COURT FILE NOS. : CR-14-3-236-0000 CR-14-3-355-0000 DATE: 20181105 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Jacqueline Garrity for the Crown

• and -

MARIO INACIO Tom LeRoy & Megan Howatt for Mario Inacio

HEARD: November 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23 24, 2017 and April 6, 2018

RULING ON DANGEROUS OFFENDER APPLICATION

CORRICK J. [orally]

I. Overview

[1] Mario Inacio is 39 years old. He has spent most of the past 20 years of his life in prison or subject to a probation, parole or judicial interim release order. He was convicted of his first offences when he was 17 years old. Since then, he has been convicted of approximately 25 further offences, including the ones before this court. Many of the convictions relate to property offences. He has a long track record of breaching probation orders and violating the conditions of his parole. He has also been convicted of pointing a firearm and attempted murder.

[2] The Crown applies to have Mr. Inacio declared a dangerous offender and sentenced to an indeterminate period of incarceration, pursuant to ss. 753(1)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Criminal Code. The Crown relies on a series of violent offences committed by Mr. Inacio over the course of a week in the summer of 2013.

[3] Over the course of many hours on July 30 and 31, 2013, Mr. Inacio terrorized two people with a meat cleaver in an attempt to obtain money from them. I found Mr. Inacio guilty of robbery, extortion, and two counts each of unlawful confinement, assault with a weapon, and threatening death, arising from the events.

[4] On August 7, 2013, Mr. Inacio robbed a bank, during which he displayed an imitation firearm to the bank teller. He pleaded guilty to robbery and to breach of probation arising out of that incident.

[5] The commission of these offences, and most of the other offences on his criminal record, was fuelled by Mr. Inacio’s use of, or desperate need for, drugs.

[6] I have determined that the Crown has proven all of the constituent elements of s. 753(1)(a) beyond a reasonable doubt and that Mr. Inacio must be declared a dangerous offender. He has been convicted of serious personal injury offences. He is a threat to the life, safety and physical or psychological well-being of others. I base these findings on evidence that established a pattern of repetitive behaviour that showed “a failure to restrain his 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 behaviour.”

[7] I have also determined that the Crown has proven all of the requisite elements of s. 753(1)(a)(ii) beyond a reasonable doubt.

[8] I have decided that any disposition short of an indeterminate sentence will not adequately protect the public from the commission by Mr. Inacio of murder or a serious personal injury offence.

[9] My findings are based on the circumstances of the offences for which I have found Mr. Inacio guilty, his criminal antecedents, his history of breaching orders made to regulate his conduct in the community, and his psychiatric diagnosis of polysubstance abuse disorder, antisocial personality disorder, and delusional disorder, or residual psychotic symptoms.

[10] In fairness to Mr. Inacio, our correctional system was unable to provide him with the rehabilitative tools that he required throughout his many years of incarceration. Mr. Inacio bears some of the responsibility for this, but not all. The system did not appear to have the flexibility to manage Mr. Inacio. I note in particular the following.

[11] Mr. Inacio lied to prison officials about the extent of his substance abuse when he was originally assessed at the beginning of his ten-year sentence in 2002. As a result, substance abuse treatment was not made a part of his correctional plan. By 2006, it was clear to prison authorities that Mr. Inacio was not only involved in the commercial end of the prison drug scene, but was also a consumer. Despite this, no changes were made to his correctional plan, and he did not receive any drug treatment throughout his ten-year sentence.

[12] Mr. Inacio had no opportunity to access institutional programming while in Warkworth Institution, even had he been inclined to do so. He served his sentence in what was known as the Transition Unit, a unit that housed inmates segregated from the general prison population for safety reasons. Mr. Inacio claimed that his life was under threat from the Hells Angels because the man he shot and paralyzed was an associate of that group. This may or may not have been true. Nevertheless, inmates in the Transition Unit had no access to programming within the institution, other than educational upgrading done in their cells on their own.

[13] Finally, Mr. Inacio has spent an extraordinary amount of time throughout his incarceration history in segregation, locked in a cell by himself for 23 hours a day. Some of the time he spent there was at his request, but not all of it. The adverse consequences of prolonged solitary segregation are now well recognized. Pauline McGee, an official at Warkworth Institution, testified that segregation was more frequently used when Mr. Inacio was serving his sentence than it is now.

[14] My observations are not meant as an indictment of the federal correctional system. I recognize, based on the evidence that I have heard, that Mr. Inacio was a difficult inmate to manage. Nevertheless, the observations noted above are an unfortunate part of Mr. Inacio’s history, and I have considered them in reaching my decision. They do not, however, alter my finding that he is a dangerous offender, who requires preventative detention to protect the public.

Evidence at the Hearing

[15] The evidence at this hearing was extensive. I heard testimony from the following witnesses:

1. Jovita Ng, Mr. Inacio’s probation officer in 2012 and 2013;
2. Kent McDowell, who was an intake assessment parole officer who dealt with Mr. Inacio in 2002 when he arrived at Milhaven Institution;
3. David Simourd, a forensic psychologist, who prepared a psychological risk assessment report about Mr. Inacio in December 2005 for the purposes of parole;
4. Michelle Aylward, Mr. Inacio’s institutional parole officer, beginning in October 2005;
5. Pauline McGee, Co-ordinator, Correctional Operations at Warkworth Institution;
6. Steven Popovski, Mr. Inacio’s parole officer supervisor at Keele Community Correctional Centre in September 2008;
7. Leon Watson, Security Manager at the Toronto South Detention Centre;
8. Dr. Derek Pallandi, a forensic psychiatrist, who conducted a court-ordered assessment of Mr. Inacio and prepared a report dated January 20, 2017; and
9. Dr. Steven Cohen, a forensic psychiatrist, who assessed Mr. Inacio on behalf of the defence and prepared a report dated November 7, 2017.

[16] In addition, voluminous material was filed on the application, including the following:

1. Mr. Inacio’s criminal record and transcripts or synopses related to the entries on it;
2. Psychiatric and psychological reports prepared about Mr. Inacio, including reports prepared by Dr. Cohen and by Dr. Pallandi for the purpose of this application;
3. Six volumes of records from Correctional Service Canada related to Mr. Inacio’s incarceration in federal penitentiaries;
4. Records from the Ontario Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services related to Mr. Inacio’s incarceration in provincial correctional facilities;
5. Two volumes of provincial probation and parole records for Mr. Inacio;
6. Records from the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health;
7. Records from Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care;
8. Victim Impact Statement from Giancarlo Tartaruga and Franca Tartaruga;
9. Certificates recognizing Mr. Inacio’s recent completion of a number of courses at the Toronto South Detention Centre; and
10. Record of medications administered to Mr. Inacio while at the Toronto South Detention Centre.

[17] I have not referred to all of the evidence in these reasons. I have, however, reviewed it carefully in its entirety.

Positions of the Parties

[18] The Crown seeks to have Mr. Inacio declared a dangerous offender and sentenced to an indeterminate period of custody on the basis that he has been convicted of the following serious personal injury offences: robbery, extortion, two counts of forcible confinement, two counts of assault with a weapon, two counts of uttering death threats, and robbery with an imitation firearm.

[19] Crown counsel submits that nothing short of an indeterminate sentence will adequately protect the public against the commission by Mr. Inacio of murder or a serious personal injury offence.

[20] Counsel for Mr. Inacio agrees that the offences on which the Crown bases this application are “serious personal injury offences” as defined by s. 752 of the Criminal Code.

[21] The defence argues that the Crown has not established beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Inacio meets the criteria to be designated a dangerous offender. The Crown has not proven either a pattern of behaviour by Mr. Inacio or that Mr. Inacio’s conduct is intractable.

[22] The defence submits that Mr. Inacio ought to be designated a long-term offender, rather than a dangerous offender.

[23] Alternatively, if Mr. Inacio is found to be a dangerous offender, the defence submits that the public can be adequately protected by the imposition of a determinate sentence and a long‑term supervision order.

II. Offending History

The Predicate Offences

[24] The Crown relies on two sets of predicate offences committed by Mr. Inacio on separate days over the course of a week.

[25] The first set involves the robbery and extortion of D.H., and the unlawful confinement, threatening and assault with a weapon of Mr. D.H. and his girlfriend, Ms. M.C..

[26] In July 2013, Mr. Inacio was staying with a friend who rented a room in Mr. D.H. and Ms. M.C.’s apartment. All of the occupants of the apartment and the frequent visitors were regular crack cocaine users.

[27] On July 30, 2013, Mr. D.H. informed Mr. Inacio that he and Ms. M.C. were moving out of the apartment. Mr. Inacio became enraged and demanded that they reimburse him $400 for rent that he claimed he had paid the landlord.

[28] Mr. Inacio learned that Mr. D.H. was going to receive money later that night. The money was going to be deposited into Mr. D.H.’s bank account at midnight. Mr. Inacio took Mr. D.H.’s identification and bank card and insisted that Ms. M.C. accompany him to the ATM after midnight to withdraw the money. Throughout this time, Mr. Inacio brandished a meat cleaver and threatened to “slice and dice” Mr. D.H. and Ms. M.C. and put their bodies in garbage bags.

