance of that engagement. Dr. Pallandi said that he and others can lay out the “roadmap” for Mr. Paroski and others like him, which if done properly and followed, will reduce their risk and the risk assumable in the community. In the end, however, Dr. Pallandi concluded, that it’s up to Mr. Paroski.[^119]

f) Other Witnesses:

[160] The Court heard from witnesses from the Solicitor General’s Office and Corrections Canada about institutional programming:

i) Karen Salo, Provincial SOLGEN

[161] Karen Salo, Area Manager for the Ministry of the Solicitor General in the Thunder Bay District, stumbled through what programs are offered if an inmate is serving a provincial, i.e.., a reformatory sentence of two years less a day, and programs offered post-release. While serving their sentence, prisoners can participate in Orientation/Introductory Rehabilitative Programs and Advanced Skills Rehabilitative Programs (substance use, anger management and sexual offending). For the latter, the inmate must be highly motivated to make changes. The advanced modules for anger management and substance abuse, are typically one session per week in a group setting, where the offender spends a minimum of 60 hours in direct program services. Ms. Salo, who oversees the three probation and parole offices in her community, did not know the services offered in Toronto. She also knew little about the Ontario Correctional Institute (OCI) and she believed that cognitive based therapy (CBT) was not offered in either the orientation/introductory or the advanced programs. She believed that CBT was only available through community based, third party service providers.

[162] After serving two-thirds of their sentence, the offender is eligible for parole as determined by the Ontario Parole Board. However, if a person is declared a long-term offender (LTO) and even if they are serving a reformatory sentence, after warrant expiry, they are managed by the federal Correctional Services of Canada (CSC). CSC would begin preparation for the release of the LTO, while serving their sentence which would include a risk assessment (Level of Service Inventory Ontario Revision (LSI -OR), finding them accommodation mostly likely in a halfway house, and services.

ii) Angela Pace

[163] Angela Pace is currently the Superintendent at the Thunder Bay Jail with over 20 years of experience and who also called by the Crown to testify about institutional programming in the provincial system.

[164] There are three provincial treatment centres for men: Algoma Treatment and Remand Centre – ARTC (Sault Ste. Marie); Ontario Correctional Institute - OCI (Brampton), and St. Lawrence Valley Correctional and Treatment Centre (Brockville). Algoma has not been running any of their specialized programs since 2021 because of the COVID-19 pandemic. St. Lawrence Valley also has the extra requirement that individual must be diagnosed with a major mental illness, which Mr. Paroski does not have. Which leaves OCI, for which neither Ms. Salo nor Ms. Pace knew much about except what is listed in the brochures.

[165] Like Ms. Salo, Angela Pace was only familiar with cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) “was a thread” that ran through the SOLGEN programming.

iii) Brad Tamcsu

[166] Mr. Tamcsu is currently the manager of the mental health and addictions programs for SOLGEN and former superintendent at OCI. Both he and Dr. Harinder Mrahar, Chief Psychologist at OCI, provided the following details about OCI and their program:

(1) OCI has a completely voluntary admission process that is highly competitive with the demand for treatment beds far exceeding the supply. In its truest form especially when OCI was in Brampton, OCI was a unique treatment milieu with 180 beds, more akin to a university campus, where inmates walked freely to programming and appointments.

Since a COVID-19 outbreak in April-May 2020, OCI has been reduced to one unit at Maplehurst with 64 beds. Brampton’s OCI facilities are currently under renovation with the re-opening expected in early summer 2023.

(2) All persons must be classified as “medium” security or less with few exceptions for higher security inmates, and only after careful review of their LSI- OR score and the reason for the high score.

(3) All applicants must be highly motivated towards treatment.

(4) Inmates are referred to as “residents”. They can refer to staff by their first names or “Mr.” or “Ms.”

(5) Applicant first meet with a classification/rehabilitation officer, who review their background, any judicial recommendations, the length of sentence (minimum sentence must be 9 months incarceration), and all collateral information including whether the person has any institutional misconducts within the six weeks of applying to the OCI. Any misconduct is “flagged” and reviewed. If the applicant was the instigator of the misconduct, the person would not be accepted into OCI. The applicant must also not be appealing their conviction.

(6) Everyone accepted into the OCI programs goes through a six-week intake period. In July 2022, Mr. Tamscu testified there was a three-to-four week waiting list although the period could easily grow to six-to-eight weeks.

(7) OCI has a fully integrated population, which means that sexual and non-sexual offenders, and inmates in protective custody, all cohabitate together resulting in interactions with persons one might ordinary not chose to interact with. Mr. Tamscu explained that this tests the individual’s social functioning, conflict resolution and conflict management.

(8) All levels of staff are trained in cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), which is an integral part of all SOLGEN programming. Staff are constantly monitoring, challenging the inmate to reflect and engage in their behaviour. If an OCI resident is struggling, their behaviour will be addressed in a therapeutic manner and staff will discuss how they could manage the situation differently.

(9) Once admitted OCI has Core Programs and Domain Specific Program with integrated addiction-based programs, anti-criminal thinking, emotional regulation, and anger management (designated sex offenders have specific programs that are not integrated). At OCI, the offender can get a fairly “custom tailored” program including, for example substance use, trauma, emotional regulations, and relationships. CBT is integrated into all the Core programming.

(10) All programs are group based, but it is possible for 1:1 access to psychologists and psychiatrists

(11) There is no specialized programs for an offender diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder (ASPD). Mr. Tamscu explained that OCI does not categorize their programs based on diagnosis. However, OCI has had a trauma program since 2019.

[167] Mr. Tamscu said for Mr. Paroski, they would look favourably at his SAFER score, which reduced his security level from “maximum” down to “medium” and, as it turns out, now “minimum” plus he has incurred no new institutional charges and has successfully completed programing.

iv) Dr. Harinder Mrahar

[168] The Defence called Dr. Harinder Mrahar, Chief Psychologist at OCI. Dr. Mrahar oversees five staff psychologists, and she works with multidisciplinary team of health care workers, clinical and recreational staff, and a nursing team in a case management model with the focus being treatment. Correctional officers are called “case managers” because their dual role is to foster relationships with the client as well as provide security. Every case manager is given a certain number of residents to work with.

[169] Dr. Mrahar stated that in 2018, OCI implemented a new program referred to as the risk-need-responsivity model, which she described as the “gold standard” for correctional assessment and rehabilitation. RNR is based on three principles: 1) the Risk (R) principle asserts that criminal behaviour can be reliably predicted, and that treatment should focus on the higher risk offenders; 2) the Need (N) principle emphasizes the importance of criminogenic needs in the design and delivery of treatment; and 3) Responsivity (R) principle describes how the treatment should be provided.

[170] To accomplish these goals, Dr. Mrahar advised that cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), which is evidence-based, is fully incorporated in all OCI’s programs. At every point of contact, the case management team apply CBT methods to work with the offenders to target their thinking patterns. CBT focuses on thoughts, feelings, and behaviours with a component of skill building and problem-solving. CBT focuses on developing personal coping strategies, that target current problems and maladaptive patterns of thinking, behaviour, and emotional regulation. The focus is on the here and now. Participants to learn to identity their risky thinking patterns with the aim to help them become more pro-social.

[171] All staff are also trained on core correctional practises: firm and fair, modelling, direct communication, rewarding compliance, encouraging messages and support.

[172] As mentioned, OCI requires that the offender be serving a sentence pre-COVID of minimally nine months, but Dr. Mrahar testified that since the pandemic and the reduction of physical space because of OCI’s move to Maplehurst, an offender must have received a sentence between 12-14 months because delays due to possible unforeseen circumstances and plus because CBT is all about changing thinking patterns, which takes time. Additionally, the staff want time to observe the resident, watching the person to see if they have internalized the programing.

[173] If a resident is serving a longer sentence beyond 12-14 months, Dr. Mrahar stated the individual would stay at OCI and continue to practise the strategies they have learned. Although rare, Dr. Mrahar said if an individual may not have done as well as expected in a program, or they struggled to understand a concept or they had not internalized the work, then they may repeat a course.

[174] The majority of the OCI programming is group session work, but an individual can request one-to-one counseling or to see a medical doctor.

[175] OCI will not accept offenders if they have any history or convictions of arson, have a diagnosis of a major mental illness and who are non-compliant with taking medication and who are unstable, or have significant cognitive impairment or limitations. Having ADHD is not considered a barrier to admission to OCI.

[176] As well, OCI likely may not accept an applicant with any misconducts within a six-week period prior to possible admission. However, the resubmit their application again once the six-week period lapses for review.

[177] Once admitted into OCI, there are two components to their program: the Assessment Unit/Intake Unit and the Treatment Unit. A resident typically would stay in the Assessment Unit for six to eight weeks before moving into the Treatment Unit.

a) Assessment (Intake) Unit at OCI

[178] For the first six to eight weeks, a resident at OCI is in the assessment unit. During that time, Dr. Mrahar says the resident gets to know OCI, and OCI learns about the resident. For this initial phase, the resident is not permitted to discuss their offence with others but can talk individually to the team members. They participate in clinical programs as well they programs offered by the social work supervisors. House meetings held every Monday and Thursday, is where the whole unit (20 or so residents) gets together with staff which includes the social worker supervisor, the unit manager, and the resident’s case manager, and they talk about how they are doing, what are some of the challenges they are experiencing, and the group helps them come up with solutions.

