Court File and Parties

Bracebridge Court File No.: CR-13-25 Delivered Orally: 2016-05-02 Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Between: Her Majesty the Queen And: Lucas John Ridgeway, Defendant

Counsel: D. Kasko, for the Crown C. Hanson, for the Defendant

Heard: February 29, March 1, 2, 9, and 10, 2016

Reasons for Sentence

MULLIGAN J.:

[1] On January 17, 2014, Lucas John Ridgeway pleaded guilty to seven offences:

(a) Aggravated assault of J.K. (2012);

(b) Uttering a threat to J.K. (2012);

(c) Refusal to comply with a probation order to keep the peace (2011);

(d) Refusal to comply with a probation order prohibiting communication with J.K. (2011);

(e) Refusal to comply with the order of the justice of the peace as to non-communication with J.K. and others (2011);

(f) Failure to comply with a non-communication order with J.K. while in custody (2012); and

(g) Assault with a weapon on E.I. (2009).

[2] These offences arose out of incidents that occurred between 2009 and 2012. The victims, E.I. and J.K., were Mr. Ridgeway’s domestic partners at the time of these incidents.

[3] The Crown seeks to have Mr. Ridgeway designated a dangerous offender pursuant to two of the categories of dangerousness set out in s. 753(1) (a)(i) and (ii) of the Criminal Code of Canada. The Crown also led evidence as to Mr. Ridgeway’s criminal record for a threat against another female partner while he resided in British Columbia, his guilty plea with respect to an earlier assault on J.K., and an alleged uncharged choking incident against a previous partner, J.R., in 2004.

[4] After the guilty plea proceedings, the Crown sought and obtained the consent of the Attorney General to proceed with a dangerous offender application. Mr. Ridgeway was then assessed by a psychiatrist, Dr. Mark Pearce, for the purpose of this hearing. Dr. Pearce’s report was filed and he was called as a witness and subject to cross-examination by counsel for Mr. Ridgeway.

[5] At the conclusion of the evidence, counsel for Mr. Ridgeway fairly conceded that it was open to the court to find Mr. Ridgeway a dangerous offender, but submitted that a fixed sentence in excess of two years, followed by a long-term supervision order not exceeding 10 years would be an appropriate sentence in this case.

[6] It is the Crown’s position that Mr. Ridgeway ought to be found a dangerous offender and be made subject to a sentence of detention in a penitentiary for an indeterminate period. If the court does not sentence Mr. Ridgeway to an indeterminate sentence after a dangerous offender finding, the Crown submits that he should be subject to a lengthy fixed term of imprisonment in the 10 to 12-year range, followed by a 10-year long-term supervision order.

[7] In addition to calling Dr. Pearce and J.R., the Crown called as witnesses Petrina Lemieux, Manager of Corrections Canada, Derek Pottier, Parole Officer, Corrections Canada, and Lisa Morrison, MSW, Social Worker at CNCC. The Crown filed Victim Impact Statements from E.I. and J.K., as well as statements from J.K.’s parents. Mr. Ridgeway’s criminal record was filed, as well as transcripts of the guilty plea hearings from his 2010 conviction with respect to a previous domestic partner and from his 2011 conviction for assault against J.K. These materials, as well as Mr. Ridgeway’s records from stays at various treatment centres over the years, school records, police reports and related materials were assembled in a comprehensive six-volume exhibit. Dr. Pearce testified that he reviewed all these materials as part of his assessment of Mr. Ridgeway.

The Statutory Framework

[8] The Ontario Court of Appeal comprehensively reviewed the legislative history of dangerous offender legislation in R. v. Szostak, 2014 ONCA 15, 306 C.C.C. (3d) 68. As Rosenberg J.A. stated, at para. 36:

[T]here has been an important shift in the way in which the legislation works. The trial judge’s discretion has narrowed in one sense, the judge no longer having discretion not to find a person a dangerous offender who fits the definition. But the discretion has been broadened in that the judge has wider sentencing options for a person who does come within the dangerous offender definition. In my view, these changes have an impact on the interpretation of the dangerous offender definition. In particular, it is my view that the possibility of successful treatment is of limited application in determining whether the person is a dangerous offender. The possibility of successful treatment is significant in choosing the appropriate disposition.

