BARRIE COURT FILE NO.: CR-21-63 DATE: 20241211

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING – and – JASON PERRAULT Defendant

Counsel: A. Meiners and B. Cowie, for the Crown K. Zadorozhnya and A. Harnett, for the Defendant

HEARD: March 18-22, 26, 28, June 7, 19 and October 1, 2024

REASONS FOR DECISION IN DANGEROUS OFFENDER APPLICATION

MCKELVEY J.:

Introduction

[1] Jason Perrault has pleaded guilty to the following offences:

1. That on or about the 7th day of September in the year 2020, he did break and enter a dwelling house, contrary to s. 348(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.
2. That on or about the 7th day of September in the year 2020, he committed an assault on C.M. using a weapon, to wit: a knife, contrary to s. 267(a) of the Criminal Code.
3. That on or about the 7th day of September in the year 2020, he had in his possession a weapon, to wit: a knife, for a purpose dangerous to the public peace, contrary to s. 88 of the Criminal Code.
4. That on or about the 7th day of September in the year 2020, he resisted peace officers engaged in the execution of their duties effecting an arrest by resisting, contrary to s. 129(a) of the Criminal Code.

[2] Of the offences that he was convicted of, the most serious would appear to be his conviction for assault with a weapon, which carries a maximum term of imprisonment of not more than 10 years.

[3] In addition, the defendant has a long history of criminal convictions which include other convictions for assault, theft, break and enter, uttering threats, possession of property obtained by crime and failure to comply with probation orders.

[4] The basis under which the Crown is seeking a dangerous offender designation is that the charge of assault with a weapon was committed on Mr. Perrault’s girlfriend at the time and constituted intimate partner violence. Mr. Perrault has a history of intimate partner violence convictions.

[5] Mr. Perrault is currently 38 years old and claims Indigenous status.

Circumstances of the Predicate Offences

[6] The charges against Mr. Perrault arise out of an incident which occurred on September 7, 2020. The parties submitted an Agreed Statement of Facts to the Court as to what occurred during the course of this incident.

[7] C.M. (“Ms. M.”) and Mr. Perrault had been in an intimate relationship for approximately six months at the time of the occurrence. Their relationship was difficult as both parties had jealousy and insecurity issues. Many of their arguments were as a result of Ms. M. communicating with her ex-partner, despite telling Mr. Perrault she was not. Ms. M. was aware that Mr. Perrault had mental health issues.

[8] On September 6, 2020, they were talking on the phone. Mr. Perrault learned again that Ms. M. had been speaking with her ex-partner as he had received Facebook messages from her ex-partner. This led to another argument on this date and, as a result, Ms. M. hung up on Mr. Perrault and blocked his number. This is how Ms. M. would react to these arguments. Despite questioning their relationship, Ms. M. would quickly unblock Mr. Perrault’s phone number and resume speaking with him.

[9] After the call ended on September 6, 2020, Ms. M. went to bed around 11:00 p.m. She was living at the time with her adult daughter, C.L.

[10] In the early morning hours of September 7, 2020, shortly after Ms. M. fell asleep, Mr. Perrault broke into her home. He entered through Ms. M.’s unlocked bedroom window with a folding style pocket knife. Mr. Perrault had cut his hand while opening the window screen with the knife. The knife was covered in Mr. Perrault’s blood. Once inside, Mr. Perrault immediately took Ms. M.’s phone.

[11] C.L. heard a bang from her mother’s bedroom and immediately went to investigate. Ms. M. told C.L. to call 911. Mr. Perrault followed C.L. to her bedroom preventing her from accessing her phone. Mr. Perrault kept both phones so Ms. M. and C.L. were unable to immediately phone police. He advised them not to call the police as it would only make the situation worse.

[12] The chronology of the events after Mr. Perrault entered the home are unclear due to the high emotional state of Ms. M. and C.L. Mr. Perrault, while upset, was monotone and calm throughout. Mr. Perrault had consumed drugs and alcohol prior to these events. At some point, C.L. armed herself with a baseball bat as well as a knife.

[13] Also, at some point during this altercation the parties moved into the living room of the home. Mr. Perrault, while armed with a knife, physically restrained Ms. M. He utilized one arm to restrain her and had the knife in his other hand. The knife was pointed towards Ms. M. This was observed by C.L. and caused her to fear for her mother’s safety.

[14] During this altercation, Ms. M. convinced Mr. Perrault to exit the home with her and go out onto the covered porch area. C.L. stayed inside the home during this period of time. Mr. Perrault dropped the folding knife on the porch where it was later seized by police.

[15] Mr. Perrault was eventually convinced to give C.L. her phone back. At 12:43 a.m. on September 7, 2020, C.L. placed a call to 911. Dispatch was unable to hear anyone on the line other than some background noise. Dispatch then placed a call back to C.L.’s phone. She answered and advised that she required police at their address as her mother’s ex-boyfriend broke through the window with a knife and took her phone. C.L. advised that she was in her room taking the call and that her mother was in the living room. She hung up as she was concerned that Mr. Perrault would hear her speaking with police.

[16] At 12:49 a.m. two police constables attended at the home. C.L. and Ms. M. were outside the home waving officers into their driveway. One officer was able to see Mr. Perrault standing in the living room through the window of the home. He did not observe any visible weapons on Mr. Perrault’s person and made the decision to unholster his conducted energy weapon. The police attended inside the home where they ordered Mr. Perrault to the ground. Mr. Perrault refused and moved into the kitchen area of the home. Mr. Perrault asked the officer to take out his gun and shoot him.

[17] One of the police officers then noticed a knife block near the feet of Mr. Perrault. He requested that Mr. Perrault kick the knife block over to him. Mr. Perrault refused to comply with that demand and asked, “if I pick up these knives will you have to take out your gun and shoot me?” The officer noted that Mr. Perrault was calm throughout these interactions.

[18] Several other officers arrived on scene while the two officers were attempting to effect Mr. Perrault’s arrest. They heard similar utterances made by Mr. Perrault including refusals to get on the ground when directed by police. Concerned that Mr. Perrault would cause serious injury or bodily harm to his colleagues, one of the police officers deployed his conducted energy weapon successfully striking Mr. Perrault. It took several officers using physical force and a reactivation of the energy device to get Mr. Perrault to release his arms so that he could be placed in handcuffs. Mr. Perrault continued the uncooperative behaviour when getting into the police cruiser and later when being removed from the police cruiser at the police station.