[179] Dr. Mrahar explained that from the get-go, there is structure built into their day. The day begins at 9:00 am and the residents are expected to make their beds and ends at 4:00 pm. The day is spent either on workbooks or programs selected to best suit the resident. Depending on their history, Dr. Mrahar said they could be assigned a workbook on trauma, ADHD, self-esteem. The resident is encouraged to write a journal. After lunch, they will continue in the CORE orientation program, run by social workers with the main component being the relapse prevention plan. There are also volunteers who help residents learn skills such as resume writing, literacy, Alcoholics Anonymous (AA), and Narcotics Anonymous (NA).

[180] At all times, the residents can readily speak to their case manager, the social work supervisor on their unit and the unit manager, eight per unit, who are all trained in CBT. Each correctional officer is assigned six to eight clients.

[181] While in the assessment unit, each resident undergoes a total of 11 psychometric tests or assessments including but not limited to a personality assessment inventory (PAI), an adverse childhood experience (ACE) quiz, a substance use test, the criminal sentiments scale and others. These tests and their results together with the resident’s institutional file and other documents are reviewed by the case management team before determining if the resident will be accepted into OCI’s treatment unit.

[182] However, if after the assessment period, a person is determined not to be a “fit” for OCI, they will be transferred out.

b) Treatment Unit at OCI

[183] The intensive programming that is offence-related and psychologist-facilitated begins once the resident moves to the Treatment Unit. There is a staff change and the new team work collaboratively to develop a service plan to customize the programs to best address the behaviours linked to the resident’s offending behaviours.

[184] Peer and house reviews begin as part of the treatment. In peer reviews, the resident and the social work supervisor select a total of around 10 residents, who together with the unit manager and the social work supervisors discuss the residents’ life history, life problems, the choices he has made, his offence cycle, and the offence(s) which have brought him to OCI. The residents provide feedback and challenge the person if they are not gaining insight or are minimizing their behaviour. Also, CORE programming continues plus all the programs offered by social workers and community volunteers. Additionally, the resident can receive individual sessions with the social work supervisor or case management psychologist.

c) Anti-Social Personality Disordered Residents at OCI

[185] Dr. Mrahar confirmed that OCI often receive residents who have ASPD (anti-social personality disorder) traits as well as those with a formal diagnosis. While unable to give a percentage of the number of residents with ASPD at OCI, Dr. Mrahar said “it is very common”. She stated that all OCI programs are geared to address ASPD traits and those with high LSI OR score (Level of Service Inventory Ontario Revision) including a specific program on prosocial thinking. Dr. Mrahar agreed with the Crown that ASPD is a pervasive disorder, and hence, it takes much longer to bring about any changes. As such residents with ASPD require more treatment, and the longer they receive that treatment, the more beneficial. Dr. Mrahar said that OCI’s model of CBT coupled with addressing criminogenic factors, ie., dynamic factors that have been evidence-based to be connected to crime, such as lack of housing, family support, employment, and so on, still can produce a successful outcome.

[186] Dr. Mrahar responded to Crown that OCI does not have any special programming for persons with high PCL-R scores those with close to 30 out of 40, although OCI offers therapies for antisocial pattern or antisocial behaviours. Dr. Mrahar said individuals with higher PCL-R scores would require more intensive treatment. This again is based on the RNR (Risk-Need-Responsivity) model that the higher the person’s risk, the more intensive that person’s treatment needs are.

[187] OCI also accepts repeat violent offenders.

d) Dangerous Offenders or Long-Term Offenders at OCI

[188] OCI does not have a specific programming with respect to a person with a dangerous offender or long-term offender designation. However, if the person is sentenced to a provincial sentence and otherwise met OCI’s criteria, then persons designated as dangerous offenders (DO’s) and persons designated as long-term offenders (LTOs) may be, and have been, accepted at OCI.

e) Discharge Planning at OCI

[189] Discharge planning is critical at OCI because continuity of care is very important. Dr. Mrahar said that residents are given an orientation session about discharge planning plus within ten weeks prior to their release, the OCI team work to ensure successful re-integration back into the community.

[190] Where the offender subject to a LTSO is provincially sentenced, the community parole officer will complete case preparation four months prior to the release date and complete several mandatory documents.[^120]

[191] Anyone subject to an LTO is supervised upon release by the federal Correctional Services of Canada (CSC).

v) Joseph Dixon

[192] Joseph Dixon is a federal Parole Officer Supervisor, who testified about the correctional programming in the federal system, where individuals are receive a sentence of two years or more.

[193] Correctional Services of Canada (CSC) offers an Integrated Correctional Program Model (ICPM) for male offenders with four different streams by of institutional programming only one of which would apply to Mr. Paroski: multi-target; sex offender; indigenous multi-target; and indigenous sex offender. Each of these streams includes a primer program, the main program, and a maintenance program. As well, there are two levels of intensity of programs: high intensity consisting of a primer (10 sessions)[^121] and then 87 sessions between two to two-and-a-half hours as well as five individual sessions. There are also moderate intensity programs, which include a primer and 46 sessions, of the same length, and five individual sessions. How long each of these programs takes to complete depends on the availability of the program and program directors.

[194] In the multi-target stream, Correctional Services of Canada (CSC) does not have any special programs for persons designated dangerous offenders (DOs) or long-term offenders (LTOs).

[195] All high-intensity programs are done in a group session, but no 1:1 intensive programming is available.

[196] An inmate starts their CSC programming depending on the legislative date for statutory release. In other words, if a person is serving a 10-year sentence, the person will not receive any programs until several years into their sentence. In the meantime, Mr. Dixon agreed that the prisoner would just “bide their time”.

[197] Mr. Dixon confirmed there are no program specifically for persons diagnosis with ASPD. However, all the multi-target programs are based on CBT.

[198] As previously noted, if an offender receives a reformatory sentence of two years less a day and is subject to a LTO (long term supervision order), the file is transferred to the Correctional Services of Canada and the individual released either to a community correctional centre (CCC) or a community residential facility (CRF).

a) Community Correctional Centres (CCC’s)

[199] There are only two CCCs in Ontario: one at 330 Keele Street and the second located on Henry Trail in Kingston, Ontario. CCCs offer a structured living environment with 24-hour supervision. They are considered a bridge between the institution and the community. The gradual, supervised release process is a key part of an offender’s rehabilitation.[^122]

[200] There are numerous rules and procedures which fall within the Community Correctional Centre Standard. For example, number one: rules established for curfews, leave privileges, and access to the community in accordance with Parole Board of Canada (PBC) policies which also take into consideration the offender’s behaviour and public safety concerns as evaluated by CCC staff. The list is lengthy and includes rules around Intake, the mandatory duty log, count, searches and personal property, health and medication, correspondence and telephone communications, emergencies, and more. There are no armed personnel on site, who would, for example, stop someone from leaving. However, in that case, the police would be called and/or the National Monitoring Centre, whereby a decision could be made very quickly if a warrant should be issued for the arrest of the person.

[201] The CCC at 330 Keele Street has 40 beds for generally higher-risk offenders, mainly but not exclusively LTO’s and men on statutory release, i.e., released after having served two-thirds of their sentence. The offenders run the gamut from sex offenders and men, who received a life-sentence for murder. A condition that the person reside in a CCC or CRF is limited to a maximum of 365 days, but Mr. Dixon advised that upon recommendation, the residency condition can be extended.

[202] The Keele office houses the residential CCC but also the district parole office. This environment allows an offender to bump into their parole officer potentially daily without a scheduled appointment.

[203] Police are also informed of new CCC residents and police input is invited as part of the community assessment team.

b) Community Residential Facilities (CRF’s)

[204] There are many CRFs operating in the Greater Toronto Area and Ontario. They run independently with third party contractors. They run like a household: some have single rooms, but otherwise it is shared accommodation, living spaces, washrooms, and so on. Typically, staff-like commissioners monitor the comings-and-goings of the residents, who sign a logbook, call-in, and receive passes to leave the building. Some may offer in-house programming, but not formal CCC programming. Programming is focused on how to best manage the risk and may include life skills, substance abuse, employment and/or crisis counselling.

[205] CRFs can also accommodate higher-risk individuals including long-term supervision orders with residency.

[206] There appears to be two CRFs in Orillia where Mr. Paroski’s family live. Seven South Street Treatment Centre and Seven South Street Treatment Centre- Gordon Residence, both aptly located on South Street, in Orillia.[^123]

c) Long-Term Offenders in CCC or CRF

[207] As stated, an offender designated as a dangerous offender (DO) pursuant to s. 753 of the Code or as a long-term offender (LTO) pursuant to s. 753.1 of Code is supervised in accordance with the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (CCRA). The long-term supervision order (LTSO) commences when the offender has finished all sentences for offences for which they have been convicted. The period of supervision to which the offender is subject at any time must not be more than 10 years.

[208] The Parole Board of Canada (PBC) can impose a special condition on an offender on full parole, statutory release, and LTSOs to reside at a CCC. They might receive passes for employment, escorted passes with approved family members or friends, and unescorted passes for a set period. Some offenders may be required to call-in at a certain time of the day or appear in person to sign-in, but then be allowed out again.

