COURT FILE NO.: CR-19-50000188 DATE: 20210723

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

– and –

DONSON REDHEAD

David Tice, for the Crown

Kate Zadorozhnya and Aaron Harnett, for Mr. Redhead

HEARD: July 14, 2021

PUBLICATION RESTRICTION NOTICE

By order made under subsection 486.4(1) of the Criminal Code, information that may identify the complainants may not be published, broadcasted or transmitted in any manner.

REASONS ON CROWN’S APPLICATION FOR AN ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER

SECTION 752.1(1) OF THE CRIMINAL CODE

GARTON J.

[1] The accused, Donson Redhead, age 27, was found guilty following his trial before me for the offences of child luring, sexual assault, and sexual interference, contrary to s. 172.1(2), s. 271(a), and s. 151, respectively, of the Criminal Code, in relation to two complainants, A.R. and V.C. A.R. was 13-14 years old during the relevant time. V.C. was 15 years old. Mr. Redhead was also convicted of several breaches of a recognizance, as well as a breach of a probation order.

[2] The Crown has applied for an order remanding Mr. Redhead for a psychiatric assessment pursuant to s. 752.1(1), which states:

On application by the prosecutor, if the court is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds to believe that an offender who is convicted of a serious personal injury offence or an offence referred to in paragraph 753.1(2)(a) might be found to be a dangerous

offender under section 753 or a long-term offender under section 753.1, the court shall, by order in writing, before sentence is imposed, remand the offender, for a period not exceeding 60 days, to the custody of a person designated by the court who can perform an assessment or have an assessment performed by experts for use as evidence in an application under section 753 or 753.1. [Emphasis added.]

[3] The mandatory assessment order outlined in s. 752.1 is a precondition for a dangerous offender application under s. 753(1) and a long-term offender application under s. 753.1(1). This is clear from the opening words of ss. 753(1) and 753.1(1).

[4] The first prerequisite for the ordering of an assessment under s. 752.1 is that the offender has committed a “serious personal injury offence.” In this case, Mr. Redhead has been convicted of two counts of sexual assault, contrary to s. 271 of the Code. This meets the definition in s.

752 of a “serious personal injury offence” under paragraph (b): “an offence … mentioned in section 271 (sexual assault).”

[5] The main issue on this application is whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that Mr. Redhead might be found to be a dangerous or long-term offender.

[6] Counsel for Mr. Redhead, in opposing the application, submits that the evidentiary record falls far short of the threshold required for the making of an assessment order and amounts to no more than a remote possibility that Mr. Redhead might be found to be a dangerous or long-term offender.

[7] For the reasons that follow, I find that the Crown has met its burden under s. 752.1(1). The application is therefore allowed.

The Predicate Offences

[8] The facts of the offences are set out in detail in my reasons for judgment. The following is a brief summary of those facts.

Offences relating to V.C.: Sexual Assault, Sexual Interference, and Luring a Child Over the Internet

[9] Mr. Redhead began “talking” to V.C. after he messaged her on Instagram in late May 2017. They then used Snapchat to communicate. Mr. Redhead asked V.C. for her telephone number. She gave it to him. Over the course of the next month, they spoke on the phone and continued to exchange text messages.

[10] V.C. told Mr. Redhead that she was 15 years old shortly after he first contacted her. Mr.

Redhead, who was 23 years old, told V.C. that he was 19.

[11] Mr. Redhead attempted to kindle a friendship with V.C. using social media. He told her that he was trying to get to know her and repeatedly asked her to be his girlfriend. He also told her, “You’re my wife.” On June 8, 2017, he sent her some pornographic images.

[12] V.C. often ignored Mr. Redhead’s messages. She testified that she was not interested in having a romantic relationship with him as she had a boyfriend.

[13] On June 28, 2017, Mr. Redhead sent V.C. a message asking her to “chill” or meet up with him in person so that they could “just talk and everything.” V.C. initially told him “no” but later relented when he asked her to “give him a chance.” V.C. believed that their meeting in person would be an opportunity to spend some time together and “try to be friends.” She asked her 11year-old friend, Vivienne, to come with her.