[19] There were no physical injuries sustained by Ms. M. or C.L. on September 7, 2020.

[20] In the pre-sentence report, the author interviewed Mr. Perrault about the events leading up to the incident. Following is the summary contained in the pre-sentence report:

The subject stated that he met the victim of the current offence, C.M., in 2019 through his cousin, and dated her for six months. He described the relationship as “toxic and one-sided”. He stated that the victim experienced alcohol abuse and leading up to the current offences, he found out that she was communicating with her ex-boyfriend through a social media platform. The subject noted that he decided to consume 20 Percocet pills, classified as opiates, and a bottle of liquor and proceeded to break into the victim’s home while in possession of a knife. The subject stated that when police arrived at the residence, he tried to get police to shoot him and stated “at that moment I wanted to die”. The subject stated that in all four noted intimate relationships, his partners cheated on him, and police were contacted in relation to domestic violence.

The subject’s father Steve Perrault commented “it’s a reoccurring thing, he ends up with women he has problems with”.

[21] A victim impact statement was tendered by C.M. on April 25, 2023. While brief, it demonstrates the lasting psychological impact of this incident. The statement reports:

I have been impacted emotionally in the sense of having PTSD from this incident. I received nine months of trauma therapy and I have recently started this again.

I do have a fear of when Jason is released, in the sense of the unknown of where Jason will be in his thoughts with feeling this is my fault he spent so much time in jail because of this incident.

Background of the Offender

[22] As noted previously, Mr. Perrault has a very lengthy history of criminal convictions. His criminal record spans 20 years from 1998 to 2020 with a total of 18 youth convictions and a total of 69 adult convictions. He has been convicted of violent offences on 8 occasions, including 3 convictions for assault, 4 convictions for assault with a weapon and 1 conviction for robbery. He also has 19 convictions for breach of court orders.

[23] Mr. Perrault has 21 convictions for adult domestic related offences. The intimate partner violence offences start with a conviction on March 15, 2007 with a victim, K.C. He pleaded guilty to several counts of offences committed against K.C. as follows:

(a) On September 16, 2006 – failed to comply with probation (contact with K.C.) (b) On September 16, 2006 – utter threats (c) On December 1, 2004 and March 31, 2005 – assault

Mr. Perrault received one day custody taking into account his pre-trial custody.

[24] While a transcript no longer exists for this guilty plea, the police synopsis indicates that K.C. told police on September 16, 2006 that she was contacted by Mr. Perrault over the phone. When they spoke, Mr. Perrault questioned Ms. K.C. about who she had been with earlier in the day. When Ms. K.C. explained that she had been out with classmates working on a school project, Mr. Perrault told Ms. K.C. “you are not going to make a fucking fool out of me” and “you are never going to be with anyone else”. Mr. Perrault threatened to put a knife to the male classmate’s throat. Mr. Perrault told K.C. that if the classmate’s story was not the same as hers, he would stab her in the neck.

[25] K.C. further disclosed historical assaults that occurred between December 1, 2004 and March 31, 2005. She advised that in the winter of 2004 she was residing with Mr. Perrault when he became upset with her because of a “guy from her past”. Mr. Perrault believed K.C. was lying and became angry with her, trying to slam her head into the wall. K.C. protected her head with her hands so she was not injured. On another occasion, K.C. stated that Mr. Perrault was again upset about her past, and when K.C. was trying to explain, Mr. Perrault hit her with a belt.

[26] In speaking with Dr. Klassen, who was retained to conduct an assessment pursuant to the dangerous offender application, Mr. Perrault is reported to have told him about this incident, “I was pretty jealous for sure…”. He stated that he “found it easier to be angry, and not vulnerable, about his need to be with others, when he was younger”.

[27] On March 4, 2010, Mr. Perrault pleaded guilty to four counts across several informations involving a girlfriend, S.H. Two of the informations were domestic in nature, specifically one count of uttering threats and one count of failing to comply with probation from 2009. He had originally been charged with robbery of Ms. S.H. in relation to this occurrence.

[28] Although a transcript does not exist for this guilty plea, the police synopsis outlines that Mr. Perrault and Ms. S.H. had been in an intimate relationship for two years. Mr. Perrault had been released from the Central North Correctional Centre on October 31, 2009. Mr. Perrault and S.H. were reunited upon his release and spent the next few days together. The day following his release, Mr. Perrault and S.H. were together in a vehicle when a verbal altercation began regarding money. Mr. Perrault held a knife to Ms. S.H.’s chest and demanded that she provide him with $1,300 that she had in her wallet. While holding the knife up to Ms. S.H., Mr. Perrault threatened her by stating, “if you tell anybody I took your money I am going to kill you and your kids” and “I will gut you like a pig”. Mr. Perrault was on probation at the time of this offence. In relation to this occurrence, Mr. Perrault advised Dr. Klassen as follows:

Mr. Perrault stated that he’d been released just two days before. He stated that S.H. collected him and they spent the weekend together at a hotel. She reportedly promised to leave him $500, but didn’t, and said that she had no money, thus he pulled out a knife and told her to “show me your wallet”. He stated that she had a lot of money on her, and he took $200.

[29] On May 2, 2012 Mr. Perrault was convicted after trial to the lesser included offences of theft under $5,000 and mischief under $5,000. The case involved a relationship he had with D.R.

[30] Facts of this matter are recounted in the judge’s Reasons for Judgment dated May 2, 2012. Mr. Perrault and Ms. D.R. had been in on and off again relationship for approximately two years. On August 16, 2011 Ms. D.R. was visiting her sister. Mr. Perrault called her from her apartment demanding she come home. She refused. The next day she came home and discovered Mr. Perrault asleep in her bed and extensive damage to the furniture. The couch and chair were sliced up, the TV screen was smashed and the computer monitor was broken. An I-Pad and her recently deceased’s mother’s ashes were also missing. In his Reasons, the presiding justice commented as follows:

Its comforting to hear Ms. Belcourt today to suggest that Ms. D.R., the victim, has really moved on. Its hard to know what she feels. I still recall how reluctant she was as a witness but hopefully she will find some closure in her life after terminating her relationship with Mr. Perrault. The court process though and I recall seeing her on the stand, the court process was a very difficult experience for her.

