His Majesty the King v. Mohamed Osman Daoud, 2026 ONSC 3893

CITATION: R. v. Daoud, 2026 ONSC 3893

COURT FILE NO.: CR-22-211

DATE: 2026-07-03

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

– and –

Mohamed Osman Daoud

Renee Mahoney, for the Crown

Marianne Salih, for Mr. Daoud

HEARD: March 2, 4, 5, 9, & 10, April 24 and May 22, 2026

REASONS FOR DECISION – DANGEROUS OFFENDER APPLICATION

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

CoATS J.

I. INTRODUCTION

1Mr. Mohamed Osman Daoud (“Mr. Daoud”) on February 29, 2024, was found guilty by a jury of the following offences (using the count numbers from the Indictment):

1. THAT between the 1st day of September in the year 2018 and the 1st day of August in the year 2020, both dates inclusive, at the Town of OAKVILLE in the said Region, and or elsewhere in the Province of Ontario, did procure T.W. by means of exercising control, direction or influence over the movements of T.W., a person who offers or provides sexual services for consideration, contrary to Section 286.3(1) of the Criminal Code

2. AND FURTHER THAT between the 1st day of September in the year 2018 and the 1st day of August in the year 2020 both dates inclusive, at the Town of OAKVILLE in the said Region, and or elsewhere in the Province of Ontario, did unlawfully recruit, exercise control, direction or influence over the movements of T.W. for the purpose of exploiting or facilitating exploitation of T.W., contrary to Section 279.01(1) of the Criminal Code

3. AND FURTHER THAT between the 1st day of September in the year 2018 and the 1st day of August in the year 2020, both dates inclusive, at the Town of OAKVILLE in the said Region, and or elsewhere in the Province of Ontario, did unlawfully receive a financial benefit, to wit: a sum of money from T.W., knowing that it resulted from the commission of an offence under subsection 279.01 of the Criminal Code, contrary to Section 279.02 of the Criminal Code

4. AND FURTHER THAT between the 1st day of September in the year 2018 and the 1st day of August in the year 2020, both dates inclusive, at the Town of OAKVILLE in the said Region, and or elsewhere in the Province of Ontario, did unlawfully receive a financial benefit, to wit: a sum of money from T.W. knowing that it resulted from the commission of an offence under subsection 286.1(1) of the Criminal Code, contrary to Section 286.2(1) of the Criminal Code

5. AND FURTHER THAT on or about the 11th day of April in the year 2020 at the City of MISSISSAUGA in the said Region, and or elsewhere in the Province of Ontario, did in committing a sexual assault on T.W. use a weapon to wit: a handgun, contrary to Section 272(1)(a) of the Criminal Code

6. AND FURTHER THAT between the 13th day of June in the year 2020 and the 15th day of June in the year 2020 both dates inclusive at the City of BURLINGTON in the said Region, did commit an assault on T.W., contrary to Section 266 of the Criminal Code.

7. AND FURTHER THAT between the 1st day of June in the year 2020 and the 30th day of September in the year 2020, both dates inclusive at the Town of OAKVILLE in the said Region and or elsewhere in the Province of Ontario, knowing that T.W. is harassed or being reckless as to whether T.W. is harassed did without lawful authority beset or watch the dwelling house of T.W. thereby causing T.W. to reasonably, in all the circumstances, fear for her safety, contrary to Section 264(2)(c) of the Criminal Code

2He was found not guilty by the jury on count number 6 of the indictment (assault with a weapon to wit: a cell phone, contrary to s. 267(a) of the Criminal Code).

3On February 29, 2024, the Crown advised that they would be seeking a dangerous offender designation for Mr. Daoud.

4Dr. Gary Chaimowitz prepared a s. 752.1 assessment report for the purposes of the hearing and testified at the hearing.

5The dangerous offender and sentencing hearing was held in March of 2026, with submissions in April of 2026 and follow-up submissions in May of 2026. I reserved my decision. This is my decision.