[9] Section 753 of the Criminal Code prescribes the criteria upon which an offender may be found to be a dangerous offender. According to that provision, the court shall find the offender to be a dangerous offender if satisfied that the predicate offence or offences are serious personal injury offences 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:

(a) a pattern of repetitive behaviour, showing a failure to restrain behaviour, and a likelihood of causing death or injury to other persons or inflicting severe psychological damage on the other persons through failure in future to restrain behaviour (s. 753(1)(a)(i); and

(b) a pattern of persistent aggressive behaviour showing a substantial degree of indifference respecting the reasonably foreseeable consequences to others (s. 753(1)(a)(ii)).

[10] The Crown bears the onus of proving all the essential elements in s. 753 beyond a reasonable doubt.

[11] If a dangerous offender declaration is made, the court has the following three sentencing options, pursuant to s. 753(4):

(a) the imposition of an indeterminate sentence;

(b) the imposition of a sentence for the offence or offences for which the offender has been convicted, together with an order that the offender be subject to a long-term supervision order for a period not exceeding 10 years; or

(c) the imposition of a sentence for the offence or offences for which the offender has been convicted.

[12] As Szostak emphasizes, the court’s discretion to choose among these options is limited by s. 753(4.1), which mandates that the court shall impose an indeterminate sentence unless satisfied by the evidence adduced at the hearing that “there is a reasonable expectation that a lesser measure under para. 4(b) or (c) will adequately protect the public against the commission by the offender of murder or a serious personal injury offence”.

The Issues

[13] The Crown relies on Mr. Ridgeway’s aggravated assault on J.K. and the assault with a weapon on E.I. as the predicate offences that ground this application. I will briefly review the evidence with respect to these assaults in the reasons that follow. I have no hesitation in finding that these assaults are serious personal injury offences. I find that one of the essential elements of a finding of dangerousness has been proven.

[14] Accordingly, the remaining issues to be decided are:

(a) whether the evidence establishes that Mr. Ridgeway is a dangerous offender pursuant to any of the grounds set out in 753(1)(a)(i) or (ii); or

(b) if so, whether the evidence establishes that there is a reasonable expectation that a lesser measure than an indeterminate sentence will adequately protect the public from the risk that Mr. Ridgeway poses.

Mr. Ridgeway’s Record

[15] A review of Mr. Ridgeway’s previous convictions, along with the uncharged conduct and predicate offences before the court will assist in determining whether he exhibits a pattern of repetitive behaviour, or a pattern of persistent, aggressive behaviour. The following timeline is illustrative:

2004 Uncharged conduct: choking his domestic partner, J.R.

2009 Assault with a weapon on his domestic partner, E.I. Mr. Ridgeway pleaded guilty to this offence before this court on January 17, 2014, one of the predicate offences.

2010 Conviction for uttering a threat to M.M. while he resided with her in British Columbia. He received a conditional discharge and 18 months’ probation, which would have expired May 14, 2012.

2011 Mr. Ridgeway pleaded guilty to numerous offences involving J.K., including assault with a weapon, three counts of assault, uttering a death threat, mischief, and failing to comply with probation. He was sentenced to six months’ incarceration and made subject to a three-year probation order, together with an order of no contact with J.K.

2012 Upon the day he was released from custody, March 1, 2012, Mr. Ridgeway committed aggravated assault on J.K., one of the predicate offences with respect to this hearing. Mr. Ridgeway pleaded guilty to that count, as well as other counts as previously noted.

In addition, Mr. Ridgeway has an unrelated conviction from 2004 for theft over $5,000. He received a suspended sentence and 12 months’ probation.

The Prior Offences and Uncharged Conduct

[16] Before dealing with the predicate offences, I will briefly review the prior incidents involving Mr. Ridgeway and his former domestic partners.