[209] Parole officers can beach an offender for breaching LTSO terms, recommend to their supervisor to suspend an LTSO for up to 30 days if a breach has occurred, to prevent a breach, or to protect society. After 30 days, the Parole Board determines the next steps.

[210] As a term of the LTSO, the offender may be subject to GPS monitoring. Also, the parole board can also include a term that an LTO take medication as directed by their doctor.

Analysis:

[211] Dangerous offender proceedings are sentencing proceedings that entails a two-stage process: first, the designation stage (section 753(1) of the Code) and the second, is the penalty or disposition stage (s. 753(4) and (4.1) of the Code).

[212] At the designation stage, the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the offence for which the offender has been convicted, i.e.. the predicate or index offence, is a “serious personal injury offence” as defined in s. 752. In Mr. Paroski’s case, the Crown relies on sections 753(1)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Code:

(1) the predicate offence is a serious personal injury offence pursuant to s.752(a);

(2) the offender constitutes a threat to the life, safety or physical or mental well-being of other persons based on evidence establishing either (i) a pattern of repetitive behaviour by the offender, or (ii) a pattern of persistent aggressive behaviour by the offender; and

(3) a high likelihood of harmful recidivism and intractability is present.

[213] In Johnson[^124], the Supreme Court of Canada made clear that prior to designating an offender, the sentencing judge was required to consider whether there was a reasonable possibility of eventual control of the risk posed by the offender in the community. If the offender met the criteria to be declared a dangerous offender, but the sentencing judge was satisfied that there was a reasonable possibility of eventual control the sentencing judge was required to designate the offender a long-term offender (LTO) rather than a dangerous offender (DO) and sentence them to a determinate sentence and a period of long-term supervision rather than an indeterminate sentence.[^125]

[214] In Boutilier[^126] the Supreme Court made clear that before designation a sentencing judge must be satisfied that the offender's conduct is intractable and that a sentencing judge must consider an accused's treatment prospects both at the designation stage as well as at the penalty stage.

[215] The Court has stated that intractable means conduct the offender is unable to surmount.[^127]

[216] The dangerous offender provisions are designed to, above all, provide protection to the public.[^128]

[217] The Crown submits that on the evidence, Mr. Paroski meets the criteria for a dangerous offender (DO) designation under both s. 753(a)(i) and (ii) of the Code. Further, the Crown submits that presumptively an indeterminate sentence should be imposed upon a finding of dangerous offender status. The Crown argues that there is no evidence of any reasonable expectation that a lesser measure, including a finite period of incarceration followed by a LTSO (long-term supervision order), would adequately protect the public against Mr. Paroski committing in the future a serious personal injury offence.

[218] The Defence submits the Crown has failed to establish the necessary “pattern” of behaviour that would qualify Mr. Paroski to be designated a dangerous offender. Should the Court get past this hurdle, the Defence submits a fit sentence should take a form of a determinate sentence or, in the alternative, a determinate sentence followed by a long-term supervision order. Counsel highlights Mr. Paroski’s success at treatment, counseling, and supervision especially since he was transferred to the Toronto East Detention Centre last August 2021, as evidence that there is a reasonable expectation of eventual risk management in the community.

a) The Designation Stage

i) Serious personal injury offence

[219] The first question is whether the predicate offence is a serious personal injury offence pursuant to s. 752(a) of the Code.

[220] I agree with counsel that that the index offence of aggravated assault constitutes a “serious personal injury offence”. Section 752(a) of the Code states the offence must be one for which the offender is liable to receive a sentence of 10 years or more and the offence must involve the use or attempted use of violence against another person. The maximum sentence for aggravated assault is 14 years.

ii) Pattern of Repetitive Behaviour

[221] Section 753(1)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Code contemplates two different types of patterns: a pattern of repetitive behaviour showing a failure to restrain his behaviour and a pattern of persistent aggressive behaviour showing substantial indifference respecting the reasonably foreseeable consequences to other persons, both patterns relate to a pattern of violence that resulted in serious injury to the victim.[^129]

[222] Defence counsel cautions the Court that not all criminal behaviour forms part of a pattern and why context in which an offender committed past criminal offences will be relevant to the analysis.[^130]

[223] Defence counsel referred to R. v. States, where the Court found the Crown did not specify the offences it relied on for “pattern”. The Court found the Crown proceeded in a “generic” way, relying on what was the accused’s lengthy criminal record, but which fell short of establishing a “pattern”.[^131]

[224] The Ontario Court of Appeal in a 2021 decision succinctly discussed what constitutes a “pattern”:[^132]

[223] It is uncontroversial that two incidents may constitute a pattern, provided they disclose a sufficient degree of similarity: R. v. Hogg, [2011] O.J. No. 5963, 2011 ONCA 840, 287 O.A.C. 82, at paras. 40, 43; R. v. Byers, [2017] O.J. No. 4082, 2017 ONCA 639, at paras. 20-23.

[224] The pattern requirement in ss. 753(1)(a)(i) and (b) is not based exclusively on the number of offences. It is also rooted in the elements of similarity in the offender's behaviour: R. v. Langevin (1984), 1984 CanLII 1914 (ON CA), 45 O.R. (2d) 705, [1984] O.J. No. 3159, 11 C.C.C. (3d) 336 (C.A.), at pp. 348-49 C.C.C. See also R. v. Knife, [2015] S.J. No. 343, 2015 SKCA 82, 460 Sask. R. 287, at para. 67, leave to appeal refused [2015] S.C.C.A. No. 382.

[225] Section 581(1) of the Criminal Code enacts a rule of criminal pleading. As a general rule, each count in an indictment must refer to a single transaction. The term "transaction" is not synonymous with "incident", "occurrence" or "event". A single transaction may include separate acts that are successive and cumulative and which comprise a continuous series of acts forming one transaction: R. v. Hulan, 1969 CanLII 306 (ON CA), [1969] 2 O.R. 283, [1969] O.J. No. 1322, [1970] 1 C.C.C. 36 (C.A.), at p. 45 C.C.C.; R. v. Selles (1997), 1997 CanLII 1150 (ON CA), 34 O.R. (3d) 332, [1997] O.J. No. 2502, 116 C.C.C. (3d) 435 (C.A.), at p. 444 C.C.C.

[225] In the Crown’s written submissions beginning at page 7, they submit there are several subsets under which the Court can find Mr. Paroski’s criminal history establishes a “pattern of repetitive behaviour” showing Mr. Paroski’s inability to demonstrate restraint as well as a “pattern” of his persistent aggressive behaviour:

(1) The index offence marks Mr. Paroski’s third conviction for aggravated assault, not including the conviction where Mr. Paroski was only charged with assault with a weapon, but he stabbed another inmate at Millhaven Institution (2009). In all four instances, the victims were taken to hospital and the injuries were serious. In three of the four cases, Mr. Paroski used a knife (in the fourth instance, in 2011, Mr. Paroski beat the victim, shattering his orbital bone and palette). All the offences were committed in the public, in other words, where the presence of other people did not deter Mr. Paroski.

(2) Mr. Paroski has assaulted complete strangers including the index offence when he had no prior relationship with the victim, Christopher Phillips, before slashing him across the face (2018), and the stabbing of the youth in the park (2004). Other times, Mr. Paroski has assaulted and threatened family members (his stepmother in 1999 and his father in 2003), intimate partners (Sheila Hearn in 2006 and 2008; and Ashley Flint in 2014 and 2016); and numerous correctional officers (in total nine convictions).

(3) Mr. Paroski exuded the same staggering degree of indifference both when he threw Ms. Flint’s cat off the balcony after she rebuffed his sexual advances (2014) as well as when he slashed Mr. Phillips’ face (2018), and then walked away.

[226] The fact that one of the aggravated assaults was committed while still a youth and the index offence was committed while possibly Mr. Paroski was under the influence of drugs, may speak to the degree of his moral blameworthiness, but are irrelevant under s. 753. As noted by Justice Karakatsanis in Boutilier referring to defendants suffering from addiction, poverty, and childhood abuse, in dissent at para 123 stated: “Such life experiences are not rare. Criminal courts in this country are tragically filled with offenders whose crimes are linked to the disease of addiction and the consequences of marginalization”.[^133]

[227] I am satisfied that the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt s. 753(1)(a)(i) of the Code that Mr. Paroski has now been convicted of his third aggravated assault, which has significant similarities with a repetitive pattern when compared to his past conduct. The predicate offence reveals many of the same elements of unrestrained dangerous conduct Mr. Paroski has demonstrated on multiple previous occasions, which if left untreated, would likely result in him offending in the same way in the future. Mr. Paroski’s criminal record confirms him to be perpetual recidivist, who has engaged in violent and aggressive behaviour, resulting in physical and psychological harm to others.

[228] Further I am satisfied, the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt subparagraph 753(1)(a)(ii) of the Code a pattern of Mr. Paroski’s persistent aggressive behaviour for which he has been convicted that demonstrates a substantial degree of indifference to the foreseeable harm and suffering he has caused. I am satisfied that three convictions for aggravated assault and one remarkably similar assault with a weapon, is ample proof of persistent aggressive behaviour. Slashing the victim across the face in the index offence for no apparent reason and throwing a live animal to its certain death from a balcony are only two examples, hence a pattern, of Mr. Paroski’s gross indifference to the foreseeable harm and suffering caused by him.

iii) High Likelihood of Harmful Recidivism and Intractability

[229] Boutilier requires as a precondition to a dangerous offender designation finding of “intractability” and a “high likelihood of harmful recidivism”: At para. 27 Cote, J writing for the majority explained:

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 in 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.[^134]

[230] If the treatment prospects are compelling such that the Court cannot find beyond a reasonable doubt that there is a high likelihood of harmful recidivism or that the violent pattern of his conduct can be overcome, then the dangerous offender designation cannot be imposed.