[29] Ms. M.C. attempted but was unable to withdraw funds from the ATM after midnight. Mr. Inacio then insisted that Mr. D.H. withdraw the funds from the teller the next morning. He told Ms. M.C. that if she and Mr. D.H. tried to leave the apartment during the night, he would kill them. Mr. Inacio sat outside their bedroom door all night armed with the meat cleaver.

[30] In the morning, Mr. Inacio demanded that Mr. D.H. go to the bank, failing which he would kill him and Ms. M.C.. Mr. D.H. ultimately withdrew $400 from his bank account and gave it to Mr. Inacio.

[31] I accepted Ms. M.C.’s evidence that Mr. Inacio had been smoking crack constantly for days leading up to July 30. He had not eaten or slept in days. His skin colour had changed and his eyes were black. He was desperate for more crack. He told Ms. M.C. and Mr. D.H. that he had nothing to live for, that he had a death wish, and did not care about anything.

[32] Mr. Inacio committed the second predicate offence one week later. He robbed a bank on August 7, 2013, armed with an imitation firearm. Mr. Inacio handed a bank teller a hand-written note that read, “I have a drug problem. Give me all the money with no decoy. I have a gun and don’t want to hurt you.” Mr. Inacio opened a bag he was carrying and displayed a firearm to the teller. The teller gave Mr. Inacio $4,500, and Mr. Inacio fled.

[33] Mr. Inacio was arrested on August 10, 2013. He was in possession of the bag he had carried into the bank.

Mr. Inacio’s Criminal Antecedents

[34] Mr. Inacio has a long offending history, spanning 25 years, from 1998 to the predicate offences in 2013. There are only two significant gaps in Mr. Inacio’s criminal record. The first is between July 3, 1998 and June 11, 2000, a period of time when Mr. Inacio returned to Portugal to live. The second is from February 2003 to February 2012, when he was serving a ten-year sentence for attempted murder. It is noteworthy that even while incarcerated in a federal penitentiary, Mr. Inacio committed further criminal offences.

[35] The details of Mr. Inacio’s criminal record are as follows.

Offence Date	Conviction Date	Offences	Sentence	Release Date

1. 01-14-98 | 06-16-98 | Possession over | 1 day concurrent (time served 65 days) | 01-29-98
2. 05-19-98 to 05-28-98 | 06-01-98 | Attempt break & enter; possession under; fail to comply- recognizance | 30 days conditional sentence on each charge concurrent | 06-01-98
3. 06-12-98 | 06-16-98 | Theft over; possession burglar tools | 20 days on each charge concurrent | 06-28-98
4. 07-03-98 | 07-30-98 | Theft over | 1 day (time served 27 days) | 08-06-98
5. 06-11-00 | 12-11-00 | Break and enter | 3 months consecutive | 12-19-01
6. 06-22-00 to 09-22-00 | 10-17-00 | Point firearm; possession over; careless storage ammunition; possession of restricted weapon x 2; possession of prohibited weapon | Total sentence - 18 months jail plus 2 years’ probation; s. 109 order | 12-19-01
7. 01-22-02 | 07-23-02 | Attempt murder | 10 years (less equivalent of 12 months pre-trial custody); s. 109 order | 10-21-11
8. 02-27-03 | 06-04-03 | Possession property obtained by crime; conspiracy to traffic narcotics | 3 months concurrent but consecutive to sentence serving | 10-21-11
9. 02-23-12 | 04-12-12 | Theft under | Suspended sentence 6 months’ probation (50 days pre-trial custody) | 04-12-12
10. 08-23-12 | 11-29-12 | Theft under; breach of probation | 30 days jail (13 days pre-trial custody) | 12-18-12
11. 09-04-12 | 09-05-12 | Theft under; breach of probation | 21 days jail concurrent (2 days pre-trial custody) plus 18 months’ probation | 09-18-12
12. 07-30-13 | 05-19-16 | Robbery; extortion; forcible confinement x 2; assault with a weapon x 2; utter threats x 2 | Sentence pending |
13. 08-07-13 | 09-06-16 | Robbery with imitation firearm | Sentence pending |
14. 07-30-13 | 11-22-17 | Breach of probation | Sentence pending |

[36] Many of the entries on Mr. Inacio’s criminal record relate to property offences. They were all driven by the same thing – Mr. Inacio’s need to support his drug addiction. The offences include attempting to break into a private home, stealing from cars, stealing cars, stealing tires off of cars, and shoplifting. Mr. Inacio advised Drs. Pallandi and Cohen that he sold or intended to sell the stolen goods so he could buy drugs. He often reported the same thing to the judge who was imposing sentence on him. Mr. Inacio has also been convicted of stealing OxyContin from an acquaintance.

[37] On this application, the Crown relies in particular, on two sets of convictions involving violence and firearms that, together with the predicate offences, establish a pattern of behaviour on the part of Mr. Inacio.

[38] The first is Mr. Inacio’s convictions on October 17, 2000 for pointing a firearm, careless storage of ammunition, possession of two unregistered restricted firearms and possession of a prohibited weapon. Mr. Inacio pleaded guilty to these offences and was sentenced to 18 months in jail and two years’ probation.

[39] A transcript of the guilty plea proceedings was not available, and the Crown relied on the police synopsis as proof of the facts surrounding the convictions. Defence counsel submits that a police synopsis is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the precise details of the offences underlying the convictions. I will deal with this issue when I discuss whether the Crown has proven whether there is a pattern of behaviour in this case.

[40] According to the police synopsis, Mr. Inacio and an associate ran an illegal after-hours club. A man, who lived next door to the club, complained at a community meeting about the noise from the club. The day after the meeting, June 22, 2000, Mr. Inacio approached the man and pointed a sawed‑off shotgun at him to intimidate him. The man grabbed the barrel of the gun and struggled with Mr. Inacio.

[41] On September 22, 2000, police executed a search warrant at the after-hours club. Mr. Inacio was present. A sawed-off double-barrelled 12 gauge shotgun, a Magnum 380 9 mm revolver, an H-S Model 1910 8 mm pistol and a quantity of ammunition, including shotgun shells, 9 mm and 8 mm ammunition, were located during the search. Both of the handguns were loaded and ready to fire.

[42] The second conviction relied upon by the Crown was entered following Mr. Inacio’s guilty plea to attempted murder. Mr. Inacio admitted to shooting and wounding two persons. One of the victims recovered, but the second victim was rendered paraplegic. He requires a wheelchair to this day.

[43] Unusually, Mr. Inacio testified at the time of his guilty plea and explained the circumstances of the offence to the court. He testified that he and two accomplices attended at a restaurant in Toronto intending to steal some video games. Mr. Inacio was armed with a loaded .45 handgun. When they arrived at the restaurant, they saw a number of people gambling. They decided to steal their money. They ordered everyone to get down. Two men attempted to flee. Mr. Inacio shot both of them in the back, although he testified that he meant to shoot them in the legs. Mr. Inacio took $950 cash that was on the table and ran out the door. He was arrested at the scene.

III. Mr. Inacio’s Background

Personal and Family History

[44] Mr. Inacio was born on January 8, 1979, in Portugal. He immigrated to Canada with his family at a young age and became a Canadian citizen before returning to Portugal at age 9. He returned to Canada for a year or so as a teenager, then returned to Portugal in 1998. Two years later, he returned to Canada permanently.

[45] Mr. Inacio has never been married. He had a relationship with Sarah Pentelousi, who is the mother of his son. His son is 16 years old and lives with Ms. Pentelousi. Although Mr. Inacio told Dr. Cohen that he speaks to his son and Ms. Pentelousi twice a week, Ms. Pentelousi reported that Mr. Inacio speaks to his son on the phone at most once a year, and she speaks to him even less frequently.

[46] Mr. Inacio has, on various occasions, reported that his parents have died. His older brother, however, reports that both of Mr. Inacio’s parents are alive and living in Portugal. His older brother, Carlos, lives in Toronto. Mr. Inacio communicates with his parents through his brother.

[47] Mr. Inacio has had no visitors since being in custody, a little more than five years.

[48] Mr. Inacio has reported both that he completed grade 11 in Portugal, and that he left school at the age of 13, when he began using heroin. He reported a positive social life at school until age 13. He also reported a significant and chronic history of truancy.

[49] Mr. Inacio has no significant vocational history. He reported working in construction from age 13 to age 17. In Canada, at around age 18, he worked as a cleaner. He worked as a landscaper for eight months before his arrest. He reported to Dr. Pallandi that he was selling drugs and robbing drug dealers to support himself prior to his arrest.

[50] Prior to his arrest for the predicate offences, Mr. Inacio had been living in a number of group homes owned by a friend. He exchanged room and board for labour. He reported conflict with the residents, and did not enjoy living in these group homes.

[51] Mr. Inacio reported to Drs. Cohen and Pallandi that he was sexually abused by one of his father’s friends between the ages of 10 and 13. According to Mr. Inacio, he stabbed and killed the abuser, but was not held responsible for the killing. The abuse and murder led to his substance abuse. He also reported attempting suicide at age 13 by ingesting poison. During this time, Mr. Inacio shared a bedroom with his brother, Carlos, who reported that he knew nothing about Mr. Inacio being sexually abused or killing someone. He also reported that Mr. Inacio did not ingest poison when he was 13, but when he was 20 and living in Portugal.