[14] Mr. Redhead drove to the school where the two girls had been attending a barbecue. As soon as they got into his car, Mr. Redhead asked, “Can your friend go home?” When V.C. asked him why, he stated that he wanted to be alone with her. Mr. Redhead then dropped Vivienne off near her home and told V.C. that they would “probably just drive around.”

[15] Mr. Redhead drove directly to a park, which took about 10 or 15 minutes. Along the way, he kept gripping V.C.’s left thigh, close to her vagina but over her pants. She kept pushing his hand away but he “just kept doing it.” She continued to push his hand away until he used “some force.” After that, she left his hand on her thigh as she “couldn’t really move him because he was strong.”

[16] During her testimony, V.C. described how, after they arrived at the park and had watched a soccer game for a few minutes, they returned to the car. Mr. Redhead, who was in the driver’s seat, told her to sit on his lap. She complied because she was scared that he would “do something,” such as hit or grab her, as he had already used force in grabbing her thigh. He told her to turn her head so that he could kiss her. She kept turning her head away from him because she did not want to kiss him. He was putting his fingers on her face and trying to turn her face toward him. He then started to put his hand down her pants. She grabbed his hand to move it but he was “doing it with force” and managed to briefly touch but not penetrate her vagina with his finger a couple of times. At one point, V.C. told him that she would call the police. Mr. Redhead eventually unlocked the car doors. V.C. got out, got into the passenger seat, and told him to take her home. She was shaking and “kind of crying.” He dropped her off at an intersection near her house.

[17] Following the assault, Mr. Redhead continued to send V.C. messages over Instagram and Snapchat. V.C. “blocked him on everything.” Her only communication with him after the assault was on July 22, 2017, when she posted a picture on Snapchat. Mr. Redhead responded to the posting by asking her “What’s up?” They then exchanged some brief messages in which he asked her how she was doing, and she asked him the same question. When asked why she had any conversation with him, V.C. stated that she wanted to see if he would apologize, which he did not do.

[18] V.C. testified that prior to meeting Mr. Redhead in person on June 28, 2017, she told him that she was 16 as, in her mind, she was almost 16 – her birthday was on July 3. In convicting Mr. Redhead of sexual interference, I found that the Crown had established beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not take all reasonable steps to ascertain V.C.’s real age: Reasons for Judgment, at paras. 216-234.

Offences relating to A.R.: Sexual Assault, Sexual Interference, and Luring a Child Over the Internet

[19] V.C. and A.R. were close friends. V.C. testified that sometime in May 2017, Mr. Redhead asked her for A.R.’s Instagram account and that she gave it to him. A.R. testified that her Snapchat username was posted on her Instagram account, which explains how Mr. Redhead was able to contact her via Snapchat in the latter part of June 2017. A.R. was on a bus and heading to Niagara Falls with her Grade 8 class when she received his first message.

[20] Mr. Redhead told A.R. that he had “seen her around,” and that he wanted to get to know her and be her friend. He asked her how old she was. She told him that she was 13. Mr. Redhead, who was 23 years old, told her that he was 18.

[21] A.R. testified that at some later time, Mr. Redhead told her that he was 18. At another point, he said that he was 19. A.R. did not know what to believe in terms of his age.

[22] Mr. Redhead messaged A.R. on a daily basis using the Snapchat app. Later on, they used video messages and Facetime. Mr. Redhead often suggested to A.R. that they hang out together. He would sometimes call her “Mama” or “Mommy,” which made A.R. feel uncomfortable. He also asked her to show him her buttocks and thighs. At one point, A.R. sent him a video that showed her buttocks as she was twerking. She was wearing shorts at the time.

[23] When A.R. turned 14 in July, Mr. Redhead wished her a happy birthday.

[24] A.R. developed a certain level of friendship or rapport with Mr. Redhead during August 2017 when she was visiting her grandparents in Spain. She was bored and spent a considerable amount of time on Facetime calls with Mr. Redhead during that month. Some of the calls lasted for over an hour. It was also during that month that Mr. Redhead sent A.R. a photograph of his penis.