High Likelihood of Harmful Recidivism

[231] Establishing whether the requisite “likelihood” of re-offending, which is a statutory precondition in s. 753(1)(a) and (b) of the Code is particularly challenging. Justice Code in R. v. P.G.[^135] noted the following:

Predicting future conduct is notoriously difficult and the exact meaning of the s. 753 "likelihood" test is subtle. The ordinary dictionary meaning of the word "likelihood", as well as its normal legal usage, is "probability", that is, something more than mere "possibility". See: The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Oxford University Press 1993, Vol. 1, p. 1588; Black's Law Dictionary, 9th Ed. 2009, at p. 1012; D.A. Dukelow, Dictionary of Canadian Law, 3rd Ed. 2004, at p. 723; R. v. H. (J.T.) (2002), 2002 NSCA 138, 170 C.C.C. (3d) 405 at paras. 68-75 and 101-4 (N.S.C.A.). When applying this meaning to the "likelihood" test found in s. 753, the courts have stressed that it refers to probable "risk" or "potential for harm", as a present fact, rather than to proof of a future event which would be an impossibility.

[232] In other words, a high likelihood of harmful recidivism does not require proof to a degree of certainty.[^136]

[233] For the following reasons I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Paroski poses a high likelihood of harmful recidivism:

[234] Both Dr. Coleman and Dr. Pallandi agree that Mr. Paroski is in the medium-high to high-risk category for violent recidivism. Dr. Coleman based her conclusion on Mr. Paroski’s actuarial scores where on the PCL-R, she scored him 33 out of a possible 40 which places Mr. Paroski in the 94^th percentile of the reference sample. As noted, a score of 33 falls within the range required for a diagnosis for psychopathy. Dr. Coleman’ also scored Mr. Paroski on the VRAG as +23, which places him in the 96% percentile with respect to the reference or standardization sample. Similar scoring individuals recidivate violently at a rate of 82% over 10 years opportunity in the community. On the HCR-20 risk assessment tool, Dr. Coleman scored Mr. Paroski 32 out of a possible 40 points, assuming near immediate release from significant custody, which she noted was a “fairly high score” suggesting a high risk of future violent behaviour, absent significant interventions.

[235] Dr. Pallandi scored Mr. Paroski slightly lower in those four categories in the PCL-R as previously discussed and which accounts for his lower score of 26 out of 40. I was surprised by Dr. Pallandi’s lack of critical review of Mr. Paroski’s criminal record compared to what Dr. Coleman undertook, which he himself admitted might have assisted him in evaluating Mr. Paroski’s “callousness”, “lack of empathy”, and “lack of remorse or guilt”. Nonetheless, Dr. Pallandi still scored Mr. Paroski a 26 out of 40, which is under the cut-off mark for psychopathy, but still falls within the “high” score category of the PCL-R and represents a higher-than-average score amongst federally detained inmates. On the VRAG, Dr. Pallandi scored Mr. Paroski a “20”, which corresponds with a recidivism rate of 55% over 7 years and 64% over 10 years. Also, on the HCR-20 v.3, Dr. Pallandi concluded that Mr. Paroski’s risk for future violence was “high”. Lastly, combined with the SAPROF tool, Dr. Pallandi found Mr. Paroski presented a “moderate-high” risk to reoffend but that he possesses moderate protective factors against offending.

[236] Additionally, both experts diagnosed Mr. Paroski with antisocial personality disorder (ASPD), which is a pervasive disorder where treatment prospects are limited although cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) has proven effective with changing the way a person thinks and problem solves.

[237] In addition to the expert opinions, Mr. Paroski’s prior criminal offending history begins when he was 13 years old and has continued unabated for the last two decades. Most of his offences have been violent offences, where he has received, at times, significant periods of incarceration. Even amongst federal inmates at maximum security Millhaven Institution, Mr. Paroski’s behaviour was so unmanageable that he was transferred to the special handling unit Quebec.

[238] In addition, until recently, Mr. Paroski has remained untreated. While there have in the past the occasional period when Mr. Paroski has started counselling or expressed interest in furthering his education, all his efforts are short-lived and except for the past year, he has been unable to maintain any positive change.

Intractability at the Designation Stage

[239] Proof of “dangerousness” under s. 753(1) of the Code requires evidence that the offender’s pattern of violence is “intractable”. Intractability refers to behaviour that the offender is “unable to surmount”. Intractability involves both a retrospective and prospective assessment of the offender’s risk.

[240] At the designation stage, intractability relates to whether the conduct can be treated. At the sentencing stage in Boutilier the Court found that his conduct could not be treated, so the question became whether the conduct could be managed.[^137]

[241] For the following reasons, I am satisfied the Crown has established beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Paroski, even considering the gains he has made, his violent pattern of behaviour is intractable.

[242] But first I begin with noting the positive steps Mr. Paroski has taken in the past year. For the past year or so, Mr. Paroski has reached out to professionals and has gratefully accepted their materials, their recommendations, and has demonstrated initiative, control, and commitment. I agree with Dr. Pallandi and others that Mr. Paroski seems to have moved from the pre-contemplative to the active stage of change. He is currently motivated and hopefully his accomplishments will only fuel his determination and commitment to continue that change. Also, Mr. Paroski enjoys his family’s support including his father who joined by videoconferencing to hear final submissions early this year. His sister, Shannon, seems to mean the world to him.

[243] Second, I am also aware that there is a treatment plan for Mr. Paroski, which I will address more fully in a moment.

[244] However, the problem for Mr. Paroski is that for over the past 20 years, he has refused any treatment and has shown no insight or interest in controlling his violent behaviour, even while in custody. On the rare occasion, where he has shown interest, his commitment is short-lived. As noted previously, while at Syl Apps Treatment Centre in 2001, a report described Mr. Paroski as doing well in the program, but then four months later, he had incurred over a dozen misconducts. In 2003 as a young adult, Mr. Paroski had a job plus he showed interest in a special, hard-to-get-into school program. Peel District School Board made special accommodation for him, only for him to leave school and his work within a month or two later. In 2010, while at Millhaven, Mr. Paroski initially showed interest in a therapeutic intervention program and initial reports described his participation as “active and genuine”. Yet soon he stopped participating instead choosing to conform with the pervading negative attitude of other inmates. At one point, while at Millhaven, Mr. Paroski completed one program on anti-criminal thinking, but did not complete a substance abuse program and an anger management program because of his lack of attendance. He continued to refuse to speak to the psychiatrist or request any professional help.

[245] After serving over four years and eight months in the federal system, Mr. Paroski had not completed any counselling.

[246] In addition, there is evidence of the pathological intractability of Mr. Paroski’s severe anti-social personality disorder (ASPD) coupled with the results from the various actuarial tools including Dr. Coleman scoring Mr. Paroski extremely high on the psychopathy checklist (PCL-R)

[247] In R. v. D.B. 2015 ONSC 5900, [2015] O.J. No. 5138, Justice Hill of the Ontario Superior Court set out a non-exhaustive list of relevant factors to consider as to whether an offender’s future conduct is likely to be manageable in the future by usual tools of restraint. As Justice Hill noted, as in most cases including Mr. Paroski’s, there is a mix of negative and positive considerations:

(1) The degree to which the offender has been cooperative with the Part XXIV process:

(a) Mr. Paroski has been fully cooperative.

(2) Whether the offender has previously refused treatment or failed to take advantage of treatment opportunities

(a) Mr. Paroski’s history demonstrates that he has a long history of refusing treatment.

(3) Whether the offender has been expelled from prior treatment programs

(a) “Expelled” does not aptly describe why Mr. Paroski’s extremely limited past efforts have failed. I have noted one reference where once Mr. Paroski did not complete two of the three programs at Millhaven because of lack of attendance.

(4) Whether the offender has previously refused to take prescribed medication or has unilaterally discontinued pharmacological treatment

(a) In the past, Mr. Paroski has refused medication for ADHD.

(5) Whether the offender has taken treatment in the past and if so whether it ultimately failed to reduce or control the offender’s risk to the public

(a) Multiple youth and family agencies, courts, probation and correctional officials have all recommended that Mr. Paroski take counselling and/or treatment and he has either flat out rejected the recommendations or not followed through. As such, his risk to the public has always remained high and he continued to reoffend violently.

(6) Is the offender motivated and committed to treatment?

(a) The answer is finally yes. I accept that especially since arriving at the East Detention Centre in August 2021, Mr. Paroski has shown initiative, motivation, and a commitment to treatment. I accept Dr. Pallandi and Dr. Seat’s opinions that Mr. Paroski is at the beginning stages in the active phase of change.

(7) Are there realistic prospects for treating the offender’s mental disorder(s) having regard to relevant factors such as propensity and intractability?