Substance Use History

[52] Mr. Inacio has a long acknowledged history of substance abuse. He reported that he started drinking alcohol at age 11, and using heroin at the age of 13, following the killing of the man who had abused him. While in the community, he smoked marijuana daily.

[53] Although heroin is his drug of choice, he has also used speed, crystal methamphetamine, mushrooms, PCP, ecstasy, and cocaine. Mr. Inacio told Dr. Cohen that crack cocaine was the only drug that has caused him to become psychotic. The evidence at the trial of the predicate offences committed in July 2013 revealed that Mr. Inacio was using crack cocaine heavily at the time. He told Dr. Cohen that he was using drugs heavily when he robbed the bank in August 2013.

[54] As mentioned above, Mr. Inacio traces his heroin use to the alleged sexual abuse he suffered between the ages of 10 and 13. He told Dr. Cohen that he was high every day while in prison between 1999 and 2011. When assessed by Dr. Pallandi on November 21, 2016, Mr. Inacio reported that he had used heroin in the detention centre just two days before. According to Mr. Inacio, he has never stopped using heroin since he began, even while incarcerated.

[55] While incarcerated, he was also involved in the institutional drug trade.

Substance Abuse Treatment History

[56] Mr. Inacio has had little treatment for substance abuse; none of it successful.

[57] He had no treatment for substance abuse while incarcerated in the federal penitentiary between 2002 and 2011. The reasons for this are many, as I have already indicated. Mr. Inacio told Dr. Cohen that treatment had been offered to him, but he did not feel it was necessary because he could stop the drugs when he wanted to.

[58] According to Probation and Parole Records, Mr. Inacio entered a detoxification program at the Toronto East General Hospital on April 17, 2013. Following that, he began a residential placement at the Toronto Western Hospital’s Men’s Withdrawal Management Centre on May 8, 2013. He was discharged from that program on June 26, 2013 for threatening another patient. He told Dr. Cohen that the program “didn’t teach me a thing.”

[59] Mr. Inacio’s longest period of abstinence from substances in the community was either during or after the 2013 program. He reported that he started using drugs again because of social isolation, depression, and memories of sexual abuse.

[60] Mr. Inacio began methadone replacement treatment in January 2018 at the Toronto South Detention Centre.

Psychiatric History

[61] Mr. Inacio reported being diagnosed with ADHD and prescribed Ritalin at age five or six. He continued with this medication until he was 19 years old. Mr. Inacio’s brother indicated that he knew nothing about Mr. Inacio being diagnosed with ADHD or being prescribed Ritalin.

[62] Mr. Inacio reported being seen by a psychiatrist during two hospital admissions in 2011. On both occasions, he reported experiencing hallucinations after using drugs and not sleeping for weeks. Follow-up appointments were arranged for him each time, but he failed to follow through and quickly began using drugs again.

[63] Other than his reported attempt at age 13, Mr. Inacio denied a history of suicidal thought or behaviour. He explained that he had often articulated suicidal thoughts in prison in order to be transferred to an isolation cell or a different location, but denied actually having such thoughts.

[64] Mr. Inacio has, at various times, reported symptoms indicative of psychosis. These symptoms have waxed and waned over time prompting several psychiatrists to opine that they may be the product of malingering. Other psychiatrists, including Drs. Pallandi and Cohen, however, have queried whether Mr. Inacio does suffer from psychotic symptoms.

Medical History

[65] Mr. Inacio has been prescribed antidepressant and antipsychotic medications at various times while incarcerated. He has also received medication for ADHD.

[66] Mr. Inacio reported two head injuries around age 14 or 15 resulting in loss of consciousness.

Institutional History

[67] Mr. Inacio has spent a good deal of his adult life in Canadian penal institutions, both federal and provincial. His time has not been well spent. He has admitted that he was engaged in the institutional drug trade while incarcerated. He was often found in possession of contraband – illicit drugs, medication that was not prescribed to him, drug paraphernalia, and weapons. He was frequently disciplined for creating a disturbance in his cell, for threatening other inmates and for damaging government property.

[68] I have reviewed Mr. Inacio’s provincial and federal correctional records with caution. There were frequent complaints from other inmates that Mr. Inacio had muscled and intimidated them for their medication. In some instances, the allegations were not substantiated and correctional officers noted that the complainant was not a reliable witness. I have not considered those allegations in making my decision.

[69] In other instances, however, Mr. Inacio admitted the allegations or the allegations were proven through the institutional discipline process.

[70] Mr. Inacio received no drug or other psychological treatment during his penitentiary sentence. There are many reasons for this.

[71] Following the imposition of his federal sentence in 2002, Mr. Inacio was interviewed by Ken McDowell, his Intake Assessment Parole Officer at the Milhaven Assessment Unit. Mr. McDowell testified that it was his job to assess Mr. Inacio with a view to developing a correctional plan and determining the appropriate level of security within which to house Mr. Inacio. An inmate’s correctional plan determines the types of program made available to the offender throughout his sentence.

[72] As part of the assessment process, Mr. Inacio completed a Computerized Lifestyle Assessment Screening for Substance Abuse, in which he lied and said he had not used any drugs in the six-month period prior to his arrest. Mr. Inacio told Mr. McDowell that he did not have a drug abuse problem, did not require assistance to stop using drugs, that drugs did not affect his life and that he did not want to participate in drug or alcohol treatment. Although he admitted using drugs from the age of 18 and using 3 grams of cocaine and 1.5 grams of heroin every day until his incarceration in 2000, Mr. Inacio claimed that he had stopped using drugs while incarcerated in Millbrook Correctional Centre. This was not true. As Mr. Inacio told Dr. Cohen in 2017, he used heroin regularly during his incarceration in Millbrook. He also told Dr. Cohen that he used drugs during the one-month period between his release and his arrest on the attempted murder charge.

[73] Based on the false information received from Mr. Inacio, no drug or alcohol treatment was incorporated into his correctional plan. The programs recommended for Mr. Inacio in his correctional plan related to his personal and emotional needs, anger management, his social interaction and attitudes, and educational upgrading.

[74] Mr. Inacio was sent to Warkworth Institution on February 10, 2003, after being classified a medium-security inmate. He was housed in the Transition Unit rather than in general population because he feared for his safety from members of the Hells Angels. He alleged that the two men he had shot were members or associates of the Hells Angels. This allegation was never confirmed by the authorities. In the Transition Unit, Mr. Inacio was unable to access any programming, other than cell studies. The programs identified in his correctional plan were not available to him as an inmate in the Transition Unit. As a result, Mr. Inacio completed his 10-year sentence as an untreated federal offender.

[75] Mr. Inacio’s involvement in the drug sub-culture continued while he was imprisoned at Warkworth. Seventeen days after he arrived there, his girlfriend tried to smuggle 49.4 grams of marijuana into the institution during her first visit. He admitted that he had arranged it. He and his girlfriend were charged with conspiracy to traffic in narcotics. A search of Mr. Inacio’s cell at the time uncovered $360 cash, which was determined to have been obtained by crime, and he was charged with that as well. He was convicted of these offences on June 4, 2003, and sentenced to three months consecutive to the sentence he was already serving.

[76] Throughout his sentence, Mr. Inacio proved unable to abide by prison rules. In 2004, authorities found a 14” steel bar with a home-made handle and a pen “toker” in Mr. Inacio’s cell. He also tried to have his girlfriend send him money in the mail, which was prohibited.

[77] In February 2006, 14 Neurontin pills were found hidden in Mr. Inacio’s cell. This medication had not been prescribed to him. As a result of this and other allegations of misconduct, Mr. Inacio was recommended for transfer to Kingston Penitentiary, a maximum security institution. His parole officer, Michelle Aylward, testified that the transfer was recommended because Mr. Inacio’s conduct was worsening and he was unable to access any programs to complete his correctional plan.

[78] When Mr. Inacio was given a draft report recommending his transfer to maximum security, he barricaded himself in his cell and threatened to cut his throat with a razor blade. After hours of negotiation, he surrendered several razor blades and was placed in segregation. The warden ultimately allowed Mr. Inacio to remain at Warkworth. A search of his cell revealed six razor blades and pieces of wood.

[79] Drugs (Seroquel) were again found hidden in Mr. Inacio’s cell after another inmate alleged that he was muscled by Mr. Inacio for his medication. A pen that tested positive for THC was found in Mr. Inacio’s cell after an odour of marijuana was detected, as was a pen syringe that tested positive for cocaine. In 2007, Mr. Inacio’s urine tested positive for opiates. More razor blades were found in his cell in 2007.

[80] In summary, throughout his federal sentence, Mr. Inacio was less than a model prisoner. Ms. Aylward testified that he was a very difficult inmate. According to her, he refused to take responsibility for his actions. He rationalized and minimized his conduct. He was manipulative. Rather than attempt to fulfill his correctional plan to earn privileges, he “ratted” people out.

[81] Mr. Inacio has a similar record while incarcerated in provincial institutions. In 2012, 24 OxyContin pills were found in his cell. In 2014, another inmate alleged that Mr. Inacio had been forcing him for the past six days to vomit his methadone. Mr. Inacio denied this allegation, but his urine tested positive for methadone.