[31] In speaking with Dr. Klassen, Mr. Perrault outlined the events with D.R. as follows:

Mr. Perrault stated that he and Ms. D.R.’s relationship had not ended. He stated that in fact he was wanted, for the robbery of a “rival drug dealer”, to “shut them down”. Mr. Perrault stated that he was on the run, and would see D.R. briefly, from time-to-time. He was at that point selling drugs. He stated that he woke up to Ms. D.R. “screaming and yelling at me”, as he’d been texting another woman. He’d been texting, fell asleep, and Ms. D.R. saw his phone. She then reportedly said that she’d been with another, then “I lost my temper and I started smashing things in the house”. Ms. D.R. reportedly stated that she would call the police; Mr. Perrault stated that he responded that if she called the police he’d destroy the urn, containing her mother’s ashes. Ms. D.R. reportedly informed that she didn’t care, that she’d already called the police, thus Mr. Perrault took the urn, and went into the woods and smashed it. Mr. Perrault acknowledged that D.R. was afraid of him, stated that numerous women were. Mr. Perrault stated that he has realized “in stages”, that property crime is “not worth it”, nor is using or selling drugs.

[32] Dr. Klassen also reports that Mr. Perrault in recounting the offences in his criminal profile, reported that his “jealousy caused disruption in their relationship and that Ms. D.R. and her family were subjected to threats and controlling behaviour”.

[33] On October 16, 2017, Mr. Perrault pleaded guilty to uttering threats, two counts of assault with a weapon, and two counts of assault. These charges related to a relationship he had with V.C. A number of facts were read into the record on October 16, 2017. This includes that on July 29, 2017 police received a call just before 2:00 a.m. from V.C. stating she believed she was in danger from her boyfriend, Mr. Perrault, who had threatened her. Both parties were intoxicated at the time. Police learned that within weeks of beginning their relationship in 2016, Mr. Perrault was threatening Ms. V.C. and her children’s lives. Police also learned that:

(a) On one occasion an argument ensued about Ms. V.C.’s ex-partner which led Mr. Perrault to grabbing Ms. V.C. and shoving her to the ground. (b) On another occasion, Ms. V.C. and Mr. Perrault were driving when an argument ensued. Mr. Perrault removed a straight blade from his wallet and began to wave it in front of Ms. V.C.’s face. He threatened that if she was to leave that he would cut her so that no one would love her. (c) On another occasion, Ms. V.C. and Mr. Perrault were again in a vehicle when he became upset, struck Ms. V.C. with a phone and then grabbed some tweezer scissors and stabbed her in the left arm. There were no puncture wounds as the scissors had bent. (d) On another occasion, Ms. V.C. reported that she and Mr. Perrault were in Midland at Mr. Perrault’s brother’s residence. He was assisting with work on her vehicle. Mr. Perrault became upset and accused Ms. V.C. of having a sexual interest in his brother. Mr. Perrault grabbed Ms. V.C. by the neck.

[34] In a victim impact statement, Ms. V.C. stated as follows:

About a month into the relationship he started to show a very different side of himself, a controlling, demanding, very angry at times, needed to know my every move throughout the day, he instilled fear, and led me to believe that he would take my life if I did anything to hurt him.

The emotional and fear for security and the effects that Jason Perrault has had on me has been a great burden and has lowered my self worth about myself as a person. Jason Perrault’s negative hurtful actions towards me have completely impacted and changed my life and not only have they affected me but they have affected my two teenage boys who live with me. I cannot even begin to describe the feelings of hurt, scared, trauma, helplessness, embarrass, and insecurities that Jason Perrault has inflicted on to me…

I find myself always looking around and making sure I am safe and there isn’t anyone unusual around that could hurt me. I struggle with anxiety when I have to go home. There is now a process that happens every time I enter my home. Checking window, closets, under beds, showers and checking to see if anything has moved and all of this to ease my mind so that I can somewhat relax in my home. My sense of safety and security has been taken from me because of Jason Perrault’s unspeakable actions towards me.

Physically I struggle with being in my car. My car holds a lot of horrible memories. The physical damage in my car brings back memories and I start to feel anxious remembering certain incidents that occurred there. I am physically drained and exhausted at always having to think about what Jason Perrault has done to me and how I allowed him to consume my life for 10 months. The pain and anguish I feel at times is overwhelming and I have contemplated what my life is worth.

[35] In a criminal profile report, Mr. Perrault sets out his view of the relationship as follows:

Despite these positive aspects of his life, Perrault explains that he allowed his “old emotions” to take over. Perrault informed he first met the victim at Wabano in mid-2016 and by October 2016 they were in a relationship. The victim is 14 years older than him, which is part of his pattern of unhealthy relationships stemming from the abuse he experienced at the young age of 15. Perrault explained the victim has two teenage sons who enjoyed a positive relationship with. Perrault noted that the main source of conflict between himself and the victim was that she had an amicable relationship with her former husband which Perrault felt threatened by. Perrault conceded that the abuse began shortly after their relationship started in October 2016 and occurred while he was still on statutory release. Perrault informed that he moved in with the victim in February 2017 after his warrant expiry.

Evidence Adduced at the Hearing

[36] At the Dangerous Offender hearing, the Crown called the following witnesses:

1. Karen Thomson – Regional Manager of Conditional Release Programs for the Parole Board of Canada
2. Brad Tamcsu – Manager of Mental Health and Addictions for the Ministry of the Solicitor General
3. Kathy Beddows – Program Officer for the Correctional Services of Canada
4. Meghan Jones – Area Director for Northern Ontario with Correctional Services Canada
5. Dr. Philip Klassen – Vice-President, Medical Affairs at Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Services and a Forensic Psychiatrist

[37] In addition to the above witnesses, the Court received a pre-sentence report dated June 7, 2023 prepared by Patrick Whiffen. The Court also received a “No-Gladue Report” dated February 16, 2023 prepared by Amanda General. The written report of Dr. Klassen dated October 23, 2023 was marked as an exhibit on consent.

[38] In addition, on an application by the defence to clarify the evidence of Dr. Klassen, an Agreed Statement of Fact by the parties with respect to the further evidence of Dr. Klassen was marked as an exhibit.

[39] Apart from the defence reopening the evidence of Dr. Klassen as noted above, the defendant did not introduce any evidence at the hearing.

Background of the Offender

[40] Mr. Perrault is currently 38 years old. As noted previously, he has a lengthy criminal record as well as numerous convictions for intimate partner violence. In the pre-sentence report, it is noted that the defendant’s father, Steve Perrault, reported that he was physically abusive towards the defendant, his brother, and his mother throughout Mr. Perrault’s upbringing and he deeply regrets his actions. There is also evidence that the father was charged and sentenced to a term in custody for an assault on his wife and the defendant. The father disclosed that he abused opiates and alcohol consistently throughout the defendant’s upbringing, which often escalated issues within the family household.