[25] The Facetime calls between Mr. Redhead and A.R. continued after she returned from Spain but ended, for the most part, on October 30, 2017. On that date, A.R. posted a message on Snapchat asking if anyone could give her a ride to an elementary school, where she wanted to confront a girl who was making negative comments about her on social media. Mr. Redhead replied to the post and told her that he could drive her there.

[26] Mr. Redhead picked up A.R. and her friend, Ashley, in the parking lot of a library near their school and drove them to the other girl’s school. When the girl could not be found, Mr. Redhead drove Ashley home and asked A.R., “What now?” A.R. told him that she wanted to go home but that she was not in a rush.

[27] Mr. Redhead then drove to an apartment building in the area of Jane Street and Trethewey Drive and parked in the underground parking garage. He told A.R. that he had to go up and get something and asked her if she wanted to go with him. A.R. decided to accompany him as she did not want to be left alone in the underground lot.

[28] On the way up to the apartment, which was on the 15th floor, Mr. Redhead was touching A.R.’s buttocks, which made her feel nervous and scared. Once in the apartment, he made no effort to look for or retrieve any item. Instead, he offered A.R. an alcoholic beverage. She took a sip of the drink but it had no effect on her.

[29] As they were sitting on the couch in the living room, Mr. Redhead asked A.R. to stand up. She initially refused but eventually complied with his request. He then grabbed her buttocks and slapped them hard, leaving a red mark. A.R. testified that they ended up in the washroom, where Mr. Redhead forced her to sit on the toilet, pulled out his penis and forced her to perform fellatio on him for five or ten minutes. He then told her to stand up and tried to pull down her pants. A.R. kept trying to keep them up. Eventually, he succeeded in removing them. He then took her into the bedroom, leaving her pants on the bathroom floor.

[30] Mr. Redhead put A.R. on the bed and was rough with her. He bent her over and penetrated her from behind while her head was in a pillow. She was screaming that it hurt. He was not wearing a condom.

[31] When asked how long intercourse lasted, A.R. testified, “Not long because then I asked him, ‘Aren’t you 20 and stuff?’ and he’s like, ‘Yeah.’ And then that’s when he stopped – just cold stopped.” He did not ejaculate. When A.R. asked him what was wrong, he told her that something had happened in the past and that he would tell her about it in the car.

[32] Once they were in the car, Mr. Redhead told A.R. that he had been arrested three years earlier because a girl selling herself set him up by saying that she was 19 when she was, in fact, 15 years old. He did not provide any further details. He then drove to a street near A.R.’s residence. She got out of the car and walked the rest of the way home.

[33] Following the sexual assault, Mr. Redhead continued to contact A.R. over Snapchat and was “constantly” asking her to “chill.” She did not respond to his messages. He sometimes told her that he was near her house and would ask her to come outside at 1:00 a.m. On one occasion, he told her that he was at her home and sent her a live video of her house. A.R. feared that he would rape her again if they ever got together.

[34] A.R. took a screenshot of a chat that she had with Mr. Redhead in December 2017, when she told him to stop trying to “link” her or hang out with her. During that chat, Mr. Redhead did

not deny that he had sex with her while knowing that she was 14 years old. He did, however, take issue with her assertion that he was 20, stating that he was only 18. Mr. Redhead was actually 24 years old at the time of these text messages, which read as follows:

AR: I’m 14 n ur 20 u should just cool it n relax cos knowing u if I link u,

ur prolly gonna fuck me again n like I just never wanted that to happen.

Mr. Redhead: Who’s 20 tf [meaning ‘the fuck’] buddy I’m 18 n k

AR: U told me u were 20 wen u took me to ur crib

Mr. Redhead: Nah I’m 18 still

I wanted to see how u was gonna move afterwards but I got it still

Mr. Redhead’s Criminal Record

[35] On January 17, 2018, Mr. Redhead was convicted of attempted sexual interference. He pleaded guilty to the charge and was sentenced to 90 days’ imprisonment, to be served intermittently. He was also placed on probation for a period of two years.