(a) Mr. Paroski does not suffer from any mental disorders, which might be treatable through pharmacological intervention. In other words, there is no pill or medication that will change, control, or reduce Mr. Paroski’s aggression, impulsivity, lack of empathy, and so on. Instead, both experts have diagnosed Mr. Paroski with antisocial personality disorder (ASPD), which Dr. Coleman described as “severe”, which is a chronic condition with limited treatment options. Dr. Pallandi presents the most optimistic opinion on whether there are any realistic prospects for treating Mr. Paroski. According to Dr. Pallandi, should everything come together in terms of Mr. Paroski’s treatment plan AND he continues to stay motivate, then his prognosis of remaining violence-free is “markedly enhanced.” However, it is unknown whether Mr. Paroski’s motivation will continue especially considering his abysmal record of following through and staying committed.

(8) Respecting the predicate offences, is there a lack of insight, failure to accept responsibility, denial, minimization, a lack of empathy for the victim(s), absence of remorse?

(a) I find that Mr. Paroski minimizes and lacks empathy relating to the index offence. According to his lawyer, Mr. Paroski does not challenge the Court finding him guilty of the predicate or index offence, which is unsurprising because the strength of the Crown’s case was overwhelming. However, both Drs. Coleman and Pallandi report that Mr Paroski claims not to remember committing the index offence because he was heavily using crystal methamphetamine and Xanax. Mr. Paroski claims that he only learned about what he had done when his then girlfriend, told him days later what happened.

(b) The offence and Mr. Paroski leaving the scene were all captured on security videos, and, in my view, Mr. Paroski does not display any overt signs of impairment. His physical movements appeared normal. He walked away from the crime with purpose. Mr Paroski had the wherewithal to backtrack when his girlfriend found an open door leading to a parking lot. Mr. Paroski with intention removed and discarded articles of clothing in the parking garage with the reasonable inference that he wanted to change his appearance.

(c) When police boarded the bus to arrest him, the video shows Mr. Paroski reaching behind with the reasonable inference that he was trying to conceal the knife. When Dr. Coleman asked him why he had the knife, Mr Paroski’s first reaction was that he did not remember having the knife, but then blamed his girlfriend saying the knife was hers, and that although he had wanted to throw the knife away, it was his girlfriend who wanted to keep it “because she always carries weapons”.[^138]

(d) Lastly, Mr. Paroski reported to Dr. Coleman that he felt “really bad” for what he had done. He told Dr. Pallandi that after seeing the video surveillance of the incident, he had no personal recall, but that he felt “embarrassed” and described the incident as “stupid” and that he regrets not having a job instead. In my view, neither set of comments reveal Mr. Paroski having any significant insight or remorse or empathy towards the victim, which may always be limited because of his psychopathy.

(9) The circumstances of the offender’s institutional behaviour including in advance of the dangerous offender hearing

(a) While at the Toronto South awaiting trial on the index offence, Mr. Paroski incurred a total of nine institutional misconducts, four of which were committed after April 2019, when the Crown gave notice, they were bringing the dangerous offender application[^139]. Since, however, his voluntary transfer to Toronto East, Mr. Paroski has not been found guilty of any misconducts.

(10) What improvements or gains in risk reduction can be expected during a period of custody preceding community release

(a) Should Mr. Paroski be admitted to the Ontario Correctional Institute (OCI), whose focus is on high-intensity, round-the-clock interactive cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), there is the prospect of risk reduction or, as Dr. Pallandi says, a “markedly enhanced” prognosis that Mr. Paroski can be successfully controlled in the community.

(11) Has past engagement with community supervision been compliant?

(a) Mr. Paroski has a poor history of compliance with release orders, probation orders, release under mandatory supervision, and following conditions of his parole. Mr. Paroski also has a long pattern of re-offending violently while on court orders.

(12) Apart from treatment considerations, are there sufficiently available and resourced external controls in the community to adequately protect the public?

(a) Mr. Paroski’s antisocial personality disorder and psychopathy are chronic issues whose symptoms, at best, may be attenuated with CBT (cognitive behavioural therapy) and medication, such as Biphentin, to address his ADHD. Should Mr. Paroski be ordered to live at a Community Correctional Centre (CCC), which would likely be the case, he will be subject to gradual, supervised release with a high degree of supervision plus access to both in-house and perhaps third-party referrals for his counselling and treatment needs.

(13) As a factor independent of treatment, is there compelling, not speculative, expert evidence that the offender’s proclivities will significantly decline in the future while failing within the period of a determinate sentence and the term of a LTSO?

(a) There was limited evidence of a reduction of Mr. Paroski’s violent behaviour as he gets older.

[248] In applying the reasoning in Boutilier, I am satisfied that the evidence establishes that Mr. Paroski’s pattern of violence is intractable. The evidence does not satisfy me that Mr. Paroski is able to overcome his violent behaviour nor, at this time, that there is a reasonable possibility of his eventual control in the community. I am satisfied that Mr. Paroski remains a threat because he has only recently, relative to the length of his criminal history, begun to take seriously his complex treatment needs in a highly controlled setting. I agree with the Crown that none of Mr. Paroski’s efforts have been tested in the community because the changes are relatively new.

[249] I have arrived at this conclusion based on the following:

(1) Mr. Paroski’s lengthy youth court and adult criminal record, which began when he was 13 years old, and which has been continuous for the past twenty-five years. He has 35 prior convictions for violence including assaults, but also robbery, forcible confinement, threats. His victims run the gamut from strangers, family members, intimate partners, and authority figures such as peace officers and correctional staff. Even custody has not prevented Mr. Paroski from acting out violently.

(2) Having met the criteria of a dangerous offender in s. 753(1)(a)(i) and (ii), the Court has found Mr. Paroski to have a “pattern” of persistent repetitive aggressive behaviour and a “pattern” of substantial degree of indifference to the foreseeable harm and suffering he has caused.

(3) Mr. Paroski has both severe antisocial personality disorder and a substance use disorder. ASPD (anti-social personality disorder) is a chronic condition that has as its characteristics failure to conform to social and legal norms, deceit, impulsivity, irresponsibility, reckless disregard for the safety of others, consistent irresponsibility, and lack of remorse. As for his substance abuse disorder, both Drs. Coleman and Pallandi strongly endorse that Mr. Paroski abstain from the use of any substances. While in custody, Mr. Paroski continued to using marijuana although has since stopped.

(4) Mr. Paroski’s high PCL-R score of 33 out of 40 and Dr. Pallandi, who scored him a most generous 26 out of 40, establishes him amongst federal inmates to be likely to fail substantially faster on community release than individuals with lower scores. Additional actuarial tool assessment results are also consistent with Mr. Paroski having a moderate-to-high risk to reoffend violently.

(5) Lastly, Mr Paroski’s dismal history of being amenable to any substantial treatment or counselling. Transcripts from Mr. Paroski’s sentencing hearings are full of Courts ordering that he take immediate steps to manage his escalating violent behaviour and are full of Mr. Paroski’s promises that he will do whatever it takes to not return to court. Except for the past year or so, Mr. Paroski has never followed through with anything he has said.

[250] I disagree with Defence counsel, who submits Mr. Paroski has been actively committed to change since August 2018, the date of his arrest. The evidence establishes Mr. Paroski continued to incur institutional misconducts beginning October 2018 until July 21, 2020. He also had limited participation in programming until April 2020 when the Crown gave Notice of the dangerous offender application.

[251] Mr. Paroski’s underlying causes for violent behaviour are not treatable per se, and any changes will demand intensive and continual therapy and follow-up, strict supervision, commitment, abstinence from all substances, support from his family, and most importantly, time. Mr. Paroski is at the start of this journey.

[252] It is for these reasons that I find the evidence of Mr. Paroski’s recent efforts and future treatment prospects speaks to his manageability in the community as opposed to the intractability of his behaviour.

b) The Penalty Stage

[253] At the penalty stage, the question is whether that risk can be managed. Section 753(4.1) states:

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

[254] In 2022, the Ontario Court of Appeal in the decision of R. v. Straub noted:

Section 753(4.1) mandates imposition of an indeterminate sentence unless there is a reasonable expectation that a lesser sentence will adequately protect the public against the dangerous offender's violent recidivism. The standard to be applied to the evidence adduced at the hearing is whether there is a reasonable expectation that a lesser measure will adequately protect the public against the offender's violent recidivism. The standard is reasonable expectation, not reasonable possibility. The term "reasonable expectation" suggests a "likelihood", "a belief that something would happen", or "a confident belief, for good and sufficient reasons": Pelly , at para. 35; R. v. D.J.S .2015 BCCA 111, at para. 30, leave to appeal refused, [2015] S.C.C.A. No. 194; R. v. Sanderson 2018 MBCA 63, at para. 20; Awasis , at para. 73. The standard "reasonable expectation" is more stringent than "reasonable possibility": R. v. Groves 2020 ONCA 86, at para. 15.[^140]

[255] Section 753(4) of the Code provides the Court with three options: an indeterminate sentence, a fixed sentence of at least two years followed by a long-term supervision order of up to 10 years, or a fixed sentence.

