Court File and Appearances

Court File No.: CR-21-5000009-494-000
Date: 2025-02-25
Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Between:
His Majesty the King – and – Mohamed Siad

Appearances:

• Paul Zambonini and Corena McNeill, for the Crown
• Stephen White, for the Defendant

Heard: January 6–9, 2025
Justice: Peter Bawden

Introduction

[1] In March 2022, Mr. Siad pleaded guilty before me to one count of assault causing bodily harm. The victim was his girlfriend, Maria Mendez. It was the third time that he had been convicted of assaulting Ms. Mendez, and the seventh time that he had been convicted of a violent offence. This offence was especially brutal. Surveillance video showed Mr. Siad repeatedly stomping on Ms. Mendez’s head as she lay unconscious on the floor of an elevator.

[2] The Crown warned Mr. Siad prior to entering his plea that it was considering bringing an application to have him declared a dangerous offender. The potential consequences of a dangerous offender finding were explained to Mr. Siad on the record, and he confirmed that he understood.

[3] After the plea was entered, Crown and defence counsel jointly recommended that Mr. Siad be granted bail. His counsel had arranged for Mr. Siad to enter a residential treatment program to address his long-standing addictions to alcohol and drugs. The Crown acknowledged that Mr. Siad was a poor candidate for release but consented because of the strength of the plan, the necessity of addressing the root causes of Mr. Siad’s offending behavior, and Mr. Siad’s clear statement that he understood the gravity of the consequences if he breached the terms. I accepted the joint recommendation, but sternly warned Mr. Siad that he would have to observe the terms to the letter. Any breach would certainly lead to his detention and likely prompt the Crown to proceed with the dangerous offender application. Mr. Siad confirmed that he understood his situation and promised to abide by the terms of his release.

[4] Mr. Siad began to drink and use drugs almost immediately after entering the treatment program. Six months later, he and another patient left the facility and went to an Airbnb which they had rented for the night. They began to drink and invited Maria Mendez to join them. A citizen called 911 later that night to report that a man was choking a woman in the apartment below him. Police attended and arrested Mr. Siad.

[5] Mr. Siad was tried in the Ontario Court of Justice. He was convicted of a fourth assault against Maria Mendez and eight counts of failure to comply with bail and probation. He received an 18-month sentence in addition to his pre-trial custody.

[6] The Crown has now brought the anticipated dangerous offender application. Dr. Jonathan Gray of the Royal Ottawa Hospital conducted a psychiatric assessment of Mr. Siad and concluded that he meets the criteria to be declared a dangerous offender. The doctor also found that there is a reasonable expectation that the risk which Mr. Siad presents to the community may be controlled if he has the benefit of the intensive treatment offered by Correctional Services of Canada and is then monitored in the community for a significant duration.

[7] The Crown recommends a determinative sentence of 8 to 10 years to be followed by a 10-year supervision order in the community. Defence counsel submits that the Crown has failed to prove that Mr. Siad meets the criteria to be declared a dangerous offender and suggests a sentence of eighteen months incarceration in addition to the pretrial custody.

The Evidence

The Background of the Defendant

[8] Mr. Siad was born in Toronto in July 1996. His father worked as a long-distance truck driver and was frequently away from the family. His mother did not work and received social assistance. She periodically left Canada to live in Dubai or Africa. There is no evidence regarding who looked after Mr. Siad and his two sisters when his parents were away.

[9] When Mr. Siad was 13 years old, he and his family flew to Dubai for what he had been told would be a family vacation. When he arrived, he was introduced to a previously unknown uncle and told that he would henceforth be living in Somalia. He and his uncle boarded a plane and Mr. Siad lived in Somalia for the next year. According to Mr. Siad, his uncle grew tired of supervising him and sent him to a local jail for unwanted children. Mr. Siad was rescued by other family members and eventually rejoined his mother and sisters in Kenya.

[10] Mr. Siad and his family return to Canada when he was 17 years old. Shortly after his return, Mr. Siad travelled to Fort McMurray with a friend named Marco. He hoped to find employment in the oil fields. Marco was involved in the drug trade. Mr. Siad was aware of that. Shortly after their arrival in Alberta, Marco was shot and killed. Mr. Siad returned to Toronto and was briefly employed by the Home Depot and then Sleep Country. He showed little devotion to either job and soon was unemployed. He has been receiving social assistance for the balance of his adult life.

[11] Mr. Siad told Dr. Gray that he was once shot in the back and experienced temporary paralysis as a result. Medical records indicate that this occurred in July 2018. There is no evidence regarding the circumstances which led to the shooting and Dr. Gray did not find that it factored into Mr. Siad’s offending behaviour. Mr. Siad was prescribed analgesics when recovering from the shooting and in his interview with Dr. Gray, he ascribed his addiction to non-medically prescribed drugs to this first exposure.

[12] Mr. Siad is now 29 years old. He is single and has no children. He described having had a one-year relationship with a Somalian woman in 2016 but did not mention any other domestic partners.

Chronology of Offending Behaviour

[13] Mr. Siad has a lengthy criminal record which includes eight convictions for violent offences and at least twenty convictions for breaching court orders. Below is a summary of the facts of his violent offences and a few entries regarding breaches of court orders which factor into my findings regarding repetitive behaviour, intractability, and prospects for treatment. I have not included the bulk of the offences for breaching court orders because they are of limited use to me. Mr. Siad was often released on his own recognizance. He would breach the terms of his bail in short order, return to custody, and then resolve all his outstanding charges in plea court. Proceeding in this fashion, he amassed an enormous record for failing to comply with court orders. On one occasion, he pleaded guilty to three counts of failure to comply arising from a single act of failing to keep the peace. There is no doubt that Mr. Siad has a terrible history of complying with court orders, and some of his convictions for failure to comply are relevant in assessing the prospect of successful supervision in the community. The sheer number of convictions, however, has little value in assessing the risk that he presents to the community.

[14] I have included in the chronology some of Mr. Siad’s statements to the sentencing courts regarding his addiction to alcohol and drugs. These statements demonstrate that Mr. Siad has known the root causes of his criminal behaviour since at least 2016. Contrary to his many assurances to sentencing judges, he has never meaningfully participated in drug addiction therapy.

[15] Mr. Siad personally admitted the facts regarding most of his violent offences and some of his guilty pleas were accompanied by statements of remorse. Mr. Siad minimized or denied the same conduct when Dr. Gray interviewed him. Dr. Gray found that these after-the-fact denials demonstrate a lack of insight into his offending behavior and constitute a significant impediment to treatment.

Assault on Father - September 1, 2015

[16] Mr. Siad's first offence occurred at the age of 19 when he assaulted his father. The Crown was not able to obtain a transcript of his guilty plea and the only evidence of the facts comes from a police synopsis. The synopsis indicates that Mr. Siad entered the family home and demanded money from his parents. His father refused and Mr. Siad ran at him. The two men fell to the floor and Mr. Siad punched his father several times. He then smashed a microwave oven and a wooden chair. His mother called 911 and police arrived. They arrested Mr. Siad and he was charged with assault and mischief. He served seven days of pretrial custody before pleading guilty to assault and receiving a conditional discharge with 12 months of probation.

[17] Mr. Siad told Doctor Gray that his father started the fight and denied that he punched or assaulted him.