The Evidence of J.R. (2004)

[17] J.R. gave evidence at the hearing. She began dating Mr. Ridgeway while she was a student and he was an instructor at her university. Anger and jealousy issues, fueled by alcohol, emerged in their relationship. On one occasion, Mr. Ridgeway went to her workplace, a bar, and fought with a bouncer before leaving the premises. Their relationship ended because of an incident that occurred in their apartment in 2004. Her evidence was that he put his hands on her neck and squeezed while sitting on top of her. She was shocked and ran out of the room. Their relationship ended. No charges were laid. In later years, they had a friendly meeting, and on one occasion he drove her to Ottawa. At that point, she had no security or safety concerns.

Uttering a Threat on M.M. (2010)

[18] While living in Nelson, British Columbia, Mr. Ridgeway was in a relationship with M.M. In 2010, she reported to the police that Mr. Ridgeway had threatened her. As Crown counsel stated to the court in connection with a guilty plea:

She explained to police that she was growing extremely fearful of him, as she felt that he was becoming psychotic and more violent every time he saw her.

She observed that he drank a lot, he used drugs, and openly discussed his drug addiction with her.

[19] Mr. Ridgeway pleaded guilty to uttering a threat on November 9, 2010. He received a conditional discharge and an 18-month probation order. He was required to report to a probation officer and attend for rehabilitation at Harvest House in Ottawa. He was prohibited from consuming illicit drugs.

The First Series of Assaults on J.K. (2011)

[20] On November 1, 2011, Mr. Ridgeway pleaded guilty to a number of counts, including three assaults, and assault with a weapon. As Crown counsel stated to the court as part of the guilty plea submissions, “The assault with a weapon, at one point, he actually turned on one of the stove elements, made a motion as if to grab her towards the element.” The Crown further noted, “The threats themselves are threats to cause death… she deserved what was coming to her, that was her fault that things were the way they were, that she didn’t deserve to live. At one point, there was a threat to disfigure her.” The assaults consisted of punching or pushing. The final incident resulted in the police attending at the residence to remove Mr. Ridgeway. J.K. did not require medical treatment, although some bruising was noted.

[21] Mr. Ridgeway received a reformatory sentence. As Justice Evans noted in his Reasons for Sentence, “Ms. K. may well be a classic example of a vulnerable victim. The offences are serious and they are escalating in nature and deserving of some significant period of incarceration.” The court ordered that Mr. Ridgeway not have any communication at all with J.K., both during his incarceration and the three-year period of probation thereafter.

The Predicate Offences

Assault With a Weapon on E.I. – June 2009

[22] As set out in the Agreed Statement of Facts, E.I. and Mr. Ridgeway began a relationship in Ottawa in November of 2006. She travelled to Asia for work purposes and returned to Ottawa in 2007, and she and the accused moved in together to a residence in Ottawa. In June of 2009, there was an argument which continued while they were at their three-story apartment. As the Agreed Statement of Facts states:

The accused was screaming at her, and [E.I.] got up and went down the narrow stairway to the street level to get to the lower level of their house to retrieve her phone. At that point, the accused grabbed some wooden antique chairs and began throwing the chairs at her while she was in the narrow stairwell. The accused was at the top of the stairs and threw three heavy antique chairs and a stool at her while she was in the stairwell. [E.I. states] that the stairway was so narrow that she was hit by the chair and stool, and had bruises. The accused then went down the stairs, grabbed E.I., and pulled her up the stairs, grabbing her by the arms. Once E.I. was dragged up to the main level, she tried to walk away, and the accused forcefully pushed her into the next set of stairs, going up to the next level. E.I. was screaming at him to stop, and then the accused grabbed a plate, and pushed it into her face, a china plate. At that point, the accused was telling her that he was going to smash the plate into her face to ruin her face. She then asked the accused to stop and leave the premises, and he did so. That was the end of their relationship.