II. OVERALL POSITIONS OF THE CROWN AND THE DEFENCE

A. The Crown’s Position

6It is the Crown’s position that Mr. Daoud should be found to be a dangerous offender under ss. 753(1)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Criminal Code. Under s. 753(4)(a), the Crown seeks a sentence in a penitentiary for an indeterminate period.

7In the alternative, if Mr. Daoud is not found to be a dangerous offender, the Crown submits that Mr. Daoud should be designated a long-term offender and that the appropriate sentence would be:

1. An aggregate sentence of 22 years and 6 months, reduced to 18 years and 6 months after a totality assessment; and

2. A 10-year long-term sentence order following the above.

8The Crown’s proposed sentence of 22 years and 6 months is broken down as follows:

i. Human Trafficking – 8 years;

ii. Financial Benefit from Trafficking – 7 years concurrent;

iii. Procuring – 4 years concurrent;

iv. Financial benefit from Sexual Services – stay pursuant to R. v. Kienapple, 1974 CanLII 14 (SCC), [1975] 1 S.C.R. 729;

v. Sexual assault with a weapon – 12 years consecutive;

vi. Assault – 6 months consecutive; and

vii. Criminal Harassment – 2 years consecutive.

B. The Defence’s Position

9The Defence concedes that Mr. Daoud is a long-term offender. The Defence position is that a fit sentence is in the range of 6-8 years, followed by a 5-year long term sentence order.

10From the 6–8-year sentence, the Defence seeks R. v. Summers, 2014 SCC 26 credit for the period between Mr. Daoud’s statutory release on the manslaughter conviction (January 13, 2025) to present.

11The Defence’s proposed sentence is broken down as follows:

i. Sexual assault and trafficking offences – 6-8 years;

ii. Assault – 6 months concurrent;

iii. Harassment – 6 months concurrent; and

iv. Procuring – 2 years concurrent.

III. THE FACTS OF THE PREDICATE OFFENCES

12I will summarize the facts relating to the human trafficking, financial benefit from trafficking, procuring and financial benefit from trafficking together.

13Mr. Daoud and T.W. were in an intimate relationship for nearly two years from September of 2018 to the Summer of 2020.

14When T.W. lost her job, Mr. Daoud suggested she begin to work as an escort out of hotels. She posted and wrote her own ads. She took her own pictures for the ads. She made her own appointments. She testified that she gave all the money she made to Mr. Daoud. He drove her to the hotels. He isolated her. Mr. Daoud supplied her with drugs.

15T.W. testified that Mr. Daoud approved whether she would see a client or not, whether the amount being charged was enough, and sometimes what she would wear and what city or hotel she would provide sexual services at. He set a quota of the amount she had to make each night. He made her work when she was ill or menstruating.

16There was uncontroverted evidence that Mr. Daoud had a gun, at least for part of the relationship.

17In terms of the trafficking and procuring offences, T.W. also testified that Mr. Daoud was physically violent toward her and that he sexually assaulted her with a gun. T.W. also testified as to Mr. Daoud’s harassing conduct directed towards her after they ended their relationship.

18The assault, sexual assault with a gun and harassment were separate charges on the indictment for which Mr. Daoud was convicted. In the jury charge this conduct was also referred to under the control component of trafficking and procuring.

19In terms of the conviction for sexual assault with a gun, T.W. testified that the day after Mr. Daoud acquired a gun, an incident happened. Mr. Daoud had just completed a big drug deal and received $30,000, plus drugs and a firearm. They did ecstasy. Mr. Daoud thought it would be sexy to take videos of the cash, and the gun, with music and T.W. dancing throwing the money. He asked her to take off her thong and bra and they say down on the floor facing each other. Mr. Daoud told T.W. he wanted to train her to not be afraid if someone put a gun to her face. He put the clip in the gun and pulled the chamber back and showed her. Instead of pointing the gun at her face he shoved it in her mouth.