[41] The defendant disclosed for the pre-sentence report that when he was 15 years old, while serving a secure custody sentence, he was involved over the span of 15 months in a sexual and emotional relationship with a much older female person in authority. Mr. Perrault noted that she was later convicted for sexual assault and sexual exploitation against himself and other male youth in the facility. Mr. Perrault expressed that he felt used and betrayed and that his experience led to insecurities and trust issues in his intimate relationships which followed.

[42] Mr. Perrault left the family residence when he was 16 years old. He advised that at a young age he began associating with older very criminally oriented individuals.

[43] Mr. Perrault reported that his highest level of education is grade 12. He was suspended from school and eventually completed his education while in federal custody.

[44] In terms of employment, Mr. Perrault advised that he was employed at an international fast food franchise in Ottawa for about 10 months and then discontinued this work in order to attend college. In January, 2020, he advised he was hired at a restaurant in Toronto and worked there for three months and was let go as a result of a COVID-19 closure. Mr. Perrault reported that he has been receiving Ontario Disability Support payments since 2016 as a result of post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, depression, substance abuse and his history of incarceration.

[45] Mr. Perrault reported that he began consuming alcohol when he was about 12 years old. His prior intimate partners and family members have expressed concern regarding his alcohol and drug use.

[46] In terms of drug use, Mr. Perrault stated that he began smoking cannabis when he was approximately 12 years old and cocaine at the age of 19. He began using oxycontin, percocet and heroin in his early twenties. He reported that most recently in 2020 he overdosed in custody on fentanyl, but recovered from this incident. He understands that his substance abuse has affected all areas of his life and that when he is under the influence of alcohol or drugs, he often becomes agitated and angry.

[47] Mr. Perrault told the pre-sentence report author that he takes responsibility for the current offences and understands that the court may designate him as a “long-term offender”. He does not disagree with this status designation. Mr. Perrault presents with a pattern of either accusing or finding out that his prior intimate partners have been unfaithful which then escalates to domestic violence. Mr. Perrault noted insecurities and trust issues stemming from sexual abuse he experienced when he was 15 years old by a female person of authority and his father confirmed a noticeable change in the subject’s behaviour following this event.

[48] Mr. Perrault reported that he is Metis, Indigenous, and noted that neither himself or his parents have resided on a reserve. He stated that his father attended at a school that is being classified as a residential school. Mr. Perrault has embraced Indigenous practices and stated that should he be released from custody, he plans to return to Sagatay Indigenous transitional housing in Toronto and access available programming and resources.

Mr. Perrault’s Status as an Indigenous Offender

[49] As a result of Mr. Perrault’s assertion that he was Indigenous, a Gladue Report was requested and a report dated February 16, 2023 was received. In preparing the Report, the author interviewed Mr. Perrault and obtained information with respect to his Indigenous background.

[50] In the Report, the author states as follows:

We trust that this letter provides all the relevant information with regards to our efforts to respond to the Gladue Report request we received for Mr. Perrault. At this point in time, we are unable to prepare a Gladue report for Mr. Perrault for two reasons. First, we are unsure, as is he, about the specific nature of his Indigenous ancestry and second, even if his ancestry was somehow able to be confirmed, we cannot address how being an Indigenous person has affected his life circumstances. The purpose of a Gladue Report is to discuss the way in which the individual before the Court has been influenced and affected by their Indigenous ancestry — either directly or by systemic and historical factors.

[51] The Report states that it should not be concluded that Mr. Perrault is not an Indigenous person as they were not in a position to draw such a conclusion. Nor should the Report be read as stating that there may not be relevant Gladue issues at play in this case. However, in the absence of any direct evidence that Mr. Perrault is Indigenous and in the absence of any issues being raised by the defendant regarding his Indigenous status, it would not appear that there are any relevant Indigenous issues to take into account on this application.

Position of the Parties on this Application

[52] The Crown takes the position that it has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Perrault should be designated as a dangerous offender and seeks an indeterminate sentence.

[53] The defence takes the position that the Crown has not proven that Mr. Perrault is a dangerous offender beyond a reasonable doubt. Instead, the defence asserts that Mr. Perrault fits the long-term offender designation and should be classified as such. In the alternative, the defence argues that the Crown has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that there is no alternative sentence that would protect the public short of an indeterminate sentence, and that a 10 year long-term supervision order in addition to custody will address the public interest and safety of the community.

Applicable Law

[54] Section 753 of the Criminal Code sets out the statutory requirements which must be met in order to designate a person as a dangerous offender.

[55] Section 753 sets out a two-stage process before a person can be categorized as a dangerous offender. In the first stage, s. 753(1) requires the Crown to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the offence for which the offender has been convicted is a serious personal injury offence, and that the offender constitutes a threat to the life, liberty or physical or mental wellbeing 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.

[56] A “serious personal injury offence” is defined in the Criminal Code under s. 752 to mean:

(a) an indictable offence, other than high treason, treason, first degree murder or second degree murder, involving (i) the use or attempted use of violence against another person, or (ii) conduct endangering or likely to endanger the life or safety of another person or inflicting or likely to inflict severe psychological damage on another person,

and for which the offender may be sentenced to imprisonment for ten years or more.

[57] In the present case, the defence acknowledges that the predicate offence for which Mr. Perrault has been convicted is a serious personal injury offence. I agree with this conclusion. It is clear that Ms. C.M. suffered severe psychological damage as a result of the assault and under s. 267 of the Criminal Code, Mr. Perrault is liable to imprisonment for a term of up to 10 years.

[58] Under s. 753 of the Criminal Code, a court “shall find” the offender to be a dangerous offender if the criteria under s. 753(1) are satisfied.

[59] The defence argues that Mr. Perrault could equally be categorized as a long-term offender under s. 753.1 of the Criminal Code. This section provides that in order to be designated a long-term offender, the court must be 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 re-offend; and (c) There is a reasonable possibility of eventual control of the risk in the community.

[60] Under s. 753.1(3), if a court finds an offender to be a long-term offender, it shall:

(a) 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 (b) That the offender be subject to long-term supervision for a period that does not exceed 10 years.

In this regard, the defence argues that if the court concludes that a long-term supervision order is appropriate, the least restrictive measure would be to find the defendant a long-term offender as opposed to a dangerous offender.