[256] A court should impose an indeterminate sentence unless it is satisfied that there is evidence specific to the offender that the offender can be rehabilitated within a determinate period of time. A hope that treatment will be successful or some optimism that an offender could be rehabilitated is not a sufficient basis to impose a determinate sentence. In R. v. McCallum, the Ontario Court of Appeal stated:

Case law from this court and from the British Columbia Court of Appeal under the former dangerous offender legislation and the amended provisions has held that in order to achieve the goal of protection of the public under the dangerous offender and long-term offender provisions, there must be evidence of treatability that is more than an expression of hope and that indicates that the specific offender can be treated within a definite period of time: R. v. Poutsoungas (1989), 1989 CanLII 7104 (ON CA), 49 C.C.C. (3d) 388 (Ont. C.A.); R. v. Higginbottom (2001), 2001 CanLII 3989 (ON CA), 156 C.C.C. (3d) 178 (Ont. C.A.).

[257] In Boutilier, the Supreme Court outlines three important aspects at the penalty stage:

(1) First, prospective evidence, such as evidence of treatment prospects, “Even where the treatment prospects are not compelling enough to affect the judge’s conclusion on dangerousness, they will still be relevant in choosing the sentence required to adequately protect the public” – para 45.

(2) Second, all the principles of sentencing – not only the objective of public protection – are relevant including “the offender’s moral culpability, the seriousness of the offence, mitigating factors and principles developed for indigenous offenders – para 63;

(3) Lastly, there is no presumption of an indeterminate sentence at the penalty stage. Rather the judge must take the “ladder approach”, considering first whether a conventional sentence will adequately protect the public. If not, the court must consider a conventional sentence followed by a long-term supervision order. Only if neither is appropriate, should a judge impose an indeterminate sentence (see para 69-70).

[258] It is still necessary to have regard to the general principles of sentencing as apply in all cases (See Johnson at para 28). In particular, the bearing in mind the underlying objectives of sentencing and the fundamental purposes and principles of sentencing contained in sections 718 to 718.2 of the Code, the Court must consider the least restrictive option available that still accomplishes those objectives.

[259] Based on the evidence, I accept that Mr. Paroski is in the process of change. The evidence shows that Mr. Paroski is intellectually capable of supportive psychotherapy through cognitive behavioural therapy, but which needs to be reinforced daily until such time as he has internalized the process and can reliably engage the skills. Mr. Paroski has demonstrated that he is able to control his behaviour and improve his inter-personal relationships with correctional staff, treatment providers, and other professionals. It appears that Mr. Paroski is starting to learn and trust that there are individuals willing to help him and to support him. He has begun to develop some insight. He finally recognizes that he must continue to monitor his treatment with ADHD medication, for example, Biphentin, with professionals. He also says he that understands that he must remain drug/substance free. This is a key component to managing his risk management.

[260] For the following reasons, I am satisfied there is evidence specific to Mr. Paroski that within the fixed reformatory sentence ideally to be served at the OCI, followed by a 10-year long-term supervision order that the public can be adequately protected from Mr. Paroski.

[261] Mr. Paroski has taken the necessary steps to be eligible for OCI. At the time of final submissions, Mr. Paroski was classified as minimum security, he is in the active stage of change, and he is very motivated. Whether he will be accepted into OCI will, of course, be decided by classification at the Toronto East and Dr. Mrahar and her team at OCI. But I am confident that Mr. Paroski is already on the OCI radar because of Drs. Mrahar and Pallandi have both testified at this hearing.

[262] OCI offers Mr. Paroski the best chance of any meaningful therapeutic change. OCI is ideal for Mr. Paroski, who requires treatment for addictions, trauma, ADHD, prosocial thinking, and anger. OCI’s integrated psychiatric, psychological, educational, recreational, and social work services are provided within a treatment milieu. Mr. Paroski has already demonstrated his ability to work independently on workbooks, which is a large part of OCI’s intake process. As well, his institutional behaviour with no findings of misconduct while at Toronto East and even while at the Toronto South although to a lesser degree, reflects that Mr. Paroski is learning to regulate his emotions, such that I am confident he could live and work within the blended OCI resident population.

[263] OCI requires a sentence within the range of 12-14 months to account for any unexpected delays in the application and/or admission process. Change takes time, and if a resident completes their programming and there is still time to serve on the sentence, the resident can repeat sessions. The extra time also gives staff time to observe and support the resident to ensure he has internalized what has been taught.

[264] Months before the resident’s warrant expiry date, I have heard evidence that OCI works with Corrections Canada to provide more focused recommendations for community supervision. As a designated dangerous offender, Mr. Paroski most likely will be placed at the Keele Centre, where the last time he was there, he reoffended by contacting a victim. The Court expects that this time, Mr. Paroski, a little older and having been designated a dangerous offender, will be significantly more manageable because otherwise the consequences will be severe.

[265] I do not agree with the Crown that Mr. Paroski’s management of risk requires more tools than those available to parole authorities. I accept the evidence of Joseph Dixon, who outlined how DOs are dealt with in both CCCs and CRFs, and how the Parole Board can impose special conditions on a DO.

[266] Of course, there is the possibility that Mr. Paroski may not end up at OCI despite the Court’s strong recommendation. Defence counsel submits that in this scenario, Mr. Paroski will likely be sent to Central North Correctional Centre, where he would participate in the mandatory multi-session program. In that case, Mr. Paroski will have to complete the SOLGEN programming as described by the various witnesses, and which also incorporates cognitive behavioural therapy. As well, Mr. Paroski has learned to advocate for himself in a prosocial and productive way so, if necessary, presumably he will ask for help. In addition, Correctional Services of Canada and the Parole Board will conduct a detailed evaluation of where Mr. Paroski psychosocially stands prior to release and will hopefully link him to a community treatment program plus contact third-party agencies including mental health service providers to build on what Mr. Paroski has learned, as well to maintain strict supervision over him in the community.

[267] I adopt the recommendations made by Drs. Coleman and Pallandi that the following structures and conditions be imposed on Mr. Paroski:

(1) Mr. Paroski should access and complete a wide variety of programs during a period of incarceration, including but not limited to substance abuse treatment programming, anger management, cognitive skills and programs to deal with antisocial attitudes. He should also continue to participate in on-going supportive programming, particularly in the area of substance abuse, once he returns to the community. He may also benefit from accessing vocational programming to assist him with transition to the community.

(2) Mr. Paroski should be prohibited from using alcohol and non-prescription drugs and be subject to urine toxicology screening at least once a week for an extended period of time to ensure abstinence from any drug or alcohol use. He should be prohibited from entering establishments where the primary source of revenue is through the sale of alcohol.

(3) Mr. Paroski should be subject to intense supervision upon any eventual release into the community, including residential placement in a community correctional centre for an extended period of time. Privileges for an unsupervised time away from the facility should only be permitted after demonstrated compliance with programs and supervision. Any release should only take place on a graduated and slow basis, allowing for rapid intervention (breach) should Mr. Paroski fail to comply with all conditions.

(4) Mr. Paroski’s whereabouts when outside the facility should be subject to verification initially on a daily basis and probation/parole officers and/or police should make regular, unannounced visits if Mr. Paroski is living outside of a correctional facility.

(5) Mr. Paroski should be prohibited from having any contact with criminally oriented peers outside of correctional facilities.

(6) Mr. Paroski should remain subject to a prohibition regarding being in possession of any weapons or ammunition, in perpetuity.

(7) Mr. Paroski should not be permitted to operate a motor vehicle.

(8) If Mr. Paroski enters into an intimate relationship, that partner should be contacted by the authorities and informed of Mr. Paroski’s history. There should be close and unrestricted supervision of these relationships. The partner should be advised to contact police immediately if there is any reason to believe that Mr. Paroski is about to act violently or if he has returned to alcohol or drug use.[^141]

[268] Mr. Paroski would also benefit from vocational support and retraining in an effort to gradually re-enter the workforce.

[269] I accept that reintegration with his family should be encouraged and supported. Dr. Pallandi recommends that initially his family should be placed in only a supportive and not a supervisory role. Also, Dr. Pallandi recommends that Mr. Paroski develop and maintain a relationship with his daughter although the Court is aware that the mother, Sheila Hearn, was subject to domestic violence by Mr. Paroski. Ms. Hearn’s input should be sought before Mr. Paroski is allowed contact with her relating to their now teenage daughter.

[270] With this strict and long-term release plan, I am satisfied that Mr. Paroski’s treatability is more than expression of hope. Based on the evidence specific to Mr. Paroski, I find that there is a reasonable expectation that his risk in the community can be managed and reduced to an acceptable level within a specific time frame.

Conclusion:

[271] I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Marc Paroski fits the criteria, and he will be designated a dangerous offender.

[272] I am satisfied that the risk in the community can be reduced to an acceptable level with a fixed sentence of an additional 18 months of jail in addition to time served followed by a 10-year long-term supervision order (LTSO).

[273] I have considered Justice Code’s decision in R. v. Tourville[^142] where he described different sentencing scenarios for aggravated assaults. It is not disputed that Mr. Paroski offence falls within the high-end range of sentences typically in the four-to-six-year range because of the brutal and unprovoked attack on the victim. However, Mr. Paroski’s criminal record is a particularly aggravating factor with related offences for which he has received significant jail terms. There are no mitigating factors except for Mr. Paroski’s recent efforts while in custody, which I reviewed exhaustively and have considered.

[274] I am satisfied that the least restrictive sentence that is consistent with the purposes and principles of sentencing and which is proportionate to the degree of Mr. Paroski’s responsibility, and the harm done to the victim is that of 8 years less pre-sentence custody credit.

(1) Mr. Paroski was arrested on August 17, 2018 and has spent the equivalent of 50 months in pre-sentence detention (1520 days or approx. 4 years and 2 months, which equals 50 months).