Failure to Report to Probation Officer - March 1, 2016

[18] Mr. Siad failed to report to his probation officer. He pleaded guilty to FTC probation and his counsel said the following in support of a joint position:

Says he left the court feeling good about things, wanting to embrace these services but within two weeks’ time he had already slipped off the wagon again, had started drinking again and didn’t attend probation and hasn’t – hasn’t since. He does want to access some of these services but as I discussed with him, he needs – he needs to do it. And if he doesn’t do this, he’s 19 years of age and unless he gets the root cause of why he’s drinking under control then he’s not going to be able to become a productive member of society.

FTC Probation - November 29, 2016

[19] Mr. Siad pleaded guilty to attending 20 Falstaff Avenue contrary to a probation order. He explained his conduct to the court as follows:

…my condition was not to be at 20 Falstaff but I was off a lot of liquor and a lot of drugs. I couldn’t hardly [indiscernible]. I was doing coke like it was crazy. I didn’t know – I knew where I was, it’s just like – it’s like I was a whole different person telling myself I don’t care.…

For the last month, I’ve been going hard on the drugs like alcohol and [indiscernible]. Before it was just an occasional thing but now it’s full blown like I didn’t go every single day. Like every day.

Assault on Samira Siad - December 20, 2016

[20] Mr. Siad’s sister was brushing her teeth when he demanded to use the washroom. She refused to leave. He ordered her to give him her cell phone and when she refused, he grabbed her by the leg and threw her to the ground. When she told him that she was going to call the police, he began to slap and punch her in the face. She hit him back and Mr. Siad put her in a chokehold. He took her cellphone and keys and started to leave the apartment. When Samira tried to recover her property, he kicked her in the head. She suffered bruising and scratches near the eye and scratches to her shoulder.

[21] Mr. Siad admitted to the court that these facts were true and was found guilty of assault and failure to comply with probation. He served a total sentence of 25 days and was placed on probation for 18 months. He denied to Dr. Gray that any assault took place.

Assault on Sudi Siad - May 20, 2017

[22] Mr. Siad was staying at his parents’ apartment when his sister, Sudi, took one of his cigarettes. Mr. Siad began to argue with her and became enraged. He headbutted her three times above the eye and then punched her in the face. She suffered injuries which were photographed by police. At the time of the offence, Mr. Siad was subject to a probation order to have no contact with either of his sisters.

[23] The court acceded to a joint submission for a suspended sentence and probation. Defence counsel said the following in support of the submission:

He is aware that his alcohol consumption has created a problem within the family. When we interviewed him he indicated that he did wish to get help by way of counselling for this alcohol dependency that would be his current demon.

[24] Mr. Siad confirmed his intention to seek treatment:

MOHAMED SIAD: … I’m just going to screw up life completely if I don’t get this problem done right now, right? I’ve been told that many times… You only have one – I only have life and if I screw it up....

[25] In his conversation with Dr. Gray, Mr. Siad denied that any assault occurred.

Assault with a Weapon against Sudi Siad - November 15, 2017

[26] Mr. Siad was again drunk and acting belligerently while in the family home. He smashed items, attempted to punch holes in the walls, and ripped a closet door from its tracks. His sister Sudi tried to stop him. He threatened to kill her, picked up a knife and chased her out of the apartment. She ran towards the elevator, and he followed. He grabbed her by the hair in the elevator and stabbed her twice in the back. Sudi escaped and called the police. Police observed two puncture wounds in her back which did not require treatment.

[27] Mr. Siad again pleaded guilty and admitted the facts in court. He denied to Dr. Gray that any assault occurred and said that he only pulled out a knife.

Assault Resist Arrest - March 16, 2017

[28] Officers encountered Mr. Siad in a stairwell at 40 Falstaff. They attempted to arrest him for the assault against his sister and Mr. Siad struggled to resist. Two officers received minor injuries.

Robbery Reduced to Theft Under - September 14, 2017

[29] Mr. Siad was one of three men who accosted a delivery worker and stole pizza from his car. He pleaded guilty to theft under. In sentencing submissions, defence counsel advised the court that he had been drinking at the time of the offence and recognized that he needed treatment for his alcohol addiction. His counsel said the following:

He said to me that his mother had taken him sometime last week to his family doctor. She believes that he’s an alcoholic and he seems actually to be a bright enough young man that he’s come to terms with it instead of fighting that conclusion, which maybe he did up until recently. But I gather the signs are there enough for him and the concern from the family is there enough for him that he’s taking it seriously. And my understanding is that in addition to heading back to school he had indicated to his doctor and his family that he was prepared to enter a rehab program at Humber River Hospital.

[30] The court ordered Mr. Siad to serve 18 months of probation and required him to take counselling as recommended by his probation officer.

Failure to Comply with Probation and Recognizance - January 31, 2018

[31] Mr. Siad was prohibited from having contact with either of his sisters without their written consent. On January 31, he went to the family home and became involved in an argument with his sister, Samira. She called police who attended the building but could not find Mr. Siad. Mr. Siad’s counsel made the following sentencing submission:

What has been unfortunately rather central to this young man amassing an unenviable record in such a short period of time has been a struggle with alcohol Your Honour…. I can certainly point out that alcohol appeared to have been a factor even that night when there was contact with his sisters. So it is certainly a battle that Mr. Siad has got to win. He has to follow through with… this counselling.

Assault with Weapon (Wire Cord) - July 1, 2020

Forcible Confinement, FTC Recognizance - August 19, 2020

[32] Mr. Siad began a romantic relationship with Maria Mendez in March 2020. They briefly lived together but argued frequently and police were called twice to investigate domestic incidents.

[33] On July 1, Mr. Siad and Ms. Mendez were drinking in her apartment. They began to argue, and Mr. Siad punched Ms. Mendez in the head and face. She fell and he began to smash her head against the floor. She escaped from the apartment and banged on the doors of nearby apartments seeking help. Mr. Siad followed her and hit her on the head and body with a wire or cord. A neighbour saw the assault and called police. Police attended and observed injuries to both of Ms. Mendez’s cheeks, a laceration on her left eyebrow and bruising to both arms. They took Ms. Mendez to the hospital and arrested Mr. Siad.

[34] Mr. Siad was released with conditions that he have no contact with Ms. Mendez and not be within 200 metres of her address at 40 Falstaff Avenue. He acknowledged to Dr. Gray that breached those condition on many occasions between July 1 and August 19.

[35] On August 19, Mr. Siad attended 40 Falstaff Avenue and waited outside Ms. Mendez’s apartment. When she left the apartment at 10:00 pm, he forced her back inside and held her there for over three hours. He became enraged while confining her and headbutted her in the face, then squeezed her face between his hands. Ms. Mendez managed to call a friend who came to the apartment and helped her to leave. Ms. Mendez called police, and they found Mr. Siad in her apartment hiding under the bed.

[36] Mr. Siad pleaded guilty to assaulting Ms. Mendez with a weapon on July 1 and forcibly confining her on August 19. He personally admitted the facts with respect to both charges.

[37] Mr. Siad gave a very different account of the facts when interviewed by Dr. Gray. He told Dr. Gray that Ms. Mendez entered his apartment on July 1 without permission and angrily confronted him with her suspicion that he was involved with another woman. She repeatedly banged her own head against a wall causing a bleeding wound on her forehead. She then ran down the hall claiming that he had head-butted her. He denied having hit Ms. Mendez with any item or having punched her. He only pleaded guilty “to get it over with”.