[23] E.I. filed a Victim Impact Statement indicating the emotional, financial, and physical impact that she has suffered as a result of this incident with Mr. Ridgeway. Her statement addresses the issues of the financial and physical impact, but more fundamentally, relates to her emotional concerns as a result of this incident. As she sets out in her statement:

I lost all self-confidence and felt lifeless and unworthy of anything. I shut down for some time and this in turn, led to the suffering of my business, as well. …I had help with a counsellor to talk about it. …My level of trust of others was zero and it took me a long time to be able to open up about what happened. Even now, there are some people that do not know, as I am embarrassed about what happened to me, I had shut down this part of my life and having to revisit it through the court case has been hard. …I now feel afraid that if Lucas was to get out, that he might come and hurt me or my business…

Aggravated Assault on J.K. – March 1, 2012

[24] This assault on J.K. can only be described as brutal and horrific. Her injuries were horrendous. The medical, dental, and psychological trauma she suffered continues to require treatment. What is particularly troubling is that this assault occurred on the very day that Mr. Ridgeway was released from jail under terms that he have no contact with her.

[25] In fact, his contact with her started while he was in jail. Contrary to a court order, he wrote her numerous letters using a fictitious name so that the letters would get through prison security. The letters constitute a stream of consciousness thought process with references to poetry and some religious beliefs. J.K. reciprocated by writing back to Mr. Ridgeway, believing he loved her.

[26] When Mr. Ridgeway was released, he travelled by bus to Barrie. It appears his first stop was the LCBO. Then he met up with J.K., who picked him up. They went to a restaurant in Barrie, where Mr. Ridgeway had a glass of wine, and then stopped in a restaurant in Orillia, where he had a beer. They then drove to Bracebridge, where she resided, and went to a pub, where Mr. Ridgeway continued drinking. His behaviour in the pub became obnoxious and he was asked to leave. They returned to J.K.’s residence, where Mr. Ridgeway viciously beat her for a period extending over three hours. He was incensed and accused J.K. of putting him in jail for the prior incident. As she recalled, he said, “You put me in jail. You killed me, I was in jail for six months because of you. You’re going to die.” He began punching her, throwing her around, and smashing her head against the counter. Eventually, he picked up a metal chair and hit her with it. The assault continued. As the joint submission states:

Then the accused picked up the metal chair again and hit her with the chair again, and, at that point (J.K.) felt her jaw move. She could feel everything was broken, her jaw and her teeth. She felt her teeth broken in her mouth and felt pain and noticed there was blood everywhere.

[27] She attempted to call 911 and was able to run out of the house to her neighbours’ residence. The neighbours provided temporary first aid and called 911. When the police attended at the residence, they found Mr. Ridgeway crawling away from the house carrying a backpack and camping equipment. Mr. Ridgeway has been in custody since the date of that incident, March 1, 2012.

[28] The traumatic effect of this assault required that J.K. receive immediate medical attention. Observers noted that her jaw was broken and hanging down from her face. The officers recovered loose teeth from her residence but surgeons were unable to successfully re-implant them. She underwent emergency dental surgery in Bracebridge and received specialized dental surgery treatment at Mount Sinai Hospital the next day. As the joint submission notes:

Dr. Parlett would testify at trial that the amount of force required to cause this type of injury was significant and had (J.K.) been rendered unconscious or not attended the hospital as quick as she did, that there could have been even more significant consequences such as aspiration.

[29] As has been set out in her medical/dental records and Victim Impact Statement, J.K. continues to have ongoing dental, medical and psychological issues. Her physiatrist notes:

I am a physiatrist specializing in brain injury rehabilitation. I am enclosing my initial consultation note on (J.K.) from October 22, 2015. Her prognosis for recovery is very poor. Her impairments are permanent. J.K. has had numerous dental treatments and will continue to do so based on the facial trauma she incurred as a result of this assault.

[30] J.K.’s Victim Impact Statements indicate that she suffers from PTSD, has nightmares and headaches, and fears for her safety. She was unable to return to gainful employment and has filed for bankruptcy. She faces a long period of extended dental care. As she stated in her updated Victim Impact Statement, “Four years after my attack, I am still living a nightmare. I continue to have post-traumatic stress disorder which is debilitating. I fear for the life and safety not only for myself, but of my family.”