[61] However, this analysis is contrary to the Supreme Court of Canada’s Ruling in R. v. Boutilier, 2017 SCC 64. In the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision in R. v. Snowden, 2023 ONCA 768, the Court quoted from the Supreme Court of Canada decision in R. v. Boutilier as follows:

As the Supreme Court of Canada held in R. v. Boutilier, 2017 SCC 64, [2017] 2 S.C.R. 936, subparas. (a)(i) to (iii) are disjunctive: “[T]hey provide three standalone grounds for finding that the offender is a ‘threat’ under s. 753(1)”: at para. 18, per Coté J. If any one of the criteria is met, there is no discretion in the sentencing judge; “the designation must follow”: at para. 20.

[62] Thus, it is apparent that if the defendant meets the criteria as a dangerous offender, the designation as a dangerous offender must be made as opposed to the designation of a long-term offender under s. 753.1 of the Criminal Code. This conclusion is further reinforced by the reasoning of the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan in R. v. Jensen, 2016 SKCA 109. In that decision, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal found that the trial judge made an error that if the dangerous offender criteria are satisfied, the law further required him to assess under s. 753.1 whether Mr. Jensen could be categorized appropriately as a long-term offender. Given that the criteria for a finding of the defendant as a dangerous offender, that designation was mandatory and precluded a finding that he was subject to the long-term offender provisions.

[63] The second stage of a dangerous offender application follows once a person has been identified as a dangerous offender. Once this designation is made, the sentencing judge retains discretion to impose the appropriate sentence.

[64] Under s. 753(4), if the court finds an offender to be a dangerous offender, it shall:

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

[65] Under s. 753(4.1), a court shall impose a sentence of detention in a penitentiary for an indeterminate period unless it is satisfied by the evidence adduced during the hearing of the application that there is a reasonable expectation that a lesser measure under para. (4)(b) or (c) will adequately protect the public against the commission by the offender of a murder or a serious personal injury offence.

[66] In R. v. Boutilier, 2017 SCC 64, [2017] SCJ No. 64, the Supreme Court noted that at the designation stage of a dangerous offender application what the Crown is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt is a “likelihood” of future dangerousness. At para. 36, the Supreme Court stated,

The jurisprudence of this Court subsequent to Lyons has consistently considered a prospective assessment of risk to be a component of dangerous offender applications. In R. v. Currie, [1997] 2 S.C.R. 260, Lamer C.J. said that a judge has to “be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of the likelihood of future danger that an offender presents to society before he or she can impose the dangerous offender designation and an indeterminate sentence”: para. 25. In Sipos, at para. 20, which concerned s. 753(1)(b), this Court explained that designation requires evidence on both the retrospective and the prospective elements.

[67] Intractability is an important consideration for the Court to consider at both the designation and the sentencing stages. As noted by the Supreme Court in Boutilier at para. 45,

The same prospective evidence of treatability plays a different role at the different stages of the judge’s decision-making process. At the designation stage, treatability informs the decision on the threat posed by an offender, whereas at the penalty stage, it helps determine the appropriate sentence to manage this threat. Thus, offenders 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: see Neuberger, at p. 7-1, by M. Henschel. However, even where the treatment prospects are not compelling enough to affect the judge’s conclusion on dangerousness, they will still be relevant in choosing the sentence required to adequately protect the public.

[68] Thus, before designating a person as a dangerous offender, a sentencing judge must not only consider the past offences of the person, but must also consider whether he or she is a future threat after a prospective assessment of the risk. A future risk assessment requires consideration of the future treatment prospects for the offender. The designation provision does not capture offenders who, though currently a threat to others, may cease to be in the future, notably after successful treatment.

[69] In summary, I adopt the reasoning of the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. A.M., 2024 ONCA 587, where the court sets out the criteria which the Crown must satisfy beyond a reasonable doubt in order to make a finding for a dangerous offender. In this case, the court states,

Although the different routes to designation as a dangerous offender have different criteria, they each share four common elements: (i) the index offence is a serious personal injury offence, (ii) there is a broader pattern of violence of which the index offence forms a part, (iii) the behaviour is intractable, and (iv) there is a high likelihood of harmful recidivism.

Analysis

[70] As previously noted, the defence concedes that the predicate offence is a serious personal injury offence.

[71] The next issue to be addressed is whether the predicate offence forms part of a pattern of repetitive behaviour by the offender, of which the offence for which he 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. I have concluded that the Crown has satisfied this condition beyond a reasonable doubt as well for the following reasons.

[72] Mr. Perrault has been convicted of violent offences against 5 of his prior domestic partners.

[73] With respect to the victim, V.C., Mr. Perrault was convicted of uttering threats, assault with a weapon x2 and assault x2. These offences were committed while on statutory release for his first federal offence. Mr. Perrault waved a knife at Ms. V.C. by threatening to cut her. On another occasion, Mr. Perrault stabbed Ms. V.C. with tweezer scissors.

[74] With respect to the victim, D.R., Mr. Perrault was convicted of theft and mischief. These offences involved Mr. Perrault’s damage to Ms. D.R.’s belongings and the destruction of an urn containing Ms. D.R.’s mother’s ashes.

[75] With respect to the victim, S.H., Mr. Perrault was convicted of uttering threats. He was initially charged with robbery and admitted to holding a knife to Ms. S.H.’s chest and demanding money. He further threatened her children and Ms. S.H. herself suggesting that he’d “gut her like a pig”.

[76] With respect to the victim, K.C., Mr. Perrault threatened Ms. K.C.’s life if she was to leave him. He threatened a male classmate of Ms. K.C.’s with a knife due to beliefs of infidelity.

[77] In the report of Dr. Klassen, he comments that Mr. Perrault would appear to meet criteria for antisocial personality disorder, borderline personality disorder and multiple substance abuse disorders, though his antisocial traits appear to be declining and latterly behavioural dyscontrol has been predicated largely on borderline personality features.

[78] Dr. Klassen administered a number of tests to Mr. Perrault during the course of his assessment.

[79] Mr. Perrault scored 19 out of a possible 40 points on the PCL-R test. This score placed him on approximately the 35th percentile with respect to a reference sample of North American offenders. Scores in this range suggested some difficulties for Mr. Perrault with treatment response and/or supervision, the persons with scores in this range are often manageable in structured settings.