[38] Mr. Siad told Dr. Gray that on August 19, he was drunk and had taken Xanax and Percocet throughout the day. He went to Ms. Mendez’s apartment that evening despite a friend's advice to stay away. She allowed him into her apartment but soon started hitting him. She wrapped a mug inside of a blanket and struck him many times with it. He admitted that he did hit her once but only in self defence. He denied confining her in the apartment, head butting her, or squeezing her face.

[39] Mr. Siad was sentenced to six months incarceration less credit for his pretrial custody. He was placed on probation with a term to have no contact with Ms. Mendez or be within 500 metres of her.

FTC Probation - December 28, 2020

[40] Mr. Siad was granted statutory release in early December. On December 28, one of Ms. Mendez’s neighbours called police to report concerns for her safety. Police attended and found Mr. Siad in Ms. Mendez’s apartment, contrary to the no-contact provision of his probation order. He was arrested and released on bail.

Assault Bodily Harm, FTC Recognizance, FTC Probation - January 20, 2021

[41] Three weeks after being released on a recognizance which required him to have no contact with Ms. Mendez and while being bound by a probation order to have no contact with Ms. Mendez, surveillance video at 40 Falstaff Avenue showed Mr. Siad dragging Maria Mendez into an elevator. He pushed her to the floor then placed his hands on each side of her face. He squeezed her face and then slapped it. He then stood up and kicked her in the head. Ms. Mendez slumped over onto the floor of the elevator, apparently unconscious. Mr. Siad then stomped on her head four times.

[42] Mr. Siad then leaned over Ms. Mendez and started to lift her up by the shirt. The elevator door opened, and he dragged her out. Three unknown males were waiting to board the elevator and one of them apparently pushed Mr. Siad back into the elevator. He turned in rage towards the victim, kicked her in the head two more times, and then pushed her body back into the elevator with his foot. Ms. Mendez involuntarily clung to one of Mr. Siad’s legs. He freed himself by grabbing her head and hurling her backwards into the elevator.

[43] Mr. Siad explained these events to Dr. Gray by saying that Ms. Mendez "showed up at my doorstep drunk". He was alone in the apartment, and she let herself in. He told her he did not want to see her. Ms. Mendez saw a message on his phone from another woman and she became enraged. She cut him with an unidentified object on the back of his left hand. According to Mr. Siad, this cut was so deep he could not feel his fingers. He said she was also grabbing him and not letting him leave. He was trying to get away and when he got to the elevator, she spat at him or kicked him in the testicles. This made him furious. He pushed her into the elevator and assaulted her. At the time of these events, he was drunk and high on Xanax.

[44] Mr. Siad pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm before me on March 2, 2022. I released him after the guilty plea for 90 days to attend for rehabilitative treatment. Prior to granting the bail, I said the following to him:

Mr. Siad, you're getting a chance to prove yourself. You have failed many, many, many times in the past when a Court released you, Mr. Siad, and I can't tell you how aware I am of that and how odd it is to be releasing you yet again, but I have faith in your father and I have a great deal of faith in this plan that your lawyer has put together for you. But let me put it to you in the strongest possible terms: I'm your sentencing judge. I will decide your sentence in this case no matter what, and through the very good work of your lawyer, and frankly the goodness of the Crown Attorney, you are being given one very valuable chance to prove yourself. If you do prove yourself by abiding by all of these conditions and doing exactly what is expected of you, you will have taken a very important step forward in the eyes of the judge who's going to pass sentence on you. If you screw this up, you will be doing exactly the opposite. You will be proving to me that there is seemingly no way that you are capable of observing conditions, and you can anticipate what kind of a problem that would give me as a sentencing judge. You understand me, sir?

THE ACCUSED: Yes, I understand.

[45] Mr. Siad surrendered as required at the completion of the 90-day intake process and appeared before the court on June 24. His counsel filed letters from St. Michael’s Homes which provided a glowing account of Mr. Siad’s progress at their facility. The letters stated that he was a very enthusiastic participant in the program and was an excellent candidate for further therapy at the Matt Talbot Recovery Centre. Relying on the veracity of these letters, Crown counsel again consented to Mr. Siad’s release. I said the following to Mr. Siad in granting bail:

…but if you screw up on this bail, I am the judge that is going to sentence you. I know I said this to you before, I will say it to you again: if you step outside this bail by one letter, I am going to know about it and it is going to have significant consequences for you. Okay? So, as long as you stay in touch with Mr. Heath, as long as you abide by the conditions of the bail, as long as you continue to pursue your own rehabilitation in a good faith way, you are helping yourself tremendously. But if you do not, if you screw up even once, Mr. Siad, you are going to be back into custody and the gloves are off. Okay?

MR. SIAD: Thanks so much, Your Honour. I understand how very serious this is. I don’t wanna -- I don’t wanna mess up.

Assault, FTC Recognizance x 5, FTC Probation x 3 - November 28, 2022

[46] On November 28, Mr. Siad left the Matt Talbot Home in the company of a fellow patient named Serge Griffiths. They went to a basement apartment on Berkeley Street which they had rented for the night. They began to drink and take drugs. Maria Mendez joined them.

[47] A civilian witness who was occupying the apartment above Mr. Siad was awakened later that night by the sounds of screaming and yelling. He went outside and looked into the basement apartment through a window. He saw Mr. Siad and Ms. Mendez in a violent physical conflict. He quickly recognized that Mr. Siad was much larger than Ms. Mendez. He had one hand on her chest and the other on her neck. They struggled for approximately a minute before Mr. Siad pressed her up against a wall with his hand on her neck. The witness believed that Ms. Mendez was being strangled and called 911.

[48] A firefighter who attended the scene saw Mr. Siad and Ms. Mendez. They both had blood on their chests and faces. Mr. Siad also had blood on his hands. Ms. Mendez was unclothed from the waist up. Her torn bra was later found in the apartment. She was clearly distraught but refused to cooperate with police.

[49] Mr. Siad was tried on charges of choking and numerous counts of failure to comply before Justice Band in the Ontario Court of Justice. He was narrowly acquitted of choking but convicted of the included offence of assault, three counts of failure to comply with probation and five counts of failure to comply with bail. Ms. Mendez was not called as a witness.

[50] Mr. Siad did not testify at his trial but did discuss the evidence with Dr. Gray. He admitted that he and Mr. Griffiths had rented the apartment but denied that he had called Ms. Mendez to join them. Mr. Siad told Dr. Gray that Mr. Griffiths had met Ms. Mendez through him and it was Mr. Griffiths who called Maria Mendez. Mr. Siad acknowledged that he was drinking heavily and taking both Xanax and "Molly" that night. He was surprised and unhappy when Ms. Mendez showed up because he was worried it might result in a breach of his bail. He recalled that he got into a fight with Mr. Griffiths but could not remember what the fight was about. Ms. Mendez intervened in the fight, and it was at that time that police arrived. Mr. Siad denied assaulting Ms. Mendez or putting his hands on her throat. He also initially denied that he had dragged Ms. Mendez down the front stairs of the building. When confronted with the testimony of the independent witness, he allowed that he might have tried to guide her away from the front door because she was not dressed for the weather. After some reflection, Mr. Siad said "I should've left when she came".