[82] In 2015, Mr. Inacio was involved in a significant number of misconduct offences in the institution. These included refusing to attend court, damaging property, spreading feces in his cell and threatening medical and institution staff. It was during this time that Mr. Inacio became involved with the Forensic Early Intervention Service at the Toronto South Detention Centre. Reports written by Dr. Patel and Dr. McDonald in 2015 questioned Mr. Inacio’s fitness to stand trial. Dr. Patel opined that Mr. Inacio was psychotic.

[83] Mr. Inacio’s last institutional misconduct allegation occurred on August 22, 2016, when another inmate was observed to pass Mr. Inacio a Seroquel pill.

[84] As a result of his institutional misconduct record, in both provincial and federal institutions, Mr. Inacio spent a significant amount of time in segregation. From the prison records filed as exhibits, his counsel calculated that Mr. Inacio spent at least 639 days in segregation. While in segregation, Mr. Inacio was confined to his cell alone for 23 hours a day. If he was in administrative segregation, he was permitted to have his personal items, clothing, books, and television. When in punitive segregation, he had no access to those things.

[85] At Warkworth Institution, Mr. Inacio was placed in segregation sometimes for months at a time. For example, he was in administrative segregation from February 7 to June 22, 2006, for being in possession of 14 Neurontin pills. He was also held in administrative segregation from July 15 to October 27, 2010, on suspicion of intimidating other inmates to give him their canteen items. He spent a total of 481 days in segregation at Warkworth.

[86] Mr. Inacio spent a total of 140 days in segregation while incarcerated in a provincial institution between February 17 and September 29, 2015.

Community Supervision History

[87] Mr. Inacio has a long, well-documented history of failing to comply with court orders and reoffending while living in the community under supervision. I have reviewed the two volumes of Probation and Parole Records from the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services that were filed as exhibits. In addition, I heard evidence from Ms. Jovita Ng, Mr. Inacio’s probation officer between April 2012 and August 2013.

[88] On June 1, 1998, Mr. Inacio received a 30-day conditional sentence for his first criminal conviction. He never reported to his conditional sentence supervisor as required. Records indicate that he was back in custody by June 15, 1998, charged with further offences.

[89] On October 17, 2000, Mr. Inacio was sentenced to eighteen months in prison followed by two years’ probation. A fifteen-year weapons prohibition order was made at the time. Additionally, Mr. Inacio was prohibited from possessing any weapon as a term of his probation. He was released from prison on December 19, 2001. He reported to his probation officer three times and was then arrested on January 22, 2002 for attempted murder, an offence during which a firearm was used.

[90] Mr. Inacio began serving a ten-year sentence for attempted murder on July 23, 2002. He was released on statutory release on September 19, 2008. He was required to reside at the Keele Community Centre, abstain from drugs, follow a treatment plan and avoid associating with people involved in criminal activity. On November 7, 2008, his statutory release was suspended on suspicion that he was selling drugs in the Keele Community Centre. He was found in possession of a used syringe when he was arrested. His statutory release was revoked on December 2, 2008.

[91] On October 27, 2010, Mr. Inacio was again granted statutory release. On January 13, 2011, Mr. Inacio’s urine tested positive for cocaine. His statutory release was suspended and ultimately revoked on April 4, 2011.

[92] Mr. Inacio was released on statutory release a third time on July 19, 2011. This release was suspended on August 16, 2011, when Mr. Inacio assaulted another resident, an allegation that he denied at first, but later acknowledged. Mr. Inacio remained in prison until his warrant expired on October 22, 2011.

[93] Mr. Inacio was not subject to any conditions of supervision when he was released from prison on October 22, 2011. On February 23, 2012, Mr. Inacio stole some prescription OxyContin pills from an acquaintance. He pleaded guilty to theft under on April 12, 2012, and was placed on probation for six months with a condition that he report as required and keep the peace and be of good behaviour.

[94] Ms. Ng first met Mr. Inacio on April 24, 2012, when he reported to her. Ms. Ng testified that during her first meeting with Mr. Inacio, he told her that he had murdered two members of the Hells Angels and received ten years in prison. He also said that he was very paranoid and that he has used violence to solve his problems since he was a child. He denied using drugs or alcohol. Ms. Ng referred Mr. Inacio to the Justice and Mental Health program at the Scarborough Hospital.

[95] Mr. Inacio reported to Ms. Ng again on May 10 and denied using any illegal drugs. He was directed to report again on May 30. He did not report that day but called and was told to report on June 1. He did not report that day. This pattern of not reporting as directed and calling with some sort of reason repeated itself from May 30, 2012 to September 4, 2012, when Mr. Inacio was arrested for stealing two blenders from Canadian Tire. Mr. Inacio had various reasons for not reporting – he misunderstood her instructions, he was waiting in a walk-in medical clinic, his ride did not pick him up, and he got the dates mixed up. On August 1, 2012, he called Ms. Ng and said he could not report because his mother had died, and he was upset. This was a lie. Throughout this time, Mr. Inacio denied using illegal drugs.

[96] On September 5, 2012, Mr. Inacio pleaded guilty to theft under and breach of probation. He told the presiding judge, Justice Marin, that he would not have been before her had it not been for his mother dying in April and his use of heroin. He was sentenced to a further 21 days in custody and placed on probation for 18 months. He was required to report to Ms. Ng on September 20, 2012. He failed to do so. He voluntarily admitted himself to a Withdrawal Management Centre on September 28, 2012. He left the Centre on October 30, 2012. He was admitted to CAMH from November 5 to 9, 2012 and again from November 12 to 16, 2012. He was treated for depression, anxiety, and drug abuse.

[97] On November 17, 2012, Mr. Inacio was arrested and charged with entering a garage on August 22, 2012, jacking up a vehicle that was parked in the garage, and stealing the four tires and wheels and the spare tire. He pleaded guilty on November 29, 2012 to theft under and breaching the April 12, 2012 probation order. He told the presiding judge that he went on a binge because his father had died in February 2011, his mother had died in 2012, and his brother was shot in August 2012. None of these things were true. Mr. Inacio was sentenced to an additional 30 days.

[98] Mr. Inacio was instructed to report to Ms. Ng within three days of his release from custody, which occurred on December 18, 2012. He failed to report as required. He did not report to her again until March 22, 2013. Unbeknownst to Ms. Ng, Mr. Inacio had been admitted to CAMH for a drug overdose between December 24 and 27, 2012, and again between January 8 and 14, 2013.

[99] Ms. Ng did not see Mr. Inacio in person after March 22, 2013. He failed to report for three scheduled meetings with Ms. Ng. Throughout the latter part of April and all of May 2013, he resided in two different detoxification centres. He was eventually discharged for threatening another resident. On August 12, 2013, Mr. Inacio was arrested on the predicate offences.

[100] Ms. Ng testified that she was unable to opine about Mr. Inacio’s commitment to any treatment program because he did not tell her about his heroin use, and always denied using drugs. He appeared to be willing to co-operate with her recommendations at the beginning, but he failed to follow up. For example, he never saw anyone from the Justice and Mental Health Program to which she had referred him. He often failed to report in person as directed, and his appointments frequently had to be rescheduled. She agreed with Mr. LeRoy that Mr. Inacio tried to keep her informed about his whereabouts at the beginning of his probation. I would characterize Ms. Ng’s attitude toward Mr. Inacio’s consistent non-compliance as more than generous.

IV. Psychiatric Evidence

Psychiatric Diagnosis

[101] Two forensic psychiatrists assessed Mr. Inacio for the purposes of this application. Dr. Pallandi conducted a court-ordered assessment. He interviewed Mr. Inacio for six hours on November 21, 2016. Dr. Cohen assessed Mr. Inacio at the request of defence counsel. He met with Mr. Inacio three times between June and August 2017 for a total of twelve hours. Both doctors had access to Mr. Inacio’s medical, correctional, police and court records, and conducted a thorough review of Mr. Inacio’s history.

[102] Dr. John Arrowood, a clinical and forensic psychologist, assessed Mr. Inacio in October 2017 at the request of Dr. Cohen. He interviewed Mr. Inacio and administered a number of psychological tests. Testing revealed that Mr. Inacio’s intellectual functioning, verbal comprehension, and perceptual reasoning scores were within the borderline range. His ability to read English is at the third grade level. Dr. Arrowood opined that Mr. Inacio’s test scores indicated that Mr. Inacio had certain deficits, which may have been the result of developmental disorder, acquired brain injury, substance abuse, or a combination of these things.

[103] The findings of Drs. Cohen and Pallandi did not differ in any material way. They both concluded that Mr. Inacio suffers from Antisocial Personality Disorder and Polysubstance Abuse Disorder. They also both concluded that Mr. Inacio presented with certain psychotic symptoms. Dr. Pallandi was unable to make a conclusive diagnosis regarding these symptoms. Dr. Cohen diagnosed him with Other Specified Psychotic Disorder, possibly Delusional Disorder.

[104] Over the past three or four years, Mr. Inacio has developed a persecutory delusional system, about which he has poor insight. Both doctors saw evidence of this system during their assessment of Mr. Inacio. These symptoms were also observed by other health professionals during Mr. Inacio’s stay at CAMH, Waypoint Centre and the Toronto South Detention Centre.

[105] The origin of these delusions is unknown. They may be substance-induced or they may be the result of a disease. They may also be the product of malingering, although, according to the doctors, this was not likely given how long it has endured, its consistency over time, and the fact that Mr. Inacio has not attempted to use it to gain any advantage for himself. Whatever its cause, this delusional system played no part in the commission of the predicate offences by Mr. Inacio and has little real bearing on his risk.