[80] Mr. Perrault scored 35 on the violence risk assessment tool (VRAG-R). This is a high score and places Mr. Perrault on the 97th percentile with respect to the standardization sample. Similar scoring individuals recidivated at a rate of 80% over 5 years and 91% over 15 years.

[81] The DVRAG is an intimate partner violence risk assessment tool which includes the PCL-R. Mr. Perrault scored 32 which is greater than the 97th percentile in reference to the standardization sample. Similar scoring individuals recidivated violently at a rate of 100% over multi year follow up in the community.

[82] Mr. Perrault scored between 18 – 25 points on the HCR-20 V 3 test which is a violence risk assessment instrument. At a score of 18, Mr. Perrault would be considered to be at moderate risk of future violence. At a score of 25, Mr. Perrault’s risk might be considered moderately high.

[83] In conclusion, based on the above testing, Dr. Klassen concluded:

In summary, Mr. Perrault presents as being at significant risk of aggressive behaviour, and specifically likely at high risk of intimate partner violence in a relatively unstructured or unsupervised scenario. Mr. Perrault likely presents as being at more moderate risk of aggressive behaviour in more structured/supervised environments.

[84] Later, Dr. Klassen states that information from structured and actuarial risk assessment tools suggest a likelihood of violence from Mr. Perrault in unstructured release, but a lower risk of violence in structured scenarios.

[85] In his evidence at the hearing, Dr. Klassen expanded on the results of his assessment. He commented that Mr. Perrault is in a high risk category for future intimate partner violence in an unstructured setting. He stated as follows:

If I was to offer it at a very high level, and I think this hopefully should mirror what’s in the report, I think Mr. Perrault is not a significantly psychopathic individual, rather, I think he has borderline problems, distress and substance misuse that make him impulsive and that make his judgment poor and that put him at risk of violence. And I think that in a relationship and in an unstructured setting, he is in a high-risk category for that violence, and I think that he has done better in a highly-structured setting, although there are still some pivotal issues around risk management. Is he in a relationship? Is he using? That may be a little bit more than you wanted but that’s roughly I think what I’m thinking.

[86] Later Dr. Klassen commented as follows,

So I think what I would say is he’s probably at moderately high risk of any violence, but I would say he’s probably at high risk of intimate partner violence without intervention and in an unstructured release because for IPV, for intimate partner violence, you kind of should give the nod to the DVRAG and VRAG-R.

[87] I accept Dr. Klassen’s opinion that in the absence of close supervision, Mr. Perrault is at high risk of future intimate partner violence unless he is closely supervised. That situation will likely persist until he is in his fifties. The evidence of Dr. Klassen is that by the time people like Mr. Perrault get into their fifties, “at that point typically risk for violence has become fairly attenuated for age related reasons alone”. At trial Dr. Klassen’s evidence on this issue was as follows:

I’ve never been involved in a seriously violent matter with anybody over the age of 60 and even the number of people in their 50s, I would count on the fingers of one hand really in terms of serious violent offending. So that gives you a little bit of an idea, so my thinking is really just, okay, we got to get Mr. Perrault and the community to 50-ish.

[88] The conclusion I take from Dr. Klassen’s evidence overall and which I accept is that Mr. Perrault represents a very substantial risk of intimate partner violence to the public until he is in his fifties, unless he is in a tightly controlled environment.

[89] In summary, I accept that the defendant has been convicted of a serious personal injury offence. I further accept that the defendant has been guilty of a pattern of repetitive behaviour, including the predicate offence which he has been convicted of, which shows a failure to restrain his behaviour and a likelihood of causing severe psychological damage on other persons by failing in the future to restrain his behaviour. Based on these findings, I conclude that the defendant must be designated as a dangerous offender.

[90] Proceeding to the next stage of the dangerous offender application, I must now consider what the appropriate sentence should be. As noted previously, there are three options. The first is to impose a sentence of detention in a penitentiary for an indeterminate period. The second possibility is to impose a sentence for the offence for which the defendant has been convicted and further order that the offender be subject to a long-term supervision order for a period that does not exceed 10 years. The third option is to impose a sentence for the offence for which the defendant has been convicted.

[91] Dr. Klassen has made a number of recommendations and expresses the view that Mr. Perrault is committed to treatment. He states in his Report as follows:

On the other hand, I’ve rarely seen such commitment to treatment, and to a structured lifestyle on parole, in individuals facing proceedings under Section 753 of the Criminal Code. This gentleman appears to have made significant efforts in treatment, and received positive reviews of treatment progress, with respect to all of Moderate Intensity Family Violence in 2014, Aboriginal Healing the same year, the Violence Prevention Program in 2015, at Decision House in 2015, and in the Aboriginal Primer and Aboriginal Moderate Intensity treatment in 2018. Generally speaking, while on parole, he’s been active with respect to all of education, employment, leisure/avocational interests, and treatment. While Mr. Perrault has not finished a period of parole without some difficulties, I would note that with respect to 2015-2017, Mr. Perrault appears to have done well, until such time as he began to co-habit with a partner (difficulties discovered retrospectively). This gentleman also appears to have done reasonably well in 2019-2020, although there were challenges with his self-disclosure, with respect to both intimate partner contacts, and later substance misuse. I do have concerns that this gentleman has relationship needs beyond what he’s fully acknowledged, though he has acknowledged that he essentially feels “lost”, when he feels alone. This gentleman has also been free of substantial misconducts, in custody, for years, reflecting that Mr. Perrault’s potential victim pool is likely identifiable (co-habiting intimate partners, and perhaps third parties in those relationships). Mr. Perrault’s aspirations for conditional release are similar to those expressed previously, and he reports seeking the structure of an LTSO. His plans are to engage in employment, avocational activities, and treatment.