Dangerous Offender Finding

[31] I am satisfied that Lucas Ridgeway should be found to be a dangerous offender pursuant to s. 753(1) of the Criminal Code. The predicate offences, the aggravated assault on J.K., and the assault with a weapon on E.I. constitute serious personal injury offences. I am satisfied that the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that there has been a pattern of repetitive behaviour by Mr. Ridgeway with respect to his female partners, which demonstrates a failure to restrain his behaviour and the likelihood that he will cause death or injury to other persons in the future. His aggressive behaviour towards his female partners is escalating. Further, Mr. Ridgeway’s interactions with his former female partners demonstrate a pattern of persistent aggressive behaviour, showing a substantial degree of indifference on his part as to the reasonably foreseeable consequences of his behaviour to other persons.

What is the Appropriate Sentence for Mr. Ridgeway?

[32] Should Mr. Ridgeway be sentenced to detention in a penitentiary for an indeterminate period, or is there a lesser measure that would protect the public?

[33] Section 753(4.1) provides as follows:

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 para. (4)(b) or (c) will adequately protect the public against the commission by the offender of murder or a serious personal injury offence.

The Psychiatric Assessment

[34] Dr. Mark Pearce conducted a psychiatric assessment of Mr. Ridgeway for the purposes of this application. Dr. Pearce prepared a report and gave oral evidence at the hearing and was subject to cross-examination. In his testimony, he indicated that he reviewed six volumes of material concerning Mr. Ridgeway. In addition, he met with Mr. Ridgeway and subjected him to a series of psychological tests. Dr. Pearce reviewed Mr. Ridgeway’s educational, work, family, and relationship history, including his substance abuse history and his numerous admissions to substance related treatment centres. After reviewing the material and conducting tests, Dr. Pearce concluded:

Mr. Ridgeway does not suffer from a major mental illness. He meets criteria for polysubstance dependence and his predilection for alcohol has been most problematic for him (and others). Finally, he meets criteria for a diagnosis of a personality disorder NOS [not otherwise specified].

[35] Regarding Mr. Ridgeway’s substance abuse, Dr. Pearce noted, “With ongoing relapses to substance abuse, Mr. Ridgeway has committed increasingly severe violent offences.”

Risk Assessment

[36] Dr. Pearce conducted a number of tests to estimate Mr. Ridgeway’s likelihood of violent recidivism. On the PCL-R test, Dr. Pearce classified Mr. Ridgeway as moderate. On the VRAG, Dr. Pearce found Mr. Ridgeway had a moderate to high score, suggesting a moderate to high risk of violent recidivism. On the DVRAG, he found that Mr. Ridgeway was in a high risk category. This is a test aimed to predict future domestic violence. Dr. Pearce indicated they would put less weight on this result because of the weakness of available scientific literature with respect to this test.

[37] Dr. Pearce also scored Mr. Ridgeway on the HCR-20 test. On this score, he found Mr. Ridgeway in the moderate to high risk of future violent behaviour, absent significant intervention.

[38] After considering all of the material, Dr. Pearce’s overall conclusions were as follows:

Overall, taking into account the aforenoted actuarial and clinical risk assessment, in addition to this gentleman’s PCL-R score, it can be concluded that Mr. Ridgeway is in a moderate to high risk category for violent recidivism.

[39] However, Dr. Pearce felt that there were several reasons for optimism. He opined that Mr. Ridgeway could be managed in the community during a long-term supervision order and after its expiry, provided that he participate in treatment and avoid abusing substances.

[40] Dr. Pearce correctly noted that it is the court that must determine whether Mr. Ridgeway is an appropriate candidate for a long-term supervision order, but felt that if such an order were granted, a number of conditions should be put in place. These conditions include Mr. Ridgeway participating in a variety of programs and attending a dialectical behaviour therapy program (DBT), obtaining a prescription for Antabuse, providing weekly urine samples and obtaining gainful employment to provide structure to his life, as well as the implementation of a detailed risk management plan, supervision by parole officers, and warning Mr. Ridgeway’s future intimate partners about his history.