Previous Attempts at Rehabilitative Treatment

[51] Mr. Siad was admitted to Humber River Hospital on October 8, 2019, after becoming drunk and destroying items in the family home. His urine tested positive for oxycodone, cocaine, and THC. He was held under the Mental Health Act. When speaking to doctors at the hospital, he denied any addiction apart from alcohol and declined recommended psychotherapy.

[52] Mr. Siad was required by the terms of his probation to attend an addiction treatment program offered by the YMCA in 2019. The probation officer’s notes indicate that he missed many sessions of the program, but she ultimately wrote in her closing report that he was “successful” in completing it.

[53] The next occasion when Mr. Siad received treatment was when he was released in March 2022 to attend for a 90-day assessment at St. Michael’s Hospital (hereinafter “SMH”). Mr. Siad was released on March 7 and entered a withdrawal management centre for three days. When he arrived at SMH on March 10 to commence his inpatient treatment, his urine tested positive for THC. Mr. Siad went on to routinely consume marijuana during the 90-day program even though the terms of his bail prohibited him from using any non-medically prescribed drug and the program at SMH was “abstinence based”. When confronted by staff about his drug use, he explained that he smoked marijuana because he felt bored and trapped.

[54] Despite Mr. Siad’s breaches of bail and the rules of the treatment program, his caseworker wrote a letter to the court stating that Mr. Siad had maintained sobriety throughout his time in the program and now demonstrated a balanced lifestyle with healthy daily routines. The letter did not mention Mr. Siad’s substance use while at the facility. Relying on this letter, the Crown and defence jointly recommended a further release for an indefinite period so that Mr. Siad could attend for residential drug treatment therapy at the Max Talbot Home. I granted him bail with the same conditions prohibiting the possession or use of alcohol or drugs.

[55] Mr. Siad’s time at the Matt Talbot House presents a microcosm of his unwillingness or inability to follow through with treatment. Matt Talbot House is an abstinence-based community drug treatment program which is designed to assist people who are motivated to address their substance abuse problems. The program depends upon voluntary engagement in the programs which are offered. Mr. Siad had been telling judges, lawyers, and probation officers since he was 19 years old that he had a serious addiction to alcohol, and if he did not get it under control, his life would be ruined. He knew that he had been released for the sole purpose of receiving addiction therapy treatment which was not available in any detention centre. He knew that any breach of his bail would not only result in his detention but could trigger a dangerous offender application. His performance in the program must be viewed in that light.

[56] Mr. Siad entered Matt Talbot Home on June 27. A urine sample taken on July 4 was positive for THC. He continued to use marijuana in the following weeks and tested positive again on August 30. He admitted on September 2 and 12 that he had been drinking alcohol. On September 20, he was obviously intoxicated. Despite unmistakable evidence that Mr. Siad was not abiding by the terms of his bail or the core principles of the rehabilitation program, his caseworker wrote a letter addressed to the court reporting that Mr. Siad was actively engaged in all aspects of his treatment and was learning to manage the symptoms of his addiction. This letter did not mention Mr. Siad’s ongoing use of substances.

[57] On September 23, Mr. Siad attended court and his bail was extended in reliance on his caseworker’s report of excellent progress. The caseworker attended the court appearance and wrote in his case notes “the judge overseeing client’s case stated that the client has been doing well in the program”. Three days later, Mr. Siad attended for a screening assessment and was obviously intoxicated. A group facilitator noted that he was in total denial of his problems.

[58] Mr. Siad was again obviously intoxicated on September 30 and admitted to his caseworker that he had been consuming alcohol since 4:00 a.m. When the caseworker confronted him about the increasing frequency of his drinking, Mr. Siad replied that he could stop drinking at any time. On October 3, he again tested positive for alcohol.

[59] Mr. Siad's caseworker had prescribed psychotherapy when Mr. Siad arrived at the facility. Mr. Siad attended for the first appointment but never attended again. The psychotherapist attempted to reach him on many occasions, but her calls went unanswered. When she finally reached Mr. Siad on November 4, he asked if he could restart the program in January.

[60] Mr. Siad admitted to Dr. Gray that he resumed contact with Ms. Mendez shortly after entering the Matt Talbot program. The notes of his worker indicate that Mr. Siad’s neighbours frequently complained of loud noise coming from his room at night. The evidence does not determinatively establish the cause of the noise, but it seems likely that Mr. Siad was arguing with Ms. Mendez. He told a therapist on November 4 that his girlfriend had blocked him on all social media, and this distressed him. The therapist was either unaware or unconcerned about the fact that Mr. Siad was attempting to contact Ms. Mendez and did not report the conversation to anyone. Mr. Siad cancelled his next appointment which was scheduled for November 27 and the final assault on Ms. Mendez occurred on November 28.

[61] Mr. Siad admitted to Dr. Gray that he used alcohol and other drugs almost continually in the six weeks preceding that assault. He blamed the relapse on Ms. Mendez. According to Mr. Siad, Ms. Mendez had found out that he was staying at Matt Talbot House and came there to extort money from him. She threatened to call police and report that he was breaching his bail by having contact with her. It was the stress of these threats which caused him to relapse.

The Psychiatric Evidence

Diagnoses

[62] Mr. Siad was referred to see Dr. Tanya Hauck, a psychiatrist at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) in September 2022. Mr. Siad told Dr. Hauck that he had been sent to Africa as a child and had been shot and stabbed “as a teenager”. Dr. Hauck found that Mr. Siad showed severe symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”). Dr. Gray reviewed the evidence and concluded that there was insufficient evidence to confirm this diagnosis. He also specifically disagreed with some aspects of Dr. Hauck’s findings. In his interviews with Dr. Gray, Mr. Siad did not report any behaviour which would suggest that he was avoiding triggering memories of past traumatic experiences. Rather, he spoke freely about his past experiences without showing any sign of anxiety or emotion as would commonly be seen in those suffering PTSD. Dr. Gray further noted that Dr. Hauck cited Mr. Siad’s use of alcohol and substances as evidence of avoidance symptoms. In his interviews with Dr. Gray, Mr. Siad attributed his drug use to boredom or recent stressors, not past traumatic events.

[63] Dr. Gray did find that Mr. Siad meets seven of the eleven criteria of alcohol use disorder, and his condition is therefore described as “severe”.

[64] Dr. Gray did not find sufficient evidence to make a diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder. There is abundant evidence that his adult behaviour meets the criteria for the diagnosis including impulsivity, failure to meet responsibilities, aggressive behaviour, lack of empathy for others and deceit. There is very little evidence, however, of Mr. Siad’s behavioural history prior to the age of 15. Without collateral information from his parents or early school records, Dr. Gray concluded that there is insufficient evidence to make the diagnosis.

Risk Assessment

[65] Dr. Gray scored Mr. Siad at 24 on the PCL-R which is slightly above average for incarcerated North American offenders. The score is well below 30 which is the cut-off to diagnosis psychopathy. A score of 24 does, however, reflect the presence of psychopathic traits which can pose challenges to successful treatment.