[92] Dr. Klassen recommends the following external controls on Mr. Perrault:

1. Mr. Perrault should receive continued, and maintenance, treatment regarding intimate partner violence, and substance misuse. Unsurprisingly, his self-management skills appear to have atrophied, over time.
2. Mr. Perrault should abstain entirely, and for the foreseeable future, from the use of alcohol and non-prescribed agents. He should be required to submit samples of his breath and/or urine to ascertain his abstinence. He may benefit from alcohol-related chemotherapy, for example to reduce cravings/the impetus to consume, and/or from alcohol-deterrent chemotherapy such as disulfiram (Antabuse). The full set of interventions that may benefit individuals suffering from an alcohol use disorder may be found in the Health Quality Ontario Quality Standard for the Treatment of Problematic Alcohol Use.
3. I would recommend that Mr. Perrault, if he is to be returned to the community, be returned to the community only under the auspices of a residency condition at a Community Correctional Centre or a Community Residential Centre. It should be anticipated that Mr. Perrault’s period of time at a Community Correctional Centre or a Community Residential Centre would be lengthy.
4. Given this gentleman’s history of intimate partner violence, Mr. Perrault should be required to report any actual or potential intimate relationships to those supervising him, at such time as he may return to the community. In practice, of course, enlisting the support of intimate partners in risk management can be challenging. Mr. Perrault should not, for the foreseeable future, be permitted to reside with an intimate partner, though this could of course be re-evaluated in the more distant future.
5. Mr. Perrault, when in the community, should be required to engage either in education or work. I might add that Mr. Perrault’s difficulties with back pain should likely receive more vigorous attention, as chronic pain may aggravate the possibility of return to opioid misuse.

[93] In conclusion, in his Report, Dr. Klassen stated that with effective structure and support, on parole, and with a residency condition, Mr. Perrault faired much better and per the HCR-20, likely presents with moderate risk of violence, a risk which, “while still substantial, is consistent with “reasonable possibility of eventual control of the risk in the community”.”

[94] In their submissions, the Crown took the position that Mr. Perrault still poses a significant risk of reoffence, especially in relation to domestic violence. The Crown noted that in Dr. Klassen’s report, he spoke about the “reasonable possibility” of Mr. Perrault’s eventual control in the community. It was pointed out that in the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in R. v. Straub, 2022 ONCA 47, the Court delineates between “a reasonable possibility” and “a reasonable expectation” as required under s. 753(4.1) of the Code. This argument then led to the defence seeking to reopen the evidence on this hearing. As this issue was a very important one, I allowed the defence’s application. In response, the parties agreed to an Agreed Statement of Fact with respect to the further evidence of Dr. Klassen. It was agreed that Dr. Klassen would testify, from a psychiatric point of view, that there is a reasonable “expectation” that a lesser measure than an indeterminate sentence would adequately protect the public. He would also testify, from a psychiatric point of view, that it is likely that Mr. Perrault could be controlled on an LTSO with strict conditions. It was noted in the Agreed Statement of Fact that the Crown disagrees with Dr. Klassen’s position. My own view, however is that Dr. Klassen was a credible and reliable expert. He was very cautious in making statements about Mr. Perrault’s potential for recidivism. For example, in his oral evidence he stated as follows:

And, again, it’s just – a lot of it is how vulnerable was the woman, did she have addictions problems, PTSD, a trauma history, was she herself in a very unstable lifestyle circumstance, those kinds of things. But we cannot say that because this person was violent in this relationship they will inevitably be violent in others just because there are those unique characteristics.

[95] Earlier in his evidence, Dr. Klassen was careful to comment on the limitation one can put on statistics for recidivism. He stated,

Twenty percent of them were desisters, they didn’t get in trouble with violent behaviour to the best of our knowledge, they didn’t get in trouble with violent behaviour again and 80 percent of them did not desist. Eighty percent of them had more trouble and I think that’s the best we can do. Anything more definitive of Mr. Perrault as an individual would I think be a misstatement.

[96] Overall, I was impressed by Dr. Klassen’s fairness in giving his evidence and that as the only expert in psychiatry called as a witness at the hearing, his evidence was essentially unchallenged.

[97] In addition to the list of controls set out above proposed by Dr. Klassen for Mr. Perrault, he did make two major additions or modifications in his oral evidence. The first is with respect to any intimate partner relationships. In his Report, Dr. Klassen states that he should be required to report any actual or potential intimate relationships to those supervising him and that he should not for the foreseeable future reside with an intimate partner. In his oral evidence, Dr. Klassen went further. He stated:

A. I mean, Mr. Perrault has said that – you’ll know from the report Mr. Perrault has said I can’t be in a relationship, I have to work on other things. I think he’s right. I think he appreciates that and he did do that... Q. Right. A. ...when he went out the last time. He did all those things. He went to school, he went to the gym, he had various other interests, but you know once you’re out there, it’s hard not to – you know if you’re somebody that’s very attaching that wants to be in a relationship it was you know hard not to go down that road. Q. Right. A. So even though he says that now, I think at this point for the moment I say it’s up to us collectively as a system to say no, that can’t happen right now.

[98] Upon further questioning about this issue from the Court, Dr. Klassen stated as follows:

THE COURT: Excuse me, are you saying he shouldn’t be in any relationship even if it doesn’t involve cohabitation? A. I think one would have to be very, very careful around, yes, Mr. Perrault being in an intimate relationship. THE COURT: Because doesn’t that seem a little unrealistic, that he would sort of abandon any female... A. I’m not saying forever, Your Honour. THE COURT: Right. A. I’m just saying... THE COURT: But you know that’s a, that’s a big ask. A. It’s – it’s – I would say it’s probably not that big an ask for two years, three years, four years, something like that. It’s a big ask from a lifetime perspective, yes. But that’s just a personal opinion, I guess. THE COURT: Right. No, no. That’s why you’re here.

[99] From the comments of Dr. Klassen, I infer that his recommendation is that Mr. Perrault refrain from any intimate partner relationship at all for a fairly lengthy period.

[100] Another issue raised by Dr. Klassen in his evidence is the need for Mr. Perrault to take in-custody training which duplicates some of the earlier training he has taken while in custody. This is referenced by Dr. Klassen in his evidence as follows:

A. Well, I think Mr. Perrault probably needs some refresher work at this point in time. You know, it’s been a long time since Mr. Perrault I think had any of this kind of training. Now I don’t know whether he may have taken some programs at Central North, but they tend to be quite cursory... Q. Right. A. ...in provincial detention, a session, five sessions, something of that nature. Probably Mr. Perrault should reacquaint himself with relapse prevention planning as it pertains to substance misuse and emotional dysregulation. Not because so much because he needs it in custody, right, he does fine in custody. It’s because he needs that if he’s going to get out of custody.

[101] Later, Dr. Klassen comments that Mr. Perrault should at the present time be treated as someone who is “untreated”.