Dialectical Behaviour Therapy

[41] As Dr. Pearce explained in his recommendations:

To target maladaptive personality traits, Mr. Ridgeway should participate in dialectical behaviour therapy (DBT). This long-term psychotherapy will help him understand and identify his emotions and develop appropriate coping strategies.

[42] Dr. Pearce was not aware that this type of therapy is unavailable to men in the federal correction system. Patricia Lemieux, Regional Program Manager for CSC, spoke about programs available to men in the federal system. She was aware that the DBT program is available to women inmates, but indicated it is not available in the federal system for men. Dr. Pearce’s evidence was that he was familiar with this program at his facility, CAMH, and at other psychiatric facilities in Ontario for patients and outpatients there.

[43] Ms. Lemieux’s further evidence was that when offenders enter the federal penitentiary system, they are subjected to an assessment to determine whether they are at high or moderate risk to re-offend. High risk individuals receive 100 sessions of group therapy, five or six times a week, spread over five to eight months. Offenders assessed as moderate risk receive 50 sessions. After the sessions are completed, the offender continues with maintenance programs throughout their period of incarceration. These programs are monitored by supervised individuals. Attendance is voluntary, but failure to attend has an effect on future parole prospects.

[44] The Crown called as a further witness Derek Pottier, a parole officer with 14 years’ experience managing a caseload of long-term offenders under supervision orders, as well as individuals serving life sentences released on parole. He gave evidence that a release plan is formulated while the offender is in jail, and monitored while the individual is supervised in the community. He acknowledged that alcohol consumption could be monitored by frequent urine testing, but did not dispute that an offender could not be forced to take prescription medication, such as Antabuse. Further, conventional testing by CNC would not indicate whether this prescription drug was being consumed. However, Dr. Pearce testified that there is testing available to determine if an individual was taking the prescribed medication.

[45] Mr. Pottier also spoke about the tools available to probation officers if a person failed to follow his release plan, or committed an offence while in the community.

[46] The defence called Mr. Ridgeway’s father to give evidence. He and his wife are prepared to support their son in any way they can, including by providing financial support for specialized treatments. His testimony indicated that he has a clear understanding of Mr. Ridgeway’s alcohol and drug abuse, having facilitated his admissions to rehabilitation programs on numerous occasions.

Conclusion

[47] Mr. Ridgeway has shown an escalating pattern of violence towards his domestic partners over the years. His aggravated assault on J.K. was horrific, and occurred on the very day he was released from custody. During his incarceration, a period of forced sobriety, he communicated with her by letter on many occasions, contrary to court order. Notwithstanding his many attendances at rehabilitation facilities, he turned to alcohol and violence the same day he was released. The record shows that absent immediate treatment, J.K. could have died as a result of the injuries she suffered at the hands of Mr. Ridgeway.

[48] The focus in this case is whether or not a lesser measure, such as a fixed period of incarceration and a long-term supervision order, will adequately protect the public against Mr. Ridgeway’s committing murder or a further serious personal injury offence. The Ontario Court of Appeal provided a three-part test in R. v. McCallum, 201 C.C.C. (3d) 541. Feldman J.A. set out three elements for the Court to consider, at para. 47, which can be described as follows:

(a) There must be evidence of treatability that is more than an expression of hope;

(b) The evidence must indicate that the offender can be treated within a definite period of time; and

(c) The evidence of treatability must be specific to the offender.

[49] Dr. Pearce opined that he was optimistic that Mr. Ridgeway could be managed in the community if he attended and completed a wide variety of programs, participated in DBT, and was subject to a risk management plan, which prescribed Mr. Ridgeway Antabuse and monitored his alcohol consumption by urine testing. Dr. Pearce recommended that Mr. Ridgeway’s future domestic partners be warned about his past conduct.

[50] I am not satisfied that Mr. Ridgeway’s multiple issues can be successfully treated during a fixed custodial sentence. As Dr. Pearce notes, Mr. Ridgeway has demonstrated that he has treatment-resistant polysubstance disorder. In spite of rehabilitative treatments and court orders, he has returned to alcohol abuse in connection with his violence against women.