[106] The doctors diagnosed Mr. Inacio with Antisocial Personality Disorder principally on the basis of his behaviour. Mr. Inacio met all seven of the main criteria for a diagnosis of Antisocial Personality Disorder. The criteria are as follows:

▪ failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviours ▪ repeated lying ▪ impulsivity or failure to plan ▪ irritability and aggressiveness ▪ reckless disregard for the safety of others ▪ consistent irresponsibility as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behaviour ▪ lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to, or rationalizing, having hurt another.

[107] Mr. Inacio’s polysubstance abuse disorder is well documented and acknowledged by Mr. Inacio. He reported that he began drinking alcohol at the age of 10 and using heroin at the age of 13. His use of alcohol, cocaine, and opiates continued unabated until at least October 2016, even while incarcerated. He reported to Dr. Cohen that he used heroin daily throughout his incarceration between 1999 and 2011. He reported to Dr. Pallandi that he had used heroin only two days before meeting him in October 2016.

[108] Mr. Inacio’s longest period of sobriety in the community, as reported to Dr. Cohen, was two months in 2013.

[109] Mr. Inacio’s criminality is inextricably intertwined with his substance use. He often commits offences after consuming drugs. But in addition, he commits offences to support his addictions. The predicate offences are good examples of the connection between Mr. Inacio’s drug use and criminal behaviour.

[110] Dr. Pallandi characterized Mr. Inacio’s substance use disorder as severe. Dr. Cohen described Mr. Inacio’s use of illegal substances as heavy and dense.

[111] The doctors agreed that as long as Mr. Inacio continues to use illicit substances, he will continue to commit offences. Dr. Pallandi indicated, however, that Mr. Inacio’s substance abuse was not the sole cause of his criminality. According to him, Mr. Inacio’s underlying pro-criminal attitudes drive his behaviour as well.

Risk Assessment

[112] Both doctors assessed Mr. Inacio’s risk to reoffend. This was done with the use of two statistical tools – the PCL-R or Psychopathy Checklist - Revised and the VRAG or Violence Risk Appraisal Guide. Together with Mr. Inacio’s scores on these tools, the doctors considered the dynamic factors that could affect Mr. Inacio’s risk to reoffend, to form their opinions on the likelihood of Mr. Inacio committing further offences.

[113] The PCL-R was designed by Dr. Robert Hare. It defines and measures the extent to which an individual resembles the prototypical psychopath. There are 20 items on the PCL-R, each of which may be scored 0, 1 or 2. A formal diagnosis of psychopathy can be made if an individual scores 30 or higher. Dr. Pallandi testified that recidivism rates are higher for people diagnosed as psychopaths, and violent recidivism rates are multiple times higher for psychopaths than for other individuals. Although Dr. Hare defined psychopathy diagnostically at a score of 30 or higher, Dr. Cohen indicated in his report that other investigators have shown that a significant risk of criminality begins when a person scores in the mid-twenties or higher.

[114] Dr. Pallandi scored Mr. Inacio at 27 on the PCL-R, falling short of the threshold for a formal diagnosis of psychopathy. Dr. Cohen scored him at 33.7, above the threshold. In my view, not much turns on this difference. Both scores are substantially elevated among incarcerated offenders in terms of risk for reoffending.

[115] There is a certain amount of subjectivity inherent in the scoring of each item. For example, on the item dealing with pathological lying, Dr. Pallandi scored Mr. Inacio 0, while Dr. Cohen scored him a 2. Dr. Pallandi testified that he could be convinced that it should be 2. He scored it 0 because he felt that Mr. Inacio lied in order to attain a goal, which was worth a 0 score. Dr. Cohen felt that Mr. Inacio’s lying was so dense and casual, and done for no apparent reason, that it was pathological and worthy of a score of 2.

[116] The second tool used by the doctors was the VRAG, which is used to assess an offender’s risk of violent recidivism. Dr. Cohen scored Mr. Inacio 16 on the VRAG. Dr. Pallandi scored him 17. Both scores place Mr. Inacio in the seventh of nine ascending categories of risk. Dr. Cohen indicated in his report that once the estimated measure of error associated with the VRAG is factored in, Mr. Inacio’s actual score would be expected to fall within one risk category above or below the seventh category. This means that the expected probability that Mr. Inacio will reoffend violently within ten years ranges between 58% and 82%.

[117] In addition to considering Mr. Inacio’s scores on the statistical tools, the doctors considered a number of clinical or dynamic factors specific to Mr. Inacio that affect his risk for future violence. These included the following:

▪ his longstanding pattern of anti-social behaviour, including previous violent behaviour ▪ his association with anti-social individuals ▪ his substance abuse ▪ his limited education and vocational experience ▪ his unstable housing situation ▪ his poorly articulated future plans ▪ his lack of support in the community ▪ his poorly formed ideas about how to desist from antisocial behaviour, including drug use ▪ his poor response to supervision in the community ▪ his lack of understanding of his underlying difficulties and the need to change.

[118] The final conclusion of both doctors was that Mr. Inacio was at very high risk for violent recidivism. Their conclusions were based on a consideration of Mr. Inacio’s history, the dynamic criminogenic features of his case, and the actuarial risk assessments.

[119] It is noteworthy that the opinions of Drs. Pallandi and Cohen do not differ significantly from those of the many other health professionals, who have treated or assessed Mr. Inacio throughout the time that he has been involved in the criminal justice system. All reports on Mr. Inacio’s psychiatric condition indicate that he suffers from Polysubstance Abuse Disorder and Antisocial Personality Disorder. He is also consistently noted to be an unreliable historian.

Prognosis and Treatment

[120] The reports prepared by the psychiatrists paint a grim picture of the prognosis for Mr. Inacio. Dr. Pallandi wrote, “Unfortunately, at this juncture I can point to little cogent evidence, based on the totality of the present assessment, that Mr. Inacio’s risk could reasonably be managed or tempered in the community even by the strategy set out above. Unfortunately, I have little optimism that his risk will diminish over the foreseeable future, based on my evaluation.”

[121] Dr. Cohen’s conclusion was the same. He wrote that “… Mr. Inacio’s primary diagnoses, in addition to limited cognitive abilities, are considered difficult to treat or render treatment effects more modest, and a poorer prognosis is associated with each one individually and multiplied in combination. The combination of each of these diagnoses renders the prognosis for successful treatment (a reduction in his risk for further offending) poor when compared with other incarcerated offenders.”

[122] Dr. Cohen summarized his opinion by saying, “there is reason for significant concern that Mr. Inacio’s risk could be managed in the community pursuant to some form of long-term supervision, even if subject to very strict conditions.”

[123] Both doctors outlined a potential risk management strategy that entailed a very high degree of external control. The strategies are similar, and are predicated on Mr. Inacio meaningfully participating in programming while incarcerated. At the conclusion of his period of incarceration, Mr. Inacio should be slowly and gradually released into the community with strict conditions that require him to reside in specified accommodation, abstain from alcohol and drugs, submit to urinalysis to ensure abstinence, have regular meetings with a psychiatrist, and attend comprehensive programming for substance abuse, anger management, antisocial attitudes and behaviour and educational and vocational upgrading. As I have already noted, the doctors were pessimistic that Mr. Inacio’s risk of violent recidivism could be reduced even under these strict conditions.

V. The Statutory Framework and Governing Legal Principles

[124] The Criminal Code sets out a two-stage process in s. 753 for the consideration of a dangerous offender application by the Crown. At the first stage, the court must determine whether the offender is a dangerous offender (the designation stage). At the second stage, the court must determine the appropriate sentence (the penalty stage).

[125] In this case, the Crown submits that Mr. Inacio meets the criteria of a dangerous offender set out in both s. 753(1)(a)(i) and s. 753(1)(a)(ii). Both routes to the dangerous offender designation require that the predicate offence is a “serious personal injury offence,” which is not disputed in this case.

[126] The onus is on the Crown to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Inacio meets the definition of a dangerous offender: R v. Currie, [1997] 2 S.C.R. 260, at para. 42.

[127] Relying on s. 753(1)(a)(i), the Crown must prove that the offender is a threat to the life, safety or physical or mental well-being of other persons based on evidence that establishes,

1. a pattern of repetitive behaviour, of which the predicate offence is a part;
2. the pattern shows the offender’s failure to restrain his behaviour in the past; and
3. the pattern shows a likelihood of death, injury or severe psychological damage to other persons through failure to restrain his behaviour in the future.

[128] To rely on s. 753(1)(a)(ii), the Crown must prove that the offender is a threat to the life, safety or physical or mental well-being of other persons based on evidence that establishes,

1. a pattern of persistent aggressive behaviour, of which the predicate offence is a part; and
2. that the pattern shows a substantial degree of indifference by the offender respecting the reasonably foreseeable consequences of his behaviour.

[129] Whichever section captures the offender’s behaviour, “what is clear is that the criteria seek to identify a certain type and frequency of conduct that presents an intolerable risk to the community because it dictates a conclusion that the next offence is a question of ‘when’ and not ‘if’”: R. v. States, 2017 ONSC 4023, at para. 266.