[36] The transcript of the sentencing hearing indicates that on March 17, 2016, members of the York Regional Police Human Trafficking Unit were conducting undercover operations for the purpose of trying to address the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of girls in the sex trade. To that end, Inspector Thai Truong, posing as a 15-year-old escort, posted an advertisement on Backpage.com that listed the age of the escort as 18 years old. The advertisement read as follows: “Young, shy, fresh and new, Richmond Hill and Markham area, be gentle.”

[37] Mr. Redhead accessed the advertisement. After a brief discussion about availability and location, the subject of age and services came up:

Inspector Truong: Are you okay if I’m not 18 yet? Mr. Redhead: Yeah. Where we gonna meet?

Inspector Truong: Text me when you get here. I’ll give you hotel. I’m 15 though, okay? Just wanna make sure you’re okay with it.

Mr. Redhead: We can shower and go for a drive. It’s good.

Inspector Truong: I’m not going for a drive. I’m only 15. Sorry, in calls only. Mr. Redhead: Okay.

Inspector Truong: Did you want to book?

Mr. Redhead: Yeah. Anything for 80?

Inspector Truong: Okay. Well, I can give full sex for 80 if you come now. Mr. Redhead: Okay. BBJ? [standing for bareback blow job, which is fellatio without the use of a condom] Inspector Truong: Yes.

Mr. Redhead: Okay, I’m coming.

[38] Upon his arrival at the hotel, Mr. Redhead was arrested and charged with Luring a Child and related offences. He was released on a recognizance with conditions later that day. One of those conditions was that he not be in the company of or have any contact or communication with any person under the age of 18 years. He was also not to be in possession of a cellular phone, computer, or device with connection to the internet. Mr. Redhead began his internet communications with V.C. in May 2017 and with A.R. in June 2017 while bound by this recognizance. The sexual assault on V.C. in June 2017 and the sexual assault of A.R. in October 2017 were also perpetrated by Mr. Redhead while he was bound by this recognizance.

The Test for Dangerous Offender Status: s. 753

[39] Crown counsel submits that there are reasonable grounds to believe that Mr. Redhead might be found to be a dangerous offender under s. 753(1)(b) of the Code. Section 753 states, in part, as follows:

753.1 (1) – On application made under this Part … the court shall find the offender to be a dangerous offender if it is satisfied

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

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

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

(iii) any behaviour by the offender, associated with the offence for which he or she has been convicted, that is of such a brutal nature as to compel the

(iv) conclusion that the offender’s behaviour in the future is unlikely to be inhibited by normal standards of behavioural restraint; or

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

The Test for Long-term Offender Status: s. 753.1

[40] Crown counsel submits that there are also reasonable grounds to believe that Mr. Redhead might be found to be a long-term offender under s. 753.1. Subsection (1) of that section states:

(1) – The court may … find an offender to be a long-term offender if it is satisfied that

(a) it would be appropriate to impose a sentence of imprisonment of two years or more for the offence for which the offender has been convicted;

(b) there is a substantial risk that the offender will reoffend; and

(c) there is a reasonable possibility of eventual control of the risk in the community.

[41] Section 753.1(2) states that the court shall be satisfied that there is a substantial risk that the offender will reoffend if the offender has been convicted of sexual interference, luring a child, sexual assault or other listed offences, and

(b) the offender

(i) has shown a pattern of repetitive behaviour, of which the offence for which he or she has been convicted forms a part, that shows a likelihood of the offender’s causing death or injury to other persons or inflicting severe psychological damage on other persons, or

(ii) by conduct in any sexual matter including that involved in the commission of the offence for which the offender has been convicted, has shown a likelihood of causing injury, pain or other evil to other persons in the future through similar offence.

[43] Crown counsel relies on s. 753.1(2)(b)(ii) for the purposes of this application.

The Threshold Test Under s. 752.1(1)

[42] An assessment order may only be made pursuant to s. 752.1(1) where:

… [T]he court is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds to believe that an offender who is convicted of a serious personal injury offence […] might be found to be a dangerous offender under section 753 or a long-term offender under section 753.1.