[51] Significantly, the DBT program is not available to him while he is in a federal correctional facility. If it is made a condition of a release plan, it requires his voluntary attendance at continuing sessions while out of custody. Further, Mr. Ridgeway’s abstention from alcohol requires that he continues to take Antabuse as prescribed.

[52] Within one day of being released from incarceration, Mr. Ridgeway re-offended by consuming alcohol and resorting to extreme and brutal violence against J.K. In my view, supervision in the community after a fixed term of incarceration cannot adequately protect the community from the risk of future violence. Dr. Pearce’s recommendation that future domestic partners be warned would require that Mr. Ridgeway be honest and candid about any future relationship. Given his record for dishonesty and breaching court orders, I am not confident that would happen. Even if Mr. Ridgeway did follow such a recommendation, there would be no obligation to do so after the expiry of a long-term supervision order.

[53] Even if Mr. Ridgeway were to remain sober, take Antabuse as prescribed, and attend DBT programs during his long-term supervision order, I am not satisfied that there is a reasonable possibility that his risk in the community can be controlled at the expiry of a determinate sentence and a long-term supervision order.

[54] I am satisfied that an indeterminate sentence is the appropriate sentence for Mr. Ridgeway. Although there is hope for optimism, that optimism is best assessed through the lens of an indeterminate sentence, which would help to ensure Mr. Ridgeway’s motivation and compliance with respect to any future release plan that may be formulated for him.

[55] I conclude by saying the Crown has proven to the applicable standard that Lucas Ridgeway meets the requisite criteria under ss. 753(1) (a)(i) and (ii) and ss. (b). I therefore designate Mr. Ridgeway as a dangerous offender. With regard to sentence I am satisfied that Mr. Ridgeway requires detention in a penitentiary for an indeterminate period. I am not satisfied by the evidence adduced that there is a reasonable expectation that a lesser sentence would adequately protect the public against the commission of a serious personal injury offence.

Ancillary Orders

[56] The Crown seeks several ancillary orders. I order as follows:

(a) A copy of this transcript, including the testimony and report of Dr. Pearce, shall be forwarded to the CSC pursuant to s. 760 (b) of the Criminal Code of Canada;

(b) The predicate offences are primary designated offences under s. 487.04 of the Criminal Code. I find that an order allowing the taking of bodily substances for DNA analysis would not be grossly disproportionate to the public interest, protection of society, and the proper administration of justice. Therefore, an order in Form 5.03 shall ensue;

(c) Because of the nature of the predicate offences, s. 109 of the Criminal Code applies. Mr. Ridgeway is prohibited from possessing any firearms, crossbow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition, and explosive substances for life; and

(d) There will be a lifetime prohibition with respect to contact with any of the victims herein, or their immediate families.

Non-Index Offences

[57] Mr. Ridgeway has been in custody for four years and two months. Pursuant to the guidance of the Court of Appeal in R. v. Summers, 2014 SCC 26, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 575, Mr. Ridgeway is entitled to credit for six years and three months’ custody. Mr. Ridgeway has pleaded guilty to five non-index offences. He has a previous record. He is not a young offender. Absent the dangerous offender application, this court would have considered lengthy sentences for the assault with a weapon on E.I. and the aggravated assault on J.K. In the result, I would sentence Mr. Ridgeway to time served for the five non-index offences, broken down as follows:

Count 2 – Uttering a threat to cause death – 3 years;

Count 3 – Refusal to comply with an order – 1 year, consecutive;

Count 4 – Refusal to comply with an order – 1 year, consecutive;

Count 5 – Failing to comply with a direction of the justice of the peace – 3 months, consecutive;

Count 6 – Failing to comply with an order prohibiting communication while in custody – 1 year, consecutive.

Delivered orally on May 2, 2016

NOTE: This decision, as delivered orally, is to be considered the official version and takes precedence over these written reasons read into the record. If there are any discrepancies between the oral version and this written version, it is the oral version that is the official record to be relied upon.