(2) He is entitled to pre-sentence detention “Summers” credit on a 1.5:1 basis for an additional credit of 25 months.

(3) As such, Mr. Paroski has served 75 months or the equivalent of 6 years and 3 months in presentence detention.

(4) I am also prepared to give Mr. Paroski further pre-sentence custody credit of an additional 3 months because of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and the conditions in the jails that have directly affected him, giving him credit for a total of 6 ½ years of pre-sentence detention.[^143]

[275] As such, the Court sentences Mr. Paroski to serve an additional 18 months of custody.

[276] I have also considered that the length of an LTSO is highly discretionary and that a period of community supervision cannot be longer than is necessary “to obviate the risk that the offender will reoffend and thus to protect the public”.[^144] In Mr. Paroski’s case for reasons already stated, he is at high risk to reoffend, so I am satisfied that it is fit and just to extend the duration of the LTSO to the maximum length of 10 years.

[277] The release plan proposed by Mr. Paroski, which I have accepted followed by a gradual return to the community with supervision under CSC, followed by the safe integration to Orillia where his family lives.

[278] Count 1 – the assault with a weapon will be conditionally stayed based on finding of guilty on Count 2 and the principle in Kienapple.[^145]

[279] Count 2 – aggravated assault – 8 years less pre-sentence custody credit the equivalent of 6 ½ years for a remaining sentence of an additional 18 months.

[280] On the remaining counts 5 and 6 of breach of probation, Mr. Paroski will receive a sentence of 1 year custody on each concurrent.

[281] Mr. Paroski will also be subject to a long-term supervision order (LTSO) for 10 years on count 2.

[282] The warrant of committal will be endorsed that the Court strongly recommends that Mr. Paroski serve his sentence at the Ontario Correctional Institute and the Court also directs that a copy of these Reasons for Sentence shall be forwarded to classification and to Dr. Mrahar at OCI.

[283] As well, under s. 109 of the Code, Mr. Paroski is prohibited from possessing any firearm, crossbow, restricted weapon, ammunition, and explosive substance for life.

[284] The offence of aggravated assault is a primary DNA offence. I order that Mr. Paroski provide such samples of his bodily substances that are reasonably required for the purpose of forensic DNA analysis for the DNA Data Bank.

Released: Electronically on October 13, 2022, to counsel and in court on October 14, 2022

Justice Mavin Wong

Appendix A - Detailed Exhibits List

[^1]: See Appendix A Detailed Exhibits List as prepared by the Crown reflecting the electronic folders and documents submitted by the Crown and the Defence (Exhibit 1 – CD of the Crown, Exhibit 2 – Aid Memoire Index Related to Exhibit 1, Exhibit 3 – DSM Introduction Print Out and Exhibit 4 – Thumb-drive of Defence’s Application Record

[^2]: R. v. Camara 2013 ONCJ 534, [2013] O.J. No. 4580 (Libman, J.) at para 120-121.

[^3]: Exhibit 1, Tab 2, Paroski Adult CR Compendium, at page 29 (plea before Justice Kastner on June 16, 2004

[^4]: Exhibit 1, Tab 2, Paroski Adult CR Compendium, at page 67 (plea before Justice Hawke, November 22, 2005

[^5]: Exhibit 1, Tab 2, Paroski Adult CR Compendium, at page 29 (plea before Justice Kastner on June 16, 2004, page 80 (bail hearing before Justice of the Peace Hudson on July 12, 2005); page 113 (bail hearing before Justice of the Peace Hudson on April 19, 2006); page 172 (plea before Justice Rosemay on June 13 2006)

[^6]: Exhibit 1, Tab 2, Paroski Adult CR Compendium, at page 198 (Reasons for Judgment before Kastner, J., on August 20, 2008) and at page 216 (Reasons for Sentence on August 21, 2008)

[^7]: Exhibit 1, Tab 2, Paroski Adult CR Compendium, at page at page 247 (Reasons for Judgment before Justice Hunter on December 17, 2009)

[^8]: Exhibit 1, Tab 2, Paroski Adult CR Compendium, at page 339

[^9]: Exhibit 1, Tab 2, Paroski Adult CR Compendium, at page 251 (Plea before Justice Wolski on December 1, 2011)

[^10]: Dr. Coleman Report at Crown’s Materials, Tab 1, s. 752.1 Assessment Order dated March 9, 2020

[^11]: Exhibit 1, Tab 2, Paroski Adult CR Compendium, at page 374 (Plea before Justice Clements on January 8, 2013).

[^12]: Exhibit 1, Tab 2, Paroski Adult CR Compendium, at page 402 (Plea before Justice P. Harris on January 14, 2014 and Sentencing on January 22, 2014)

[^13]: Exhibit 1, Tab 2, Paroski Adult CR Compendium, at page 423 (Reasons for Sentence before Justice Ritchie on August 29, 2016)

[^14]: Exhibit 1, Tab 2, Paroski Adult CR Compendium, at page 438 (Plea before Justice Libman on December 2, 2016)

[^15]: Exhibit 1, Tab 2, Paroski Adult CR Compendium, at page 464 (Plea before Justice Robertson on October 26, 2017

[^16]: Exhibit 1, Tab 2, Paroski Adult CR Compendium, at page 481 (Plea before Justice Erlick, December 22, 2017)

[^17]: Exhibit 1, Tab 2, Paroski Adult CR Compendium, at page 499 (Plea before Justice Khawly, June 13, 2018)

[^18]: Exhibit 1, Tab 2, Paroski Adult CR Compendium, at page 521 (Plea before Justice D. Moore, July 20, 2018)

[^19]: Exhibit 1, Tab 5, MCCSS Youth Records, Mississauga Probation Volume #1, at page 238

[^20]: Exhibit 1, Tab 5, MCCSS Youth Records, Mississauga Probation Volume #1, at page 241-242

[^21]: Exhibit 1, Tab 5, MCCSS Youth Records, Mississauga Probation Volume #1, at page 247-248

[^22]: Exhibit 1, Tab 5, MCCSS Youth Records, Mississauga Probation Volume #1,, at page 255

[^23]: Exhibit 1, Tab 5, MCCSS Youth Records, Mississauga Probation Volume #1, at page 252

[^24]: Exhibit 1, Tab 5, MCCSS Youth Records, Mississauga Probation Volume #1, at page 56

[^25]: Exhibit 1, Tab 5, MCCSS Youth Records, Mississauga Probation Volume #3, at page 6

[^26]: Exhibit 1, Tab 5, MCCSS Youth Records, Mississauga Probation Volume #3, at page 107, 131 and 133

[^27]: Exhibit 1, Tab 5, MCCSS Youth Records, Mississauga Probation Volume #3, at page 16

[^28]: Exhibit 1, Tab 1(a) Orders Notices and Reports, s. 752.1 Assessment Report by Dr. Coleman at page 116.

[^29]: Dr. Coleman’s Report, supra, at page 118

[^30]: Dr. Coleman’s Report, supra, at page 121

[^31]: Dr. Coleman’s Report, supra, at page 125-130

[^32]: Exhibit 1, Tab 2, Adult CR Compendium 1- at page 323

[^33]: Dr. Coleman’s Report, supra, page 123 and exhibit 1, Tab 2, Adult CR Compendium 1 – at page 336

[^34]: Dr. Coleman’s Report, supra, at page 123

[^35]: Exhibit 1, Tab 2, Adult CR Compendium - at page 279

[^36]: Exhibit 1, Tab 2, Adult CR Compendium - at page 336

[^37]: Exhibit 1, Tab 2, Adult CR Compendium – at page 350

[^38]: Exhibit 1, Tab 2, Adult CR Compendium – at page 351

[^39]: Dr. Coleman’s Report, supra, page 97-98

[^40]: Dr. Coleman’s Report, supra, Coleman at page 100

[^41]: The LSI OR is an assessment tool used by SOLGEN to measures both dynamic and static criminogenic risk/need risk factors known to correlate with reoffending and assesses the offender’s Responsitivity considerations including their degree of motivation to address criminogenic needs. It is administered at the very least by the parole officer in anticipation of release as well as by classification officers in conjunction with other empirically validated instruments (eg., Static 99R, Acute 2007). The LSI OR score is an important component of arriving at a placement decision in the Intensive Supervision Stream, which is reserved for offenders who are assessed at highest risk to reoffend and pose a significant imminent threat to life or a threat of serious bodily harm to a specific victim, victim target group or the general public (see Overview of Institutional Services and Community Services for Dangerous Offender/Long-Term Offender Hearings, February 2020, at page 16

[^42]: Dr. Coleman’s Report, supra at pages 95-96

[^43]: Dr. Coleman’s Report at page 93

[^44]: See Defence Materials, TEDC Update Letter dated August 3, 2022

[^45]: See Defence Materials, TEDC Update Letter dated August 3, 2022

[^46]: See Defence Materials, Tab 3 Brad Tamscu, #17 TEDC Lockdowns

[^47]: See Defence Materials, Tab 1 Dr. Coleman, #3, Programs and # 5 Course Work

[^48]: See Defence Materials, Tab 1 Dr. Coleman, #3, Programs

[^49]: Introduction to Social Psychology 2018, GPA 3.00; Abnormal Psychology 2020 GPA 4.00; Introduction to Psychology 2021, GPA. 4.00; and Developmental Psychology 2021 GPA 4.00.