[43] As observed by Wilson J. in R. v. J.A.T., [2007] O.J. No. 1402 (S.C.J.), at para. 22, the courts have consistently held that the threshold for ordering an assessment is low.

[44] In R. v. McArthur, [1997] O.J. No. 5146 (S.C.J.), at para. 20, LaForme J., as he then was, stated:

It is my opinion that on an application brought pursuant to s. 752.1 the only onus and burden of persuasion on the Crown is to satisfy the court that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the offender might be a dangerous offender. In other words, the question the court must answer is, based on the circumstances and evidence, is it a logical conclusion that there is a possibility the offender might be found to be a dangerous offender? Moreover, as the test for an assessment does not involve any finding of fact that the offender is, at this stage, a dangerous offender, the onus on the Crown is not that which is expressed in either the criminal or civil standards of proof. Rather, in my view, it is simply this: is the court satisfied, after weighing and balancing all the relevant considerations, including the evidence, that the offender should be remanded for observation?

[45] This test was adopted by Marchand J. in R. v. Simon, [2000] O.J. No. 4741 (S.C.J.) and by Nordheimer J., as he then was, in R. v. Ward, [2003] O.J. No. 2582 (S.C.J.).

[46] In R. v. Vanderwal, 2010 ONSC 265, at paras. 23-27, Roccamo J. canvassed the language used by various courts to describe the threshold of proof required under s. 752.1(1). She noted that in J.A.T. and in R. v. Fulton, 2006 SKCA 115, the courts held that the Crown need only show that there is a possibility that the offender might be found to be a dangerous offender or long-term offender. On the other hand, a line of cases, including R. v. Naess, [2005] O.J. No. 936 (S.C.J.), R. v. Jones, [2007] O.J. No. 1591 (S.C.J.), and R. v. Smyth, [2007] O.J. No. 1946 (S.C.J.) has concluded that there must be some “real” possibility or “credibly-based possibility” that the person can be declared a dangerous offender or long-term offender. I agree with Roccamo J.’s conclusion that despite the different language employed by these courts, in the end, there is no material difference in the analysis required of a judge hearing the application. I agree with and adopt her description of the threshold test as set out at para. 27 in her reasons:

It is universally agreed that the threshold is a low one. It is less than the civil burden of proof and far less than the criminal burden of proof. The language in section 752.1 requires the court to consider the totality of the record of evidence and information in support of the application to decide whether there are reasonable grounds to believe the offender might, not will, be found a dangerous offender or a long-term offender. To require any more at this stage of proceedings is to run the risk that a sentencing justice must come close to making findings on an incomplete body of evidence and without the benefit of the assessment proposed under s. 752.1. To that extent only, I would echo the sentiments of Justice Wilson in [J.A.T.] that to require more of a sentencing judge at this stage, “requires [him or her] to guess using imprecise standards with imprecise information.” [Emphasis in original.]

[47] Although the threshold is low, the court must bear in mind its role as gatekeeper to ensure that the requirements of s. 752.1(1) have been met.

Whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that Mr. Redhead might be found to be a dangerous offender

[48] In determining whether Mr. Redhead might be found to be a dangerous offender under s. 753(1)(b), the court must consider whether Mr. Redhead, by his conduct in any sexual matter, including that involved in the commission of the offences for which he has been convicted, has shown: i) a failure to control his sexual impulses; and ii) a likelihood of causing injury, pain or other evil to other persons through failure to control his sexual impulses.

[49] Mr. Redhead has previously been convicted of a sexual offence, that is, attempted sexual interference. In that case, Mr. Redhead attempted to hire an underage sex worker. Although the facts underlying that offence differ from the offences perpetrated against V.C. and A.R., they indicate what appears to be Mr. Redhead’s pervasive interest in underage females. Mr. Redhead has now been convicted of two separate sets of sexual offences – sexual assault, sexual interference, and child luring – with respect to two different complainants: A.R., who was 13 and 14 years old during the relevant time; and V.C., who was 15 years old.