[130] The Supreme Court of Canada has clarified that an offender cannot be designated a dangerous offender under s. 753 unless the sentencing judge concludes that he is a future threat to the safety of the community. The sentencing judge must engage in a prospective assessment of the offender’s risk: see R. v. Boutilier, 2017 SCC 64. Prospective evidence, such as evidence of future treatment prospects, is therefore relevant at the designation stage. Specifically, the court held in Boutilier that compelling treatment prospects may preclude designation even where it might otherwise be appropriate. As Justice Coté wrote at para. 45, “[O]ffenders will not be designated as dangerous if their treatment prospects are so compelling that the sentencing judge cannot conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that they present a high likelihood of harmful recidivism or that their violent pattern is intractable.”

[131] If the court finds the offender to be a dangerous offender, the court shall, pursuant to s. 753(4) of the Criminal Code:

(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.

[132] Public safety plays an important role in determining the appropriate sanction, as outlined in s. 753(4.1) of the Criminal Code:

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.

[133] The Supreme Court of Canada outlined three important aspects of the penalty stage in Boutilier. First, prospective evidence, such as evidence of treatment prospects, is relevant at the penalty stage. “[E]ven 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”: at para. 45.

[134] Second, all of the principles of sentencing – not only the objective of public protection – are relevant at the penalty stage, including, “an offender’s moral culpability, the seriousness of the offence, mitigating factors, and principles developed for Indigenous offenders”: at para. 63.

[135] Lastly, there is no presumption of an indeterminate sentence at the penalty stage, despite the wording of s. 753(4.1). Rather the judge must take a 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: at paras. 69-70.

VI. Analysis and Findings on the Designation Stage

[136] Crown counsel submits that Mr. Inacio meets the criteria set out in both s. 753(1)(a)(i) and s. 753(1)(a)(ii) to be designated a dangerous offender. I agree. I find that the Crown has proven the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

❏ The predicate offences are serious personal injury offences, as defined in s. 752; ❏ Mr. Inacio is a threat to the life, safety, or physical or mental well-being of others because of a pattern of repetitive behaviour that demonstrates, ▪ his failure to restrain his behaviour, and ▪ a likelihood that he will cause death or injury or inflict severe psychological damage to others (s. 753(1)(a)(i)); ❏ Mr. Inacio is also a threat to the life, safety, or physical or mental well-being of others because of, ▪ a pattern of persistent aggressive behaviour that shows a substantial degree of indifference about the reasonably foreseeable consequences to others of his behaviour (s. 753(1)(a)(ii)).

Serious Personal Injury Offence

[137] There is no dispute that the predicate offences are serious personal injury offences. Mr. Inacio has been convicted of robbery, forcible confinement, assault with a weapon, extortion, and robbery with an imitation firearm.

Pattern of “Repetitive or Persistent Aggressive Behaviour”

[138] The Crown relies, in particular, on four sets of offences to demonstrate Mr. Inacio’s pattern of violent offending:

1. His conviction on December 19, 2001 for pointing a firearm, possession over $5000, careless storage of ammunition, two counts of possession of unregistered restricted weapons and possession of a prohibited weapon. These offences were committed between June 22 and September 22, 2000.
2. His conviction on July 23, 2002 for attempted murder. This offence was committed on January 22, 2002.
3. The conviction on May 19, 2016 for the predicate offences of robbery, extortion, two counts of forcible confinement, two counts of assault with a weapon, and two counts of threatening death. These offences were committed on July 30 and 31, 2013.
4. The conviction on September 6, 2016 for the predicate offence of robbery with an imitation firearm, committed on August 7, 2013.

[139] As a preliminary issue, the defence submits that the Crown has not proven the nature of Mr. Inacio’s behaviour that gave rise to the convictions in 2001 for pointing a firearm and other weapon offences. The Crown relies on a police synopsis to prove the circumstances of those offences because there is no written decision or transcript of the guilty plea or sentencing.

[140] The Ontario Court of Appeal has recently made it clear that police synopses are admissible in dangerous offender proceedings: R. v. Williams, 2018 ONCA 437. However, they must be treated with caution. They cannot necessarily be relied upon as proof of their contents beyond a reasonable doubt.

[141] The Court of Appeal recognized that the Crown may seek to admit and rely on police synopses to establish the factual basis of prior convictions in support of dangerous offender applications, where transcripts are no longer available or do not contain sufficient detail to permit a proper analysis of the offender’s behaviour.

[142] However, the risk in relying on these synopses is that they, “are often prepared at the time of arrest, or in the early stages of a criminal prosecution. A fuller appreciation of the facts often emerges later, such that the facts set out in the synopses will often diverge from the facts proven at trial or admitted on a guilty plea”: at para. 42.

[143] The Court of Appeal set out the proper approach to the consideration of the contents of police synopses at paras. 54-56. It can be summarized as follows.

[144] Synopses are admissible but the contents must be carefully considered before being relied upon. Some basic facts set out in the synopses can be used for the purposes of establishing details such as dates and ages. Other facts may find support or confirmation, either directly or by reasonable inference, in other parts of the record, and can likewise be relied upon.

[145] Absent such support or confirmation, the contents of a synopsis cannot be taken as proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

[146] According to the police synopsis, on June 22, 2000, Mr. Inacio pointed a sawed-off shotgun at a man who had complained at a community meeting about the noise coming from an illegal after-hours club run by Mr. Inacio and an associate.

[147] On September 22, 2000, police executed a search warrant at the after-hours club while Mr. Inacio was present. They located a sawed-off shotgun, a Magnum 9 mm revolver, an H.S. Model 1910 8 mm pistol, a quantity of shotgun shells, 9 mm and 8 mm ammunition, and two stolen video machines.

[148] Mr. Inacio discussed the circumstances of these offences with Drs. Cohen and Pallandi. Mr. Inacio admitted owning an after-hours club and possessing a sawed-off shotgun, two handguns and stolen poker machines. He told Dr. Cohen that he had threatened a man with a shotgun for making crude remarks about his girlfriend.

[149] Mr. Inacio’s version of events, as told to Dr. Cohen, confirms the synopsis to the extent that I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Inacio pointed a firearm at someone in order to intimidate them and that he possessed several firearms.

[150] The Crown must show that Mr. Inacio has committed offences with relevant similarities in order to demonstrate a pattern of behaviour.

[151] The Ontario Court of Appeal discussed the elements of a “pattern of behaviour” in R. v. Brissard, 2017 ONCA 891, at para. 57:

The pattern of repetitive behaviour relevant to s. 753(1)(a)(i) is a pattern that contains “enough of the same elements of unrestrained dangerous conduct to be able to predict that the offender will likely offend in the same way in the future ... however, the offences need not be the same in every detail; that would unduly restrain the application of the section”: R. v. Hogg, 2011 ONCA 840 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 40; and R. v. Szostak, 2014 ONCA 15, 118 O.R. (3d) 401 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 56. Differences in the details of the offences will not be relevant if the index and past offences represent “a pattern of repetitive behaviour by the offender... 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”: Criminal Code, s. 753(1)(a)(i).

[152] Mr. Inacio’s criminal antecedents demonstrate a repetitive pattern of the use of weapons to intimidate, threaten and frighten people to accomplish his ends.

[153] In 2000, he pointed a firearm at someone to intimidate them. One month after he was released from serving a sentence for that crime, he armed himself with a .45 automatic handgun to perpetrate a robbery, during which he shot a fleeing man in the back, rendering him paraplegic. On July 30, 2013, he attempted to extort money from two people by waving a meat cleaver at them and threatening to “slice and dice them.” He threatened to kill the people if they left their apartment before morning when they could withdraw the money from the bank. He sat outside their bedroom door all night holding the meat cleaver. One week later, he approached a bank teller, gave him a note demanding money, and displayed a replica firearm to him.

[154] Defence counsel, in their written submissions, argue that the Crown has failed to establish a “pattern” of Mr. Inacio’s behaviour. For example, the weapons used by Mr. Inacio in the various offences were different – a shotgun, handgun, meat cleaver, and replica firearm. Some of the offences were committed with accomplices. Others were not. During the bank robbery, Mr. Inacio left the weapon concealed to everyone but the teller. He did not “use” it. Mr. Inacio “used” the weapon during the commission of the other offences. Frankly, that is a distinction without a difference.

[155] These differences relate to the details of the offences and do not change the nature of Mr. Inacio’s conduct. Mr. Inacio used a weapon to frighten and intimidate his victims in all of these offences. He threatened all of the victims with harm. Mr. Inacio used violence or the threat of violence during all of the offences, other than the point firearm offence, to make fast money.

[156] These similarities establish the requisite pattern of repetitive behaviour that demonstrates Mr. Inacio’s failure to restrain his behaviour.

[157] They also demonstrate a pattern of aggressive behaviour by Mr. Inacio. His degree of indifference to the foreseeable consequences to others of his behaviour is well-documented in the numerous psychiatric and psychological reports filed on this hearing.

[158] In addition, Mr. McDowell testified that when he interviewed Mr. Inacio in November 2002, he described the attempted murder offence in a glib and matter-of-fact fashion. He showed little remorse for his actions. Mr. Inacio did not think that he had committed a serious offence because he too had been shot. He showed Mr. McDowell a small scar on his back. According to Mr. McDowell, Mr. Inacio was more concerned about his own safety in the institution than he was about the man he put in a wheelchair.