[^50]: See Defence Materials, Tab 1 Dr. Coleman, #4 Northern College

[^51]: Defence Materials, Exhibit 4, Tab 4 Dr. Pallandi, #23 Prochaska Cycle of Change

[^52]: See Transcripts, Dr. Pallandi, July 3, 2022, pages 143-149 and July 4, 2022 at pages 10, 14-19

[^53]: Defence Materials, Exhibit 4, #21 Dr. Pallandi’s Report at page 8 and 9

[^54]: Dr. Coleman’s report at pages 15-16

[^55]: Dr. Pallandi report pages 8-9.

[^56]: Defence Materials, Exhibit 4, #21 Dr. Pallandi’s Report at page 7

[^57]: Dr. Coleman’s report at page 16

[^58]: Crown’s Materials, Exhibit 1, Tab 2 PSR-August 29, 2016

[^59]: Crown’s Materials, Exhibit 1, Tab 2, PSR-August 29, 2016 at page 3

[^60]: Defence Materials, Exhibit 4, Tab 5 Shannon Paroski, #27 Orillia Coldwater Google Maps

[^61]: R. v. Hall [2021] O.J. No.237 (SCJ Lascelle, J.), at paras. 207-208

[^62]: Dr. Coleman’s Report at Exhibit 1, Tab 1(a) s. 752.1 Assessment Order and Report dated March 9, 2020

[^63]: Exhibit 4, Tab 4, #21 Dr. Derek Pallandi Assessment Report.2022

[^64]: Exhibit 1, Tab 1(b) Coleman CV.

[^65]: Exhibit 4, Tab 4, #20 Dr. Derek Pallandi CV

[^66]: Dr. Coleman’s Report, supra at page 149 and Dr. Pallandi’s Report, supra at page 27

[^67]: Dr. Coleman’s Report, supra at page 152 and Dr. Pallandi’s report, supra, at page 27

[^68]: Dr. Coleman’s Report, supra at page 153 and Dr. Pallandi’s report, supra, at page 28

[^69]: Dr. Coleman’s Report, supra at page 151 and 153 and Dr. Pallandi’s report, supra at page 28

[^70]: Dr. Coleman Report supra, at page 151-152

[^71]: Dr. Coleman Report supra, at page 153

[^72]: Dr. Pallandi Report supra, at page 29

[^73]: Dr. Coleman’s Report, supra at page 154

[^74]: Dr. Pallandi Report, supra, at page 29

[^75]: Dr. Coleman’s Report at pages 24 and 25 and Exhibit 1, Tab 2, “Paroski Adult CR Compendium at page 42

[^76]: Dr. Coleman’s Report at page 27-29 and Exhibit 1, Tab 2, “Paroski Adult CR Compendium at pages 80-124

[^77]: Exhibit 1, Tab 2, “Paroski Adult CR Compendium at page 75

[^78]: Exhibit 1, Tab 2, “Paroski Adult CR Compendium at page 72

[^79]: Exhibit 1, Tab 2, “Paroski Adult CR Compendium at page 511

[^80]: Transcript of Dr. Pallandi’s Evidence on July 7, 2022 at pages 8-19

[^81]: Dr. Pallandi transcript, supra, at pages 25-29

[^82]: Dr. Pallandi transcript, supra at pages 37

[^83]: Dr. Pallandi transcript, supra at pages 45-48

[^84]: Dr. Pallandi transcript, supra at pages 30-37

[^85]: Dr. Pallandi transcript, supra at pages 53-55

[^86]: Dr. Pallandi transcript, supra at page 52 and 53

[^87]: Dr. Pallandi transcript, supra at page 66

[^88]: Dr. Pallandi transcript, June 28, 2022 at page 136

[^89]: Dr. Pallandi transcript, supra at page 57

[^90]: Dr. Pallandi transcript, supra at pages 49-52

[^91]: Dr. Pallandi Transcript from July 5, 2022 at page 38

[^92]: Dr. Pallandi transcript, supra, at pages 19-25

[^93]: Dr. Coleman Report, supra at page 154

[^94]: Dr. Pallandi Report, supra at page 29-43

[^95]: Dr. Coleman Report, supra at page 154

[^96]: Transcript from May 10, 2022, Cross Examination of Dr. Coleman at pages 34-37

[^97]: Dr. Coleman Transcript, May 10, 2022 at page 38

[^98]: Dr. Coleman transcript from May 10, 2022 at page 113

[^99]: Dr. Coleman’s Report, supra, at page 154 and 155

[^100]: Dr. Coleman Transcript from May 10, 2022 at page 87

[^101]: Dr. Coleman Transcript from May 10, 2022 at pages 88 and 89

[^102]: Dr. Coleman Transcript from May 10, 2022 at page 65

[^103]: Dr. Pallandi’s Report, supra at page 30

[^104]: Dr. Coleman’s Report, supra, at page 159-160

[^105]: Dr. Coleman’s Transcript from May 2, 2022 at pages 77-78

[^106]: Dr. Coleman’s Transcript from May 2, 2022 at page 78

[^107]: Dr. Coleman Transcript May 2, 2022 at page 26

[^108]: Dr. Coleman Transcript May 2, 2022 at page 27

[^109]: Dr. Coleman transcript of Dec 10, 2022 at pages 83-

[^110]: Dr. Pallandi Transcript from July 5, 2022, at page 37

[^111]: Dr. Pallandi Report at page 32

[^112]: Dr. Pallandi Transcript from July 5, 2022 pages 80-82

[^113]: Prochaska Cycle of Change see Defence Materials, Exhibit 4, Tab 4 Dr. D. Pallandi, #23

[^114]: Dr. Pallandi Transcript from July 5, 2022 at page 79

[^115]: Dr. Pallandi Transcript from July 5, 2022 at page 72

[^116]: Defence Materials, Exhibit 4, Tab 1 Dr. Coleman, #3 Programs

[^117]: Dr. Pallandi Transcript from July 5, 2022 at page 83

[^118]: Dr. Pallandi Transcript from July 5, 2022, at page 71

[^119]: Dr. Pallandi Transcript from July 5, 2022 at page 85

[^120]: Defence Materials, Exhibit 4, Tab 2, Joseph Dixon, #12, CSC Program LTSO at page 44 .

[^121]: Defence Materials, Exhibit 4, Tab 2 Joseph Dixon including materials on the ICPM Multi-Target Program Primer Sessions include Introduction and Orientation, Lifestyle-How to get out and stay out, Examining Lifestyle, Support and Relationships, Map to Jail, Putting it all Together, Emotions, Thinking, My Top Personal Targets, and Post-Program Interview

[^122]: Defence Materials, Exhibit 4, Tab 2 Joseph Dixon, #12 LTSO, at page 55

[^123]: Defence Materials, Exhibit, Tab 2 Joseph Dixon, #12 LTSO, at page 77 and 78

[^124]: Neuberger, Joseph, Assessing Dangerous: Guide to Dangerous Offender Applications, Chapter 4 Overview of the New Regime, citing R. v. Johnson, 2003 SCC 46

[^125]: Neuberger, Joseph, supra.

[^126]: R. v. Boutilier, 2017 SCC 64

[^127]: Boutilier, supra at para. 27.

[^128]: Lyons v. The Queen (1987), 1987 CanLII 25 (SCC), 37 C.C.C. (3d) 1 (S.C.C.) at 17, 22 per La Forest J.;

[^129]: R. v. Broadfoot, 2018 ONCJ 215 (OCJ)

[^130]: R. v. Neve (1999), ABCA 206 (Alta.CA) paras. 107-179

[^131]: R. v. States, 2017 ONSC 4023 (Ont.Sup.Ct.)

[^132]: R. v. Gibson, 2021 ONCA 530

[^133]: Boutillier, supra, at para 123

[^134]: Boutilier, supra, at para 27

[^135]: R. v. PG, 2013 ONSC 589, [2013] O.J. No. 490 (Ont.SC) at para 18

[^136]: R. v. Langevin, 1984 CanLII 1914 (ON CA), [1984] O.J. No. 3159 (C.A) at p. 349; R. v. Currie, 1997 CanLII 347 (SCC), [1997] 2 S.C.R. 260 at para. 42; R. v. Boutilier, 2017 SCC 64 at paras. 27, 36-37; R. v. R.R., 2020 ONSC 1080 at paras. 215-218.

[^137]: R. v. Broadfoot 2018 ONCJ 215 (OCJ)

[^138]: Dr. Coleman’s Report at page 48.

[^139]: Crown’s Submissions, Appendix C

[^140]: R. v. Straub 2022 ONCA 47 at para. 62

[^141]: Dr. Coleman’s Report at page 160 and Dr. Pallandi’s Report at page 33-34

[^142]: R. v. Tourville, [2011] O.J. No. 1677

[^143]: R. v. Duncan, 2016 ONCA 754 (Ont.CA) and R. v. Marshall, 2021 ONCA 334 (Ont.CA)

[^144]: R. v. DB, supra at para 201

[^145]: R. v. Kienapple, 1974 CarswellOnt 238F, 1974 CanLII 14 (SCC), 1974 CarswellOnt 8, [1974] S.C.J. No. 76, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 729, 15 C.C.C. (2d) 524,