[50] In addition, Mr. Redhead committed the offences against V.C. and A.R. while he was bound by a recognizance with conditions that were specifically intended to protect the public by prohibiting him from seeking out minors over the internet for his sexual interests. The evidence adduced at trial, including the Snapchat logs, shows that Mr. Redhead repeatedly breached those conditions over the course of many months. It is apparent that the terms that he have no contact or communication with anyone under the age of 18 and that he not possess any device with connection to the internet had no deterrent effect on him.

[51] It is significant that Mr. Redhead was aware right from the start of his communications with A.R. that she was only 13 years old. Similarly, V.C. made him aware near the beginning of his communications with her that she was 15. Yet he continued to communicate with them, with the clear goal of meeting them in person in order to have sexual activity with them.

[52] When Mr. Redhead met with each of the complainants, he sexually assaulted them almost immediately after he was alone with them. He displayed no interest in seeking their consent. This behaviour, in combination with his failure to abide by the aforesaid bail conditions, suggests an inability by Mr. Redhead to control his sexual impulses. It also points to the likelihood of similar behaviour in the future.

[53] In considering the likelihood of Mr. Redhead causing “injury, pain or other evil” to other persons through failure in the future to control his sexual impulses, I bear in mind the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9. The court, in very strong language, makes it clear that sexual offences against children are to be viewed as violent crimes that inherently cause significant harm to the victimized children, their families, and society at large. The court called for increased sentences to reflect the severity of these crimes, including the physical and psychological harm that they cause, and the life-altering consequences that can and often do flow from the sexual violence.

[54] The “injury, pain, or other evil” that may result when a young person is sexually assaulted is abundantly clear from A.R.’s victim impact statement filed in this case. The assault has had extremely serious consequences for her. A.R. states that she blamed herself for the assault, was unable to focus on her schoolwork, and eventually dropped out of Grade 9. She did not feel safe in her own home as Mr. Redhead knew where she lived. She was afraid to be home alone. The assault also interfered with A.R.’s sleep and caused her to have nightmares. A.R. began to engage in self-harm by cutting her arms and thighs. After an attempted suicide, she spent one month in hospital in a mental care unit. She has now been diagnosed with anxiety/depression and borderline personality disorder, for which she takes medication.

[55] Based on the evidence and record before me, I find that the Crown has met the threshold test in s. 752.1 to remand Mr. Redhead for an assessment based on the criteria required for a finding of dangerous offender under s. 753(1)(b) of the Code. There are reasonable grounds to believe that Mr. Redhead might be found to be a dangerous offender under that section.

Whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that Mr. Redhead might be found to be a long-term offender

[56] I am also satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that Mr. Redhead might be found to be a long-term offender under s. 753.1.

[57] Given the fact that Mr. Redhead has been convicted of luring a child, sexual assault, and sexual interference with respect to two complainants, a sentence of two years or more would likely be appropriate, particularly in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Friesen.

[58] In terms of the second requirement – that there be a “substantial risk that the offender will reoffend” – and the presumption in s. 753.1(2)(b)(ii), the analysis overlaps with the dangerous offender analysis above. Based on the same body of evidence, I find that Mr. Redhead might be found to pose a substantial risk of re-offending and thereby constitute a long-term offender.

Conclusion

[59] For the reasons given and without pre-judging the question of whether Mr. Redhead will be found to be a dangerous or long-term offender, the application by the Crown for an assessment order pursuant to s. 752.1(1) is allowed.

[60] Crown counsel has asked that the actual making of the order be deferred for a short period of time in order to allow him time to engage a psychiatrist who would be available to perform the assessment. The date for the issuance of the order can be discussed at Mr. Redhead’s next court appearance on July 26, 2021.

Garton J.

Released: July 23, 2021

COURT FILE NO.: CR-19-50000188

DATE: 20210723

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

– and –

DONSON REDHEAD

REASONS ON CROWN’S APPLICATION FOR

AN ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 752.1 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE

Garton J.

Released: July 23, 2021