[159] One year later, Mr. Inacio repeated his view that the offence he had committed was not serious. He also said that the victim was now “probably walking.” He told Kim Herrington, a parole officer at Warkworth, that bikers had robbed and shot him, and that he committed the offence of attempted murder in retaliation. He said that “he took matters in his own hands… shot the victims and took the money.” Mr. Inacio alleges that the victim is an associate of the Hells Angels, although this has never been confirmed by police.

[160] Two years later, he told Dr. Simourd that he simply wanted to speak to the men he shot rather than rob them.

[161] When Mr. Inacio was asked about the predicate offences, he told Drs. Pallandi and Arrowood that he had simply robbed drug dealers. He legitimized this conduct when he told Dr. Cohen, “why rob innocent people when you can rob drug dealers.” Dr. Pallandi wrote in his report that Mr. Inacio felt he was acting responsibly, robbing drug dealers. Dr. Pallandi testified that Mr. Inacio glorified his criminal activity, and expressed no concern for any of the people victimized by his predicate offences.

[162] I find that the Crown has established the necessary patterns of behaviour set out in both s. 753(1)(a)(i) and (ii).

Likelihood of Future Offences

[163] To satisfy s. 753(1)(a)(i), the Crown must prove a high likelihood that Mr. Inacio will cause death or injury or inflict severe psychological damage to others through a failure to restrain his behaviour.

[164] Drs. Pallandi and Cohen concluded, on the basis of Mr. Inacio’s VRAG scores, and his overall clinic picture, that he was at a high risk of reoffending violently. Mr. Inacio’s VRAG scores put him in the seventh of nine ascending categories of risk. Sixty-four percent of offenders in this risk category commit a violent offence within ten years of opportunity. This is more than a possibility that Mr. Inacio will reoffend violently.

[165] In addition to the VRAG scores, the doctors also considered the following factors, which place Mr. Inacio at high risk of violently reoffending:

▪ his long-standing pattern of anti-social behaviour ▪ his violent ideation, themes or intent ▪ his long-standing polysubstance abuse ▪ his diagnosis of Antisocial Personality Disorder ▪ his association with anti-social individuals ▪ his limited education and intellect ▪ his lack of pro-social supports in the community ▪ his limited insight into his underlying difficulties and what he must do to change ▪ his lack of vocational skills ▪ his long-standing, ingrained pro-criminal attitudes.

[166] I am not bound by the opinions of the psychiatrists. It is the court that must be satisfied of Mr. Inacio’s future dangerousness, not the doctors.

[167] Mr. Inacio’s previous offences have resulted in severe physical and psychological injuries to the victims. A 2017 victim impact statement by Giancarlo Tartaruga, the victim of the 2002 attempted murder, vividly outlines the catastrophic consequences he and his family have suffered as a result of him being rendered paraplegic. Mr. Inacio’s crime destroyed Mr. Tartaruga’s life as he knew it. His sister’s life has also been adversely affected, as she gave up her career to become Mr. Tartaruga’s full-time caregiver.

[168] N.C., the bank teller who was robbed by Mr. Inacio, also outlined the tragic consequences of Mr. Inacio’s crime in a 2017 victim impact statement. He suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of the robbery. Even four years later, he is unable to work. He has lost his career and the lifestyle he had previously enjoyed. He too has suffered severe psychological damage as a result of Mr. Inacio’s crime.

[169] It is common sense that the best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour. Applying that common sense to all of the evidence I have read and heard about Mr. Inacio, including the evidence of two forensic psychiatrists, leads me to conclude that there is a high likelihood that Mr. Inacio will reoffend violently in the future, and that through his failure to restrain his behaviour, he is likely to cause death or injury to another person or inflict severe psychological damage upon another person.

[170] My conclusion is based on Mr. Inacio’s past pattern of violent criminal behaviour, his very poor response to community supervision, whether it be parole, probation or bail, his conduct as an inmate in both federal and provincial institutions, and the factors noted by the doctors, listed above.

Intractable Conduct

[171] Before designating Mr. Inacio a dangerous offender, I must be satisfied not only that he poses a high risk of harmful recidivism, but also that his conduct is intractable. “Intractable” conduct is conduct that Mr. Inacio is unable to surmount: Boutilier at para. 27. The Supreme Court of Canada in Boutilier has thus made intractability a relevant consideration at both the designation and penalty stages of the dangerous offender proceeding. The Court, however, did not indicate how the intractability assessment at the designation stage differs from the intractability assessment at the penalty stage.

[172] Justice Greene of the Ontario Court of Justice recently considered this issue in R. v. Broadfoot 2018 ONCJ 215. She concluded that intractability at the designation stage relates to whether the conduct can be treated. If the court finds that the conduct is intractable, the question at the penalty stage is how to manage that conduct: Broadfoot, at para. 77. Justice Rutherford adopted this analysis in the case of R. v. Hoshal 2018 ONCJ 497. The analysis makes sense to me, and I adopt it.

[173] On the issue of whether Mr. Inacio’s conduct is intractable, Dr. Pallandi testified that unless there is a drastic change in Mr. Inacio’s trajectory, he will continue to commit offences, including drug-related offences, offences committed to obtain money for drugs, and other aggressive offences that are likely to involve the use of weapons. This drastic change must occur in a number of core elements of Mr. Inacio’s personality and other behavioural traits. According to Dr. Pallandi, Mr. Inacio must be successfully treated for polysubstance abuse, anger management, and antisocial behaviour and attitudes, and receive educational upgrading and vocational training before his risk of future violent offending would be reduced. Mr Inacio requires multi-modal, high-intensity treatment.

[174] Dr. Pallandi was not prepared to say that successful treatment for Mr. Inacio’s multitude of issues was impossible, but he did say that it would be very, very difficult given that Mr. Inacio must address all of these issues concurrently. In his report, Dr. Pallandi expressed little optimism that Mr. Inacio’s risk will diminish over the foreseeable future. He wrote that, “at this juncture, [Mr. Inacio’s] age and attitudes certainly suggest an intractability of his current pattern.”

[175] Dr. Cohen pointed to several factors that are likely to limit the successful treatment of Mr. Inacio. These include Mr. Inacio’s borderline intellectual functioning and the lack of an effective treatment for delusional disorder. In addition, Dr. Cohen testified that research has shown that substance abuse treatment is not as effective for offenders who also have antisocial personality disorder insofar as recidivism is concerned. This is Mr. Inacio’s situation. Finally, Dr. Cohen noted that the research indicates that individuals who score 25 or above on the PCL-R, which measures antisocial/psychopathic traits, show a poorer response to treatment and supervision, with a greater likelihood of refusing or dropping out of treatment. Dr. Cohen scored Mr. Inacio 33.7 on the PCL-R. Dr. Pallandi scored him 27. Both scores indicate that Mr. Inacio has a significant number of psychopathic traits.

[176] In summary, Dr. Cohen opined in his report that, “Mr. Inacio’s primary diagnoses, … in addition to limited cognitive abilities, are considered difficult to treat or render treatment effects more modest, and a poorer prognosis is associated with each individually and multiplied in combination.”

[177] Both psychiatrists were of the view that the success of any treatment depends on the full engagement of Mr. Inacio. Both had serious doubts about Mr. Inacio’s motivation, based on his past performance. Their scepticism is based on Mr. Inacio’s manipulative nature, consistent lying, and tendency to engage in impression management.

[178] Defence counsel argues that Mr. Inacio’s recent turn around in behaviour at the Toronto South Detention Centre, together with his stated desire to both psychiatrists to seek and participate in treatment and change his life, militate against a finding of intractability.

[179] It appears from the CAMH records marked as Exhibit 26 that the Forensic Early Intervention Service at the Toronto South Detention Centre was involved with Mr. Inacio in 2015 when he was exhibiting psychotic symptoms. His involvement with that program ended in December 2015, but was restarted in the summer of 2017. Since that time, it appears that Mr. Inacio has stabilized. He has completed a number of programs within the institution, such as anger management, drug and alcohol awareness, job readiness, and discharge planning. In January 2018, he began methadone treatment. His last institutional misconduct was in August 2016.

[180] These are positive steps taken by Mr. Inacio, and I encourage him to continue with them. However, one year of apparent stability and nine months on methadone cannot overcome, in my view, Mr. Inacio’s demonstrated inability to overcome his substance abuse, and address his other issues that have led to his criminal behaviour. In addition, I am aware that manipulation is one of Mr. Inacio’s core personality traits. The prison and psychiatric records set out Mr. Inacio’s long history of managing his impression to achieve his desired result. He has made up facts, such as the deaths of his mother and father (who are alive), pretended to be suicidal, even to the point of wrapping a noose around his neck from an upper tier in the penitentiary, used anger and other emotions to obtain lenient sentences from judges, obtain preferred placement within the federal prison system and to obtain prescribed medication. As the doctors indicated, Mr. Inacio knows what the court needs to hear to avoid being labelled a dangerous offender. As Dr. Cohen explained, “Mr. Inacio’s statements regarding willingness to engage in treatment reflected a superficial interest in appeasing the court rather than acknowledging significant perpetuating problems and the will to address them.” While Mr. Inacio’s statements have developed into some engagement in treatment, this finding by Dr. Cohen nonetheless raises significant concerns.