[102] On the specific issue of in custody treatment, Dr. Klassen testified as follows:

THE COURT: So you’ve got no opinion as to whether in-custody treatment would be beneficial? A. Well, if we look at his history, it’s hard to say. This gentleman has done very well in treatment and has recidivated, nonetheless. Was treatment beneficial? I mean, this man is – he’s reportedly changed his lifestyle and he’s done better in supervision and he’s done, he’s done school, and he has had periods of employment and he’s not in a criminal lifestyle, so – so maybe it’s beneficial but it hasn’t been fully beneficial. So when you say - because he’s recidivated – will it be beneficial? If we look back, it may have been beneficial but arguably, not enough. THE COURT: Okay. So treatment within custody may be beneficial but in the past it has not obviously succeeded? A. In the past, it has not been substantive enough to withstand other forces driving offending behaviour I guess you would – one would have to conclude on the basis of his history.

[103] I think it is fair to say that while in custody treatment may not have been successful in the past, it has to be considered as part of a plan if Mr. Perrault is to be released from custody.

[104] Kathy Beddows is the Indigenous Program Officer for the Correctional Services of Canada. In her evidence, she described some of the timing of the programs that may be appropriate for Mr. Perrault. In her evidence she described an Indigenous high intensity multi-target program. She testified that a three year period of incarceration would allow for an offender to enter into the program and a four year period of incarceration would allow the offender to complete the program. She advised that this time frame allows for the intake and placement process, which is required of any offender entering a federal institution.

[105] The Crown takes the position that a long-term supervision order will not be adequate to protect the public. It notes that Mr. Perrault has effectively been supervised by way of probation orders since he was 13 years old, and his criminal record is evidence enough that even prior to his federal sentences, he was unmanageable in the community, with 19 breaches of court orders, mostly being breaches of probation orders.

[106] The Crown also notes that on reviewing Mr. Perrault’s first federal sentence, managing Mr. Perrault is difficult even despite a condition that he reside at a CRF and that he return nightly to that CRF. The Crown notes that it was during this period that Mr. Perrault re-offended violently against Ms. K.C. The Crown also points out that it is now known that less than four months after his warrant expiry date, he committed the predicate offences against Ms. C.M. and that he and Ms. C.M. likely began this relationship while Mr. Perrault was on statutory release.

[107] As noted previously, I am satisfied that Mr. Perrault satisfies the requirements of a dangerous offender. He has been convicted of a serious personal injury offence and has exhibited a pattern of repetitive behaviour showing a failure to restrain his behaviour and a likelihood of causing injury to other persons or inflicting severe psychological damage on other persons. There is a very substantial risk that this behaviour will continue as intractable unless appropriate steps are taken to restrain his behaviour. Having said that, I am satisfied that a determinate sentence with a long-term supervision order for 10 years is appropriate to provide safety to the public on the terms and conditions set out herein. It is important that all of the long-term supervision orders be monitored frequently and with diligence. I also feel that in custody education as described herein is an important part of this disposition. Specifically, a sentence of 10 years which is the maximum for this offence is to be imposed. When taking into account credit for time already served, this would allow the necessary three to four year period for Mr. Perrault to complete his in custody training. I view this training as an integral part of the sentence. While it has not been successful in the past, when combined with the terms of the long-term supervision order, it does provide in my view, a reasonable expectation for protection of the public.

[108] Like Dr. Klassen, I was impressed by the defendant’s recognition of the issues he faces and his commitment to deal with them.

[109] The defendant made oral submissions to me at the end of final argument. In his submissions he stated,

I have many regrets and I know from experience that there is a difference between having regret and living in regret. I have lived in regret for much of my life and I can honestly say the only thing that comes from it is more trauma, more grief and then more regret.

[110] With respect to his commitment to change in the future, the defendant stated,

You have heard of my commitment to programming and therapy. I can say with confidence that I am even more motivated today than I was in the past. I want to succeed and I can picture a future in which I do succeed. I have goals, I have hopes and dreams. One of which is to change the legacy of the man I am. I have a daughter who will be ten years old soon and it hurts me to think what her impression of me is.

[111] The defendant’s commitment to change has also been reinforced by the death of his mother. He stated,

As you are aware my mother has passed away during this long drawn out process which is yet another motivator for me. I promised my mother on her deathbed that I would change to make a better life. I keep the faith that she can somehow see my progress. I know that her son made the changes to be a better man. I know I have the potential to do this. I just need to believe in myself. All my life I have been repeatedly told, similar to what the Crown said yesterday, how hopeless, undeserving and incapable of change I am. After hearing that so much it can seriously impact a person’s confidence and can manifest into reality. But I am capable of change. I have proven this to myself in many different ways. I just like anybody respond better to positivity, rather than being beaten down with negative words.

[112] As is apparent, the defendant’s commitment to change is not only reflected in Dr. Klassen’s comments, but Mr. Perrault’s submissions impressed me considerably as well. I believe that the defendant will in fact do his very best to comply with the terms and conditions of his long-term supervision order and will take this opportunity to turn his life around.

[113] While I have concluded that Mr. Perrault should be designated as a dangerous offender, I have also concluded that a determinate sentence with a long-term supervision order for 10 years is the appropriate sentence. The long-term supervision order should contain the external controls as recommended by Dr. Klassen and summarized in para. 86. In addition, I believe that the offender should not enter an intimate partner relationship for a minimum period of five years and potentially longer depending on his progress in dealing with intimate partner violence. Finally, I believe that the offender should participate in educational sessions while in custody directed at controlling his aggressive conduct towards women and other involved third parties.

[114] In summary, I find that Mr. Perrault should be sentenced to 10 years in a penitentiary. He should receive credit for the time he has spent in pre-sentence custody. I understand that Mr. Perrault has been in custody since September 7, 2020. He should receive credit for one and half days for each day spent in custody. By my calculation, his pre-trial credit would total 6 years and 98 days. Mr. Perrault, once he is released from custody, should then be made subject to a long-term supervision order for a period of 10 years.

[115] In addition, the following ancillary orders form part of Mr. Perrault’s sentence:

1. He is to provide a DNA sample in accordance with s. 487.04 of the Criminal Code as his conviction for assault with a weapon is a primary designated offence.
2. He is to be subject to a weapons prohibition pursuant to s. 109(1) of the Criminal Code which prohibits him from possessing any firearm, crossbow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition and explosive substance. This Order is for life.
3. He is not to communicate, directly or indirectly, with the victim C.M. during the custodial period of his sentence. This Order is given pursuant to s. 743.21 of the Criminal Code.
4. Pursuant to s. 760 of the Criminal Code, a copy of all reports and the evidence of Dr. Klassen together with a copy of these Reasons and any other available transcripts are to be forwarded to the Correctional Services of Canada.

Justice M. McKelvey Released: December 11, 2024