[66] Mr. Siad received a score of +28 on the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide - Revised (“VRAG-R”). This places him in the highest of nine ascending risk categories. Seventy-six percent of offenders with similar scores have re-offended violently within five years of being released into the community and 90% have re-offended violently within fifteen years. Dr. Gray cautions that the VRAG-R does not provide information regarding the imminence, type, or severity of the reoffending behaviour. In cross-examination, he indicated that predicting the most likely type of reoffending behaviour demands a clinical judgment which considers the offence cycle of the subject. In the case of Mr. Siad, all his most recent offences have victimized vulnerable women.

The Designation Stage

[67] The Crown primarily relies on section 753(1)(a)(i) of the Code in submitted that Mr. Siad should be designated as a dangerous offender. That section reads as follows:

753 (1) … 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

[68] Mr. White conceded that the index offence is a serious personal injury offence. Mr. Siad’s attack on Ms. Mendez was obviously violent and he is subject to a maximum term of imprisonment of 14 years because of his previous convictions for violent offences against members of his family and Ms. Mendez: see sections 718.2(a)(ii) and 718.3(8)(c) of the Code.

[69] In interpreting section 753(1), I am guided by the following principles:

• An offender cannot be designated as dangerous unless the court is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that he is a future threat to reoffend in a manner which endangers the public. The assessment of the risk at the designation stage must be prospective: R. v. Boutilier, 2017 SCC 64, at paras. 23 and 36.
• To designate an offender as a dangerous offender, the court must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the offender poses a high likelihood of harmful recidivism, and his conduct is intractable: Boutilier at para. 27.
• In deciding whether the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the offender will continue to be “a real and present danger”, the sentencing judge must consider all retrospective and prospective evidence relating to the continuing nature of the risk including future treatment prospects: Boutilier at para. 43.

Pattern of Repetitive Behaviour

[70] Mr. Siad has been convicted of assaulting either a member of his family or Ms. Mendez on eight occasions between September 2015 and November 2022. The similarities between the offences include the following:

(a) The victims were all vulnerable. Mr. Siad admitted to Dr. Gray that he was bigger than his father when he assaulted him in 2015, and the last seven offences were committed against women.

(b) The assaults invariably endangered the victims. Mr. Siad frequently punched, kicked, head butted and choked his victims. He stabbed his sister Sudi in the back. He beat Ms. Mendez with a cord on one occasion, repeatedly stomped on her head in another, and was observed pressing her up against a wall with his hand on her neck during the final assault.

(c) All the assaults occurred while Mr. Siad was intoxicated by alcohol or a combination of alcohol and drugs.

(d) All the assaults have been impulsive and the product of uncontrolled rage. There is very little evidence Mr. Siad uses violence as an instrument to obtain other goals (as would be the case, for example, in a robbery). He instead becomes involved in arguments regarding inconsequential matters and then explodes in a violent rage when he perceives a wrong or slight from the victim.

[71] The index offence clearly falls within this pattern. Ms. Mendez is much smaller than Mr. Siad and she apparently lost consciousness after he kicked her in the head. The attack continued with numerous kicks to the head even though Ms. Mendez was obviously defenceless. Mr. Siad admitted to Dr. Gray that he was heavily intoxicated at the time of the index offence, and it is apparent from watching the video of the offence that he was in an uncontrolled rage.

[72] In my view, there is overwhelming evidence of repetitive behaviour.

The Failure to Restrain Behaviour

[73] There is also clear evidence that Mr. Siad is unable to restrain his behaviour. This evidence is best considered chronologically.

(a) His first offences were committed against family members between 2015 and 2017. These offences resulted in probation conditions which prohibited him from having contact with his family. Although he frequently disobeyed these orders, they did result in periods of homelessness. He continued to drink and commit dangerous assaults against family members despite these consequences.

(b) Mr. Siad has recognized since at least 2016 that alcohol and drugs were causing him to be violent and could destroy his life. He was briefly hospitalized under the Mental Health Act in 2019 due to his behaviour while on drugs and alcohol. He repeatedly acknowledged his addictions in sentencing submissions and expressed his determination to obtain treatment. He was presented with numerous opportunities to follow through on those promises and he never made any meaningful effort to do so.

(c) On July 1, 2020, Mr. Siad was charged with beating Ms. Mendez with a cord. He was released on condition that he have no contact with her. He immediately resumed contact and on August 19, forcibly confined her. He pleaded guilty to those offences and was sentenced to six months incarceration. Immediately after completing his sentence, he resumed contact. He was arrested for breaching his probation on December 28 and released with a “no contact” provision. Three weeks later, Mr. Siad committed the index offence by beating Ms. Mendez into unconsciousness. He committed this offence even though there were witnesses on the elevator and he knew that he was being videotaped. (Mr. Siad pulled his hoodie up over his head midway through the assault so that his face would not be visible on camera.) Even when he knew he was being recorded, Mr. Siad was unable to restrain his behaviour.

(d) In March 2022, Mr. Siad was granted bail to obtain treatment for his drug and alcohol addictions. He was expressly told by the court that the Crown was contemplating a dangerous offender application and if the application was granted, it could result in a sentence of indeterminate detention. Mr. Siad indicated that he understood the gravity of his situation and expressed his determination to abide by the terms of his bail. He resumed his drug use almost immediately after his release, re-established contact with Ms. Mendez, and ultimately committed another serious assault against her. This offence was also committed in the presence of a witness and while he was subject to GPS monitoring.

[74] This history demonstrates that Mr. Siad’s impulses to act violently override any fear of the legal consequences of his actions. He has not been deterred by any court order or even the prospect of indeterminate incarceration. It is clear that he cannot stop drinking and once intoxicated, he is incapable of restraining his violent behaviour. I am satisfied beyond any reasonable doubt that Mr. Siad will fail to restrain his behaviour in the future absent significant rehabilitative treatment.

Likelihood of Causing Death or Injury or Inflicting Severe Psychological Damage

[75] Most of Mr. Siad’s previous offences have resulted in injury and were capable of inflicting severe psychological damage. The evidence of injury would likely be much greater if Ms. Mendez had ever been willing to cooperate with police, but this ground can readily be established through police observations of her injuries and the reasonable inferences which can be drawn from the facts of the assaults. I find that this element of section 753(1)(a)(ii) is made out by the following facts:

(a) Mr Siad assaulted his sister Samira in 2016 by punching her in the face, putting her into a chokehold and kicking her in the head. She suffered bruises and scratches near her eye. The assault occurred in her own home and at the hands of her brother. There is evidence that this assault caused injuries, and it can be inferred that such an attack would also have psychological consequences.

(b) In May 2017, Mr. Siad headbutted his sister Sudi three times and then punched her in the face. Police photographed the resulting injuries. Six months later, he stabbed Sudi twice and police observed two puncture wounds in her back. Such attacks could obviously result in psychological injury to the victim.

(c) In July 2020, Mr. Siad punched and kicked Maria Mendez in the head and then smashed her head against the floor. He beat her with a cord as she tried to escape. Police observed that Ms. Mendez had injuries to both cheeks, a laceration on her left eyebrow and bruising to both arms.

(d) One month later, Mr. Siad ambushed Ms. Mendez and forcibly confined her for three hours. During that time, he headbutted her and squeezed her face with his hands. There is a significant likelihood that Ms. Mendez would suffer severe psychological damage from being accosted leaving her home, forcibly confined in a location where she was unlikely to receive assistance and beaten by a man who was much larger than she was.