[181] Dr. Cohen assessed Mr. Inacio in the summer of 2017. At that time, Mr. Inacio was still minimizing his criminality, and lying to the doctor. He told the doctor that his father was dead, a lie he has told many people, including judges, to attempt to gain an advantage. He told the doctor that he speaks to his son twice a week and to his son’s mother two or three times a week. His son’s mother reported to Dr. Cohen that Mr. Inacio speaks to his son once a year at most, and she speaks to him even less. He lied to Dr. Cohen about when he had last used drugs while in custody. He told Dr. Cohen that drug treatment was offered to him during his incarceration, but he did not feel it was necessary. He also told him that treatment was never offered to him. As Dr. Cohen noted, Mr. Inacio provided different information on different interview dates.

[182] Also in the summer of 2017 when Dr. Cohen interviewed Mr. Inacio, Mr. Inacio showed very limited insight into the reasons underlying his criminality.

[183] I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Inacio’s conduct is intractable.

Conclusion on the Designation Stage

[184] I am satisfied on all of the evidence that the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Inacio meets the definition of a dangerous offender contained in both ss. 753(1)(a)(i) and (ii). I therefore declare him to be a dangerous offender.

VII. Analysis and Findings on the Penalty Stage

[185] Having found Mr. Inacio to be a dangerous offender, I must now consider the penalty to be imposed. This determination is guided by ss. 753(4) and (4.1) of the Criminal Code.

[186] In considering the appropriate penalty for Mr. Inacio, I bear in mind that, although the protection of the public is an enhanced sentencing objective for dangerous offenders, the other principles of sentencing still apply: Boutilier, at para. 56. I am required to rule out less restrictive options prior to determining that an indeterminate sentence is appropriate.

[187] Defence counsel do not argue that the imposition of a sentence for the offences for which Mr. Inacio has been convicted would be an appropriate disposition. They argue that a determinate sentence in the range of two years should be imposed followed by a long-term supervision order. They rely, in part, on the evidence of Steven Popovski, a parole officer supervisor in Toronto, who has 23 years of experience with Correctional Service Canada.

[188] Mr. Popovski was Mr. Inacio’s parole officer in September 2008, when Mr. Inacio was first released on parole to the Keele Community Correctional Centre. He testified about Mr. Inacio’s difficulties abiding by the rules of the residence, and his inability to accept responsibility for his violations of those rules.

[189] He also testified about how Correctional Service Canada manages offenders subject to long-term supervision orders and the programs that are currently offered to federal offenders. His evidence was very helpful in navigating the intricacies of the implementation of the dangerous and long-term offender regime.

[190] Mr. Popovski testified that a dangerous offender who receives an indeterminate sentence is entitled to have his status reviewed by the Parole Board seven years from the date he was taken into custody, and every two years thereafter. He also testified that offenders sentenced to an indeterminate sentence are very unlikely to be released into the community.

[191] In relation to offenders subject to long-term supervision orders, Mr. Popovski testified that the inmate must be required to serve at least two years to allow Correctional Service Canada to establish a correctional plan for the inmate and assess the inmate’s criminogenic risk factors. During the custodial part of the sentence, the inmate participates in programming to address his risk factors. Every new federal inmate participates in a primer program known as the Integrated Correctional Program Model. Mr. Inacio would be guaranteed to take this program, even if he is housed in a protective custody unit. This is in contrast to his experience at Warkworth Institution where he had no access to programs because he was housed in a unit separate from the general prison population for personal safety reasons. This program can address the many issues facing Mr. Inacio concurrently. He would not be limited to substance abuse treatment or violence prevention treatment or anger management. Mr. Popovski opined that based on what he knew of Mr. Inacio’s criminogenic risk factors, Mr. Inacio’s risk could be adequately controlled in the community, once he undertook treatment in the institution.

[192] Six months prior to the commencement of the long-term supervision order, a parole officer prepares a report about the offender for the Parole Board of Canada, who sets the conditions of the supervision order.

[193] The availability of programs for offenders, once they are released into the community, has also changed substantially since Mr. Inacio was at the Keele Centre in 2008. In 2008, the policy of Correctional Service Canada was to offer only one core program to offenders. In 2008, Mr. Inacio was offered the Violence Prevention Program, although it was known that he also required substance abuse treatment. This policy has changed, and an offender can participate in more than one program at a time, and thus address more than one issue concurrently.

[194] Mr. Popovski suggested that the following external controls could manage Mr. Inacio’s risk in the community:

▪ a curfew, coupled with electronic monitoring, ▪ a residence requirement in a controlled setting, such as the Keele Community Correctional Centre where parole officers’ offices are across the hall from the residents’ room, allowing for monitoring of compliance with conditions, ▪ urinalysis to ensure abstinence from drugs and alcohol, and ▪ attendance for treatment and counselling.

[195] The defence also points to similar conditions suggested by Drs. Pallandi and Cohen.

[196] Both psychiatrists suggested conditions that should be imposed if Mr. Inacio were sentenced to a determinate sentence and long-term supervision order. Neither psychiatrist, however, is optimistic that Mr. Inacio’s risk could be managed in the community. After listing a number of external controls for the court’s consideration if the court were contemplating releasing Mr. Inacio, Dr. Pallandi wrote, “unfortunately, at this juncture I can point to little cogent evidence, based on the totality of the present assessment, that Mr. Inacio’s risk could reasonably be managed or tempered in the community even by the strategy set out above.” [emphasis mine.] Similarly, Dr. Cohen wrote, “… there is reason for significant concern that Mr. Inacio’s risk could be managed in the community pursuant to some form of long-term supervision, even if subject to very strict conditions.”

[197] Mr. Inacio has multiple issues to address. He has been abusing substances since he was 13 years of age - 26 years. He has been diagnosed with an antisocial personality disorder. He has many psychopathic traits. He has issues with anger management. He has said that he has used violence to solve his problems since he was a child. He has residual psychotic symptoms according to Dr. Pallandi, and suffers from delusional disorder according to Dr. Cohen. He has poor insight into his condition and his behaviour. His ability to plan for the future is poor. He has limited education, social and vocational skills. He has no support in the community. These are significant issues that he must work hard at before any community release could be considered.

[198] Mr. Inacio has demonstrated an inability to refrain from criminal behaviour, even when external controls have been imposed upon him. His record of compliance with community supervision orders is abysmal. He appears to be unable to act as he is required to for any sustained period of time.

[199] There is every reason to be suspicious of Mr. Inacio’s stated willingness to seek and engage in treatment. He is manipulative. He has lied to judges on more than one occasion to achieve a lighter sentence. He has told more than one judge that his criminal behaviour was caused by his upset and return to heroin over the death of his father or his mother or the shooting of his brother, none of which was true. As Dr. Cohen notes in his report, “Mr. Inacio’s statements regarding willingness to engage in treatment reflected a superficial interest in appeasing the court rather than acknowledging significant perpetuating problems and the will to address them: ‘If I have to and it makes the courts or society believe something I’ll do it, I’ll make them comfortable.’”

[200] Additionally, Dr. Cohen notes in his report that, “there is little to no research indicating that expressions of a desire to pursue treatment or to comply with supervision are related to reductions in recidivism.”

[201] I do not have to determine whether Mr. Inacio is sincere in his desire to change his life. His stated desire at this time is not sufficient to protect the public given his past criminal behaviour.

[202] To ensure that the public is protected from dangerous offenders, “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. McCallum, [2005] O.J. No. 1178 (C.A.), at para. 47.

[203] The evidence I have heard about Mr. Inacio’s treatability does not amount to more than a hope – a hope that Mr. Inacio will fully engage in multi-modal high-intensity treatment – when he has failed to even acknowledge in the past that he has needed any treatment, other than possibly drug treatment. There is also no evidence that Mr. Inacio would be treatable within a definite period of time.

[204] Mr. Inacio is not beyond redemption. I hope that he is sincere in wanting to change his life and that he will work very hard on those issues that have led to his criminality. For now, however, public protection is paramount and can only be achieved through an indeterminate sentence.

[205] For all of these reasons, Mr. Inacio is sentenced to a term in the penitentiary for an indeterminate period.

VIII. Breach of Probation Charge

[206] Mr. Inacio pleaded guilty to breach of probation. He breached a condition of his probation requiring him to keep the peace and be of good behaviour by committing the bank robbery.

[207] Given my disposition on the dangerous offender application, and the extraordinary amount of time (more than five years) Mr. Inacio has spent in pre-sentence custody, I sentence him to 1 day in jail on that charge.

IX. Ancillary Orders

[208] I make the following ancillary orders.

[209] Mr. Inacio has been convicted of a primary designated offence. He shall provide samples of his bodily substances for the purpose of forensic DNA analysis.

[210] Mr. Inacio is prohibited from possessing any weapons, ammunition, and explosives set out in s. 109(3) of the Criminal Code for life.

[211] Pursuant to s. 743.21 of the Criminal Code, Mr. Inacio is prohibited from having any contact, directly or indirectly, with the complainants in the predicate offences, namely D.H., M.C., and N.C..

[212] Pursuant to s. 760 of the Criminal Code, a copy of all reports and testimony given by all witnesses on this application, together with a copy of these reasons, and a transcript of the trials shall be forwarded to Correctional Service of Canada.

Corrick J.

Released: November 5, 2018