(e) Two months after having forcibly confined Ms. Mendez, Mr. Siad beat her to unconsciousness. Mr. Siad persisted in the attack even after witnesses attempted to intercede. It can be inferred from the severity of the beating, the proximity to the most recent beating, and the failure of any court order to restrain Mr. Siad that the victim would suffer psychological damage.

(f) Mr. Siad’s final attack on Ms. Mendez was only interrupted because a civilian called 911. The witness observed Mr. Siad’s hands around her throat and she was covered in blood. There is no direct evidence regarding the extent of her physical injuries, and it can only be inferred that any psychological damage which was caused by his earlier assaults would be exacerbated by this final attack.

(g) Mr. Siad is in the highest of nine ascending risk categories defined by the VRAG-R. Ninety percent of offenders in this category will re-offend violently within fifteen years of release.

[76] There has been a significant escalation in the level of violence demonstrated by Mr. Siad since his first offence in 2015. Based on that escalation, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Siad will at least cause injury to another person if he is permitted to return to the community without effective treatment. I believe that there is a high likelihood that he will also inflict psychological damage on future victims but in the absence of any evidence from Ms. Mendez, I cannot be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that this would result in severe psychological damage. There is no established likelihood that Mr. Siad will cause death to any person.

Intractability

[77] The Crown is obliged to prove that Mr. Siad’s conduct is “intractable”, meaning behaviour that he is unable to surmount. I find that Mr. Siad’s conduct is intractable based on the following evidence:

(a) Mr. Siad has been ordered to participate in treatment for substance abuse and anger management on innumerable occasions since his first offence in 2015. He failed to participate in a meaningful way in any of those opportunities. Even when he was facing the prospect of a dangerous offender application, he almost immediately resumed using drugs which precipitated a further violent offence. It is beyond his capacity to control his urges.

(b) Mr. Siad had the benefit of in-patient drug and behavioural rehabilitative treatment from March - November 2022. Judging by the offence which he committed while still a patient in that program, it is evident that he received no benefit from the treatment.

(c) Mr. Siad has relatively high PCL-R score of 24. This indicates that he has inherent psychopathic characteristics which will make it difficult for him to benefit from treatment.

(d) Consistent with his high PCL-R score, Mr. Siad has absolutely no empathy for his victims. He invariably minimizes or denies his offences and frequently claims that his victims have fabricated injuries to corroborate their false allegations against him. Mr. Siad’s lack of insight into his offending behaviour and inability to recognize the harm which he has done both present significant impediments to future treatment.

(e) Dr. Gray noted that Mr. Siad engaged in impression management throughout their interviews. Mr. Siad is consistently described in court transcripts as intelligent, polite, and highly motivated. These superficial characteristics are deceptive and have led innumerable probation officers, lawyers, therapists, caseworkers and judges to have a mistaken impression of Mr. Siad’s rehabilitative prospects. His capacity for impression management presents a significant obstacle to successful treatment. Treatment and management of an offender in the community invariably depends upon the offender’s account of his own activities. Mr. Siad has demonstrated that he is a deceptive and unreliable correspondent.

(f) Mr. Siad has rarely if ever faced immediate consequences for his failure to abide by his legal responsibilities. His innumerable failures to report to probation officers have gone unpunished; he has been released and re-released on bail even after having been arrested for flagrant breaches; and his caseworkers at both SMH and Matt Talbot misled the court regarding his use of illicit substances for reasons which simply cannot be fathomed.

[78] Mr. Siad cannot govern his own behaviour. Absent immediate and consequential repercussions for any breach of binding conditions, he will relapse into drug use and eventually commit further violent offences. His condition is intractable.

Conclusion Regarding the Designation Stage

[79] I have reviewed the pattern of Mr. Siad’s past violent behaviour, his historical inability to restrain his behaviour, the physical effects of his offences on others, and his inability to control his behaviour by his own means. Although this examination has necessarily been focused on his past behaviour, it has been undertaken with a view to assessing his future risk. To designate Mr. Siad as a dangerous offender, I must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt based on all these considerations that he constitutes a future threat to the life, safety, physical or mental well-being of other persons.

[80] I am so satisfied. Mr. Siad’s pattern of violent behaviour over a seven-year period has been unbroken. His offences have been dangerous, and they are becoming more dangerous. He has no capacity to control his behaviour even in the face of the direst potential consequences and, given the escalating violence of his offences, it is highly likely his future offences will cause even greater injury. Based on these findings, I am required pursuant to section 753(1) of the Criminal Code to designate him as a dangerous offender.

The Penalty Stage

[81] Section 753(4) of the Code provides three options for sentencing an offender who has been designated to be a dangerous offender:

(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.

[82] Section 753(4.1) provides guidance regarding the application of section 753(4):

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

[83] If the court is satisfied that a conventional sentence (including potentially probation) will adequately protect the public from the commission of a further serious personal injury offence, the court must impose that sentence. If a conventional sentence would not provide the necessary protection, it must consider whether a conventional sentence of at least two years followed by a long-term supervision order that does not exceed ten years will adequately protect the public. If so, that sentence must be imposed. It is only after these sentencing options have been carefully considered and rejected that a court must impose an indeterminate sentence: see Boutilier, at para. 70.

[84] The court in Boutilier stressed that section 753(4.1) does not create a presumption that indeterminate detention is the appropriate sentence. There must, however, be evidence that offender can be safely released into the community before imposing a conventional sentence: Boutilier at para. 76. The sentencing judge must conduct a thorough examination of all the evidence including evidence of the manageability and treatability of the offender’s behaviour to determine whether there is a reasonable expectation that a lesser measure will adequately protect the public.

Evidence of Treatability

[85] After a thorough review of past attempts to treat Mr. Siad’s underlying risk factors, Dr. Gray concluded the previous treatments were not adequate to address his needs. Dr. Gray observed that Mr. Siad has strong antisocial traits, little internal motivation and a substantial history of violence. The treatments which he has received in the past were simply not geared to a patient facing these types of difficulties. Mr. Siad was offered many appointments with addictions counsellors in the community but rarely followed through. He was offered a significant amount of programming at SMH and Matt Talbot House which were specific to his risk factors. Mr. Siad lacked the motivation to engage in the available treatment.

[86] Mr. Siad was unfortunately permitted to breach his bail conditions without consequence when he was at SMH and Matt Talbot House. These were community-based treatment facilities which relied upon patients who were self-motivated to address their addiction issues. Mr. Siad was not motivated to control his addictions. His only object was to avoid going back to jail and that ultimately proved to be insufficient.

[87] Dr. Gray concluded that if Mr. Siad was offered treatment in a restricted environment where he had little access to substances and the consequences of relapse were immediate, he would be more likely to succeed. He requires intensive, long-term treatment in an environment that responds immediately and decisively when issues arise. It cannot be said at this point that he has failed treatment which is appropriate to his level of risk and needs.

[88] Dr. Gray made the following treatment recommendations:

(a) Mr. Siad undertake the Integrated Correctional Program Model (ICPM) offered by Correctional Services of Canada (CSC) which involves numerous hours of group therapy and supplemental individual work with specialized therapists. The ICPM program addresses substance abuse, family violence, and anger management.

(b) Mr. Siad should also receive cognitive skills programming to address his significant antisocial attitudes and poor decision making.

(c) Dialectal behaviour therapy (DBT) may be advisable to address his impulsivity and issues relating to past traumatic events.

(d) Mr. Siad should not be released directly into the community but rather begin reintegration in a community correctional centre. Mr. Siad has previously been homeless after attacking members of his family and the lack of stability increases the likelihood of a drug and alcohol relapse. Living in a correctional centre will allow for closer monitoring of signs of a relapse and provide oversight if he develops new romantic relationships.

(e) Mr. Siad should be required to meet with a parole officer on at least a weekly basis and subject to frequent random drug testing. If he does test positive for drugs or alcohol, the consequences (including reincarceration) should be immediate. Mr. Siad has in past taken advantage of lax enforcement of rules and this has negated any realistic chance of successful treatment.

Programs Available at Provincial Institutions

[89] Ms. Jessie Paterson is a probation officer with the Ontario Ministry of the Solicitor General. She provided the court with an overview of institutional resources which are available for dangerous offenders serving provincial sentences.

[90] Ms. Paterson testified that the Ministry offers core programing to address criminogenic behaviours. Core programming is available for all provincial offenders on a strictly voluntary basis. The programing consists of 5-6 weeks of group activity at the rate of one session per week. Each session includes 90 minutes of group therapy.

[91] The only institution in Ontario which provides intensive rehabilitative training for domestic violence is the Algoma Treatment and Remand Centre. Offenders must apply to the Algoma program and beds are in very high demand. A judicial recommendation that an offender be considered for the program will be considered but is far from determinative in deciding whether he will be admitted. Offenders must be highly motivated to participate. If an inmate is admitted and later decides that he does not want to complete the treatment, he will be free to stop. The only potential consequence for failing to complete the program is that the offender may be moved to another institution.

[92] Neither the Integrated Correctional Program Model nor dialectical behaviour therapy are available in any provincial institution.

Programs Available at Federal Institutions

[93] Mr. Jerry Kiers supervises a team of parole officers in St. Catherines. He provided evidence concerning programs which are available from the Correctional Services of Canada and the steps which are taken to supervise long term offenders in the community.

[94] Mr. Kiers confirmed that the ICPM will be available to Mr. Siad if receives a federal sentence. He described ICPM as “the gold standard” for rehabilitative programing within the CSC. The ICPM programs consists of high intensity treatment covering five modules including substance abuse, domestic violence, and cognitive skills. To complete the program, an offender must participate in 87 group sessions of between 2 to 2 ½ hours and at least five further individual sessions for a total of between 184 to 230 hours of treatment. For offenders who have mental health issues, psychologists and psychiatrists are on staff and can provide dialectical behaviour therapy. All the treatment recommended by Dr. Gray is provided in the ICPM model.

[95] Mr. Kiers acknowledged that participation in rehabilitative therapy always depends on the motivation of the offender. Mr. Siad could refuse to participate. If he did, however, it would impact on any application which he might make for parole. The ICPM model includes a sub-module to address offenders who lack motivation and Mr. Kiers testified that once an offender completes the motivational sub-module, it is common to return to the ICPM sessions.

[96] Mr. Kiers also described the supervision which would occur in the community if Mr. Siad is ordered to serve a long-term supervision order. It is the National Parole Board rather than the court which establishes the terms of the LTSO. Those terms are undoubtedly influenced by the offender’s progress in treatment during the custodial phase of the sentence. The Parole Board can require drug and alcohol screening as a term of an LTSO and testing can be as frequent as once every thirty days. The offender may also be required to report any new or developing romantic relationship to his supervisor if he has a history of domestic violence. If there is any breach of the LTSO, the Board can issue a suspension warrant and the offender will be subject to immediate arrest. The supervisor also has the discretion to permit the offender to remain in the community under tightened supervision if he shows insight into the breach and his risk remains manageable.

A Conventional Sentence Served in a Provincial Institution

[97] Mr. White submits that an appropriate global sentence for the index offence and accompanying convictions for failure to comply is four years’ incarceration. Mr. Siad has served 700 days of pretrial custody which is equivalent to 1050 days of time served on the ratio approved in R. v. Summers, 2014 SCC 26. On this basis, Mr. White argues for a provincial sentence in the range of 18 months which could be followed by a term of probation.

[98] With great respect, I cannot accept this submission. Even without consideration of the dangerous offender designation, I find that a four-year sentence for such a vicious offence committed by a repeat domestic offender would not be proportionate. A reformatory sentence would not reflect the gravity of the offence, the history of the offender or the need to protect the public.

[99] Bearing in mind that Mr. Siad has been designated a dangerous offender, I find that a provincial sentence followed by probation would clearly endanger the public. As Ms. Paterson explained, rehabilitative treatment in the provincial correctional system depends entirely on the motivation of the inmate. To receive intensive training at the Algoma Institution, Mr. Siad would have to demonstrate that he is highly motivated to obtain treatment and would then have to maintain that motivation over a 16-week period. His history conclusively demonstrates that he is incapable of sustaining such an effort. I give absolutely no credence to the suggestion that he would abide by the terms of a probation order.

A Conventional Sentence Served in the Penitentiary

[100] I also do not find that a conventional sentenced served in a federal institution would adequately protect the public. While a penitentiary sentence would provide Mr. Siad with the opportunity to receive ICPM treatment, there is no certainty that he would engage in the treatment. Participation remains voluntary and although the failure to engage could delay his parole, it is unlikely that it would cause him to be held until his warrant expiry date. Mr. Siad could go through the motions of engaging in treatment and play out his time before being released on parole. At that point, there would be comparatively little supervision in the community and a significant chance of a drug and alcohol relapse. If that were to occur, it would only be a matter of time before he committed a further violent offence against a vulnerable victim.

[101] Moreover, I am not satisfied that the public would be adequately protected even if Mr. Siad did engage wholeheartedly in treatment. Mr. Siad has a decade-long history of substance abuse and domestic violence. He shows many signs of an anti-social personality disorder. ICPM treatment involves roughly 200 hours of therapy which can be completed in just under two years. Dr. Gray’s opinion concerning the potential efficacy of the treatment was guarded. The doctor observed that Mr. Siad has never received the types of treatment which are necessary for offenders who share his characteristics and for that reason, it cannot be said that he is impervious to treatment. Dr. Gray stressed, however, that treatment itself is only a preliminary step and that Mr. Siad must be gradually reintroduced into the community in circumstances where his behaviour can be monitored closely. It is essential that guidelines remain in place for a significant period and that any breach of those guidelines is quickly addressed in a consequential manner. I agree with that opinion.

Conventional Sentence Followed by LTSO

[102] I find that there is a reasonable expectation that a federal sentence of sufficient length to complete ICPM training followed by long term supervision in the community will adequately protect the public. I would add the following considerations to the opinion expressed in Dr. Gray’s report:

(a) It appears that Mr. Siad continues to have the support of his father and two sisters. His father acted as his surety when he was released on bail and his sisters assisted to translate during those proceedings. Mr. Siad’s father also attended court during the dangerous offender proceedings. Samira Siad spoke to Dr. Gray when he was seeking background information regarding Mr. Siad. She confirmed that her brother had assaulted her in the past but said that she is now on good terms with him and feels that his anger management problems are closely connected to his substance abuse problems.

(b) Mr. Siad’s lack of insight has unfortunately been fostered by the absence of material consequences for his past behaviour. He never received a sentence of more than six months incarceration for his first six violent offences. He was routinely ordered to abide by probation terms but was rarely charged when he failed to report or follow through with recommended treatment. He told Dr. Gray that he was surprised to find out in May 2021 that the Crown was contemplating a dangerous offender application because he felt that his crimes were minor in comparison to the offences committed by others who he had met in jail. Mr. Siad will now understand that his crimes are not minor, and a reoccurrence will almost certainly result in indeterminate detention. Mr. Siad told Dr. Gray “The story of my life is that I never listen to anyone.” A dangerous offender finding is an order that even Mr. Siad is bound to hear.

(c) Although Mr. Siad’s offence history is serious, there is no evidence that he has caused lasting physical injury to anyone. His violent offences are not premeditated and there is no suggestion that they are driven by any sadistic tendency. If he can abstain from drugs and alcohol, it is unlikely that he will commit further violent offences. Although that is obviously a significant hurdle, it is attainable. There is no more reliable means of compelling abstinence than serving sentence in a federal institution. No one pretends that prisons are free of drugs, but the supply is limited and there can be tangible consequences to being caught.

[103] In considering the length of a fit sentence, I am bound by the purpose and principles of sentencing set out in sections 718 to 718.2 of the Criminal Code. Most importantly, the sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.

[104] Assessing the gravity of the index offence is not easy. Mr. Siad is much larger than Ms. Mendez. Justice Band observed in his Reasons for Judgment that Mr. Siad is approximately six foot one and 185 pounds and Ms. Mendez is roughly five foot six and 130 pounds. Mr. Siad repeatedly stomped on Ms. Mendez’s head as she lay unconscious on the floor of the elevator. People have died from less. Ms. Mendez was taken to hospital later that night and walked away on her own volition. Some degree of injury can be inferred from the nature of the attack but in the absence of any confirmation from the victim, I cannot be satisfied that this offence was at the most serious end of the spectrum for assault causing bodily harm.

[105] The Crown submits that the court should impose an 8–10-year global sentence to be followed by a 10-year long-term supervision order. Mr. Siad has served the equivalent of two years and eleven months in pretrial custody. If I were to accede to the Crown’s position, I would impose an additional sentence of 5-7 years.

[106] Defence counsel relies on the case of R. v. Turtle, 2010 ABCA 334. In Turtle, the offender pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm, one count of threatening death, and three counts of failure to comply with probation. The offence occurred in a domestic context and the victim was paraplegic. The accused had 16 prior convictions for assault (two of which were against the same victim) and was subject to probation terms to have no contact with her and not to possess alcohol. The trial judge imposed a 3 ½ years sentence on the assault bodily harm charge and the Alberta Court of Appeal reduced that sentence to 32 months. Mr. White submits that the Turtle decision supports a sentence in a much lower range.

[107] The Ontario Court of Appeal considered similar circumstances in the recent case of R. v. Hope, 2025 ONCA 31. The accused was convicted of assault causing bodily harm, uttering threats, criminal harassment, and failure to comply with both bail and probation. The trial judge imposed a global seven-year sentence which was followed by a ten-year LTSO. The offender had a criminal record which included 20 convictions for offences of violence or threats against his former intimate partners. He had also continued to assault intimate partners after completing rehabilitative programming. The Court of Appeal upheld both the dangerous offender finding and the sentence.

Conclusion

[108] There is no need to repeat the many aggravating factors of the assault causing bodily harm offence. I will note that one factor which is not aggravating is Mr. Siad’s subsequent conviction for assaulting Ms. Mendez in November 2022. That offence postdates the charge before this court and cannot be considered as an aggravating fact. The only mitigating fact is the guilty plea but even that is of modest value given that the offence was captured on video and the plea certainly did not come at the earliest opportunity.

[109] Having considered all the factors, I find that a fit starting point for the assault bodily harm conviction is four years’ incarceration.

[110] I view the failure to comply with bail and probation offences to be at the most serious end of the range for those offences. Mr. Siad assaulted Ms. Mendez with a wire cord on July 1. He was released on bail and immediately resumed contact. On August 19, he forcibly confined her and beat her. When he could not get bail, he pleaded guilty and received probation. Within days of being released on parole, he was arrested in Ms. Mendez’s apartment. He was released again. Three weeks later, he committed the index offence. These breaches did not occur because of intoxication. There was no diminished intent. They demonstrate a sheer refusal to be governed by law.

[111] The conditions which Mr. Siad repeatedly violated were intended to ensure the safety of a vulnerable person. Mr. Siad willfully ignored those conditions and inflicted the very harm that the conditions were intended to prevent. I will impose consecutive sentences of 18 months for each of those two convictions.

[112] The global sentence is seven years. Mr. Siad’s pretrial custody would customarily be credited as just under three years of sentence served. In this case, I do not intend to give the customary credit. Mr. Siad has been designated as a dangerous offender and the principal object of his sentence must be to protect the public. I agree with Dr. Gray that an enforced abstinence from drugs and alcohol will play an important part in Mr. Siad benefiting from ICPM treatment and that is only likely to occur in a custodial facility. Mr. Siad’s high PCL-R and VRAG-R scores also suggest that his treatment will require time and perhaps repetition. If the custodial portion of the sentence is anything less than five years, I would not be satisfied that there would be a reasonable expectation that the public would be adequately protected, and I would have to impose an indeterminate sentence. In such circumstances, it is in the public and the offender’s best interest that less credit be granted for pretrial custody: see R. v. Spillman, 2018 ONCA 551, paras 42-44. I will grant Mr. Siad two years of credit towards his sentence which reduces the overall sentence from seven years to five years.

[113] I will also impose a seven-year long term supervision order. I adopt Dr. Gray’s recommendations for the terms of the LTSO which appear at pages 45-47 of the assessment report. The only comment that I would add is that any parole officer who is tasked with supervising Mr. Siad should be aware of his capacity to engage in impression management and take appropriate steps to guard against it. When sober, Mr. Siad presents as an agreeable, intelligent man who is genuinely devoted to reforming his behaviour. He can be very convincing. The only reliable indicator of his future behaviour is his VRAG-R score and anyone who works with him should keep that firmly in mind.

[114] The sentence will be as follows:

• Assault Bodily Harm: 4 years less 2 years credit based on 700 days of pretrial custody
• FTC Recognizance: 18 months consecutive
• FTC Probation: 18 months consecutive

Thus, the sentence beginning February 25, 2025, is five years’ incarceration to be followed by a Long Term Supervision Order of seven years.

Ancillary Orders

[115] There will be an Order pursuant to section 487.051 of the code requiring Mr. Siad to provide a suitable sample of his DNA to be included on the National DNA databank. Assault causing bodily harm is a primary designated offence.

[116] There will also be a section 109 Order for life arising from the conviction for assault causing bodily harm and previous convictions for assault and assault with a weapon.

[117] There will be an Order pursuant to section 760 that copies of all reports, trial testimony and this ruling be disclosed to the Correctional Service of Canada.

[118] There will finally be an Order pursuant to section 743.21 prohibiting Mr. Siad from having any contact with Maria Mendez during the custodial portion of his sentence.

Justice Peter Bawden
Released: 25 February 2025