20Mr. Daoud wanted her to re-enact a “blow-job” with the gun. He put the gun in her vagina and pulled the trigger. He jammed the gun in her all the way. Mr. Daoud did not ask her if he could do this.

21With respect to the assault conviction, T.W. testified that after Mr. Daoud had thrown a cellphone at her, she stormed across the room and grabbed his shirt collar. Mr. Daoud threw her to the floor and sat on her. She told him that she could not breathe. He spat on her. His whole weight was on her. He used his arms to push her down.

22With respect to the criminal harassment conviction, T.W. testified that after they ended their relationship, Mr. Daoud stalked her and broke into her mom’s house where she was staying. T.W. testified that Mr. Daoud came especially when her mom was at work and that she had to leave because of his disrupting neighbours and attracting attention. One night he showed up with her friend begging for $20 for gas to get home. He was driving frantically. There was a loud bang and it was her friend at the door. They were on a “drug joy ride”. A neighbour came to Mr. Daoud’s car window and gave him $20 so he would leave. The first time T.W. saw Mr. Daoud after they broke up, he broke into her mom’s house in the middle of the night. The next time his friend was at the door begging her to go to the car to see Mr. Daoud. The third time was when he wanted $20.

IV. VICTIM IMPACT

23T.W. did not provide a victim impact statement. As the Crown pointed out in Volume II of the Crown’s written submissions, she does not need to for the Court to take notice of the profound impact that Mr. Daoud’s actions had on her physically and psychologically.

V. EVIDENCE AT THE S. 753 HEARING

24I will focus on the evidence referred to in counsel’s submissions although I have considered all of the evidence. The evidence I have summarized comes from the oral evidence and documents filed at the hearing.

i.) Mr. Daoud’s Childhood

25Born in 1986, Mr. Daoud had a harrowing start to life. As outlined in multiple records, he arrived in Canada from Sudan in 1989, with his family. While in Sudan, his parents were both professionals; his father in policing and his mother was involved in the law. The family resided in Toronto and then settled in the Niagara area when Mr. Daoud was approximately 11 years old.

26By all accounts, Mr. Daoud had, and continues to have, a loving and supportive family. During the assessment, Mr. Daoud told Dr. Chaimowitz that his parents are the “best parents in the world.”

27From an early age, Mr. Daoud had issues at school. Mr. Daoud and his family widely attribute his early difficulties with behaviour to unmedicated ADHD.

28Mr. Daoud completed grade 9 and some grade 10 having received mostly poor grades. He concluded formal secondary school studies in 2004.

29Mr. Daoud’s siblings are professionals, financially stable and independent.

ii.) Youth Record

30Mr. Daoud has a youth record, acquiring a total of 8 convictions. A summary of his youth record is as follows:

Date of Offence	Date of Conviction	Charges	Sentence
2001-10-16	2002-02-22	(1) Uttering Threats (2) Obstructing a Police Officer	12 months probation
2001-10-16	2003-02-27	(3) Fail to Comply with Recognizance	9 days open custody
2002-04-12	2003-02-28	(4) Robbery (5) Robbery (6) Robbery (7) Break and Enter (8) Attempt Obstruct of a Peace Officer	112 days PSC + 12 months open custody

31The Crown and Defence agree that the police synopsis records for Mr. Daoud’s youth convictions cannot be used as proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the details of those offences.

iii.) Adult Record

32Between 2004 and 2022, including the offences currently before the court, Mr. Daoud’s adult criminal record is as follows:

Date of Offence	Date of Conviction	Charges	Sentence
2004-10-20	2006-03-17	(1) Theft Under $5000 (2) Theft Under $5000 (3) Attempt Theft	6 months custody
2005-12-02	2006-05-03	(4) Failure to Comply with Recognizance (5) Failure to Comply with Recognizance	19 days custody
2013-01-26	2015-04-15	(6) Sexual Assault	2.5 years custody + SOIRA (20 years)
2020-09-10	2022-11-29	(7) Manslaughter	6.5 years custody + 109 weapons prohibition (life)
2020-09-10	2023-04-24	(8) Trafficking a Substance (Cocaine)	1 year custody
2018-2020	2024-02-29	(9) Trafficking a Person (10) Financial or Material Benefit from Trafficking a person (11) Procuring (12) Material Benefit from Sexual Services (13) Sexual Assault with a Weapon (14) Criminal Harassment (15) Assault	TBD

33In regard to the 2015 conviction for sexual assault, Mr. Daoud was charged on January 26, 2013. It involved a penetrative sexual assault of a woman he had met at a party. Following an evening of drinking, the woman and a friend went to bed and were sleeping. At 4:00 a.m., the woman woke up to Mr. Daoud forcefully penetrating her with his penis. The trial judge found that the woman was unconscious and that Mr. Daoud had sex with her while she slept.

34In regard to the manslaughter conviction, on September 10, 2020, Mr. Daoud, along with three other men, attended a Walmart parking lot. Two vehicles attended. The victim arrived at the parking lot at 12:25 p.m. and the 4 suspects, including Mr. Daoud, at 1:30 p.m. The four men arranged to meet the victim under the pretext of buying drugs. They planned to rob him.

35Mr. Daoud was aware that the plan involved using a loaded firearm. He knew the plan was to brandish the gun to force the victim to give up his items.

36Mr. Daoud was not in the vehicle when the victim was shot and killed. Mr. Daoud was in the second car.

37Mr. Daoud pled guilty to manslaughter and was sentenced to six and half years, and then given credit for pre-sentence custody. He was released on his Statutory Release Date of January 13, 2025. From that point he has remained in custody on the charges before this Court.

iv.) Institutional Misconducts

38The following are taken from misconduct reports from various institutions and are relied on by the Crown:

Date of Misconduct	Type	Finding
2006-03-23	Physical Altercation with Another Inmate	Guilty
2006-05-21	Assaulted Inmate	Guilty – Admitted Involvement
2015-09-14	Gross Insult or Gesture Towards Person	Guilty
2015-11-25	Smuggling in Contraband	Guilty – Admitted Involvement
2020-10-05	Gross Insult or Gesture Towards Person	Guilty – Admitted Involvement
2020-11-09	Threaten to Assault a Guard	Guilty – Admitted Involvement
2022-08-06	Tampering with Hatch	Guilty
2022-08-28	Lit Fire in Cell to Cook Food	Guilty – Admitted Involvement
2022-09-26	Tampering with Hatch	Guilty
2022-12-19	Assaulted Inmate	Guilty
2023-06-21	Contraband / Drug Use	Guilty
2023-09-22	Contraband / Drug Use (Cell Phone)	Guilty
2023-09-26	Contraband / Drug Use	Guilty
2023-09-27	Contraband / Drug Use	Guilty
2023-09-29	Contraband / Drug Use	Guilty
2023-12-05	Contraband / Drug Use	Guilty
2024-02-02	Contraband / Drug Use	Guilty
2024-11-18	Contraband / Drug Use	Tested positive for THC on random urinalysis test – Not adjudicated

39The Crown and Defence agree that where a correctional offence was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt at the correctional proceeding, it cannot be used in this dangerous offender proceeding as proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the misconduct.

40There are two categories of correctional misconducts on Mr. Daoud’s record above, and they must be treated differently – those proven beyond a reasonable doubt, which I may consider and those proven on a balance of probabilities, which I may not consider.

41Federal misconducts are proven beyond a reasonable doubt and therefore can be relied on as evidence beyond a reasonable doubt in this case: s. 43(3), Corrections and Conditional Release Act, S.C. 1992, c. 20: s. 48, Commissioners Directive 580: Discipline of inmates. The misconducts from June 21, 2023 onward all occurred in a federal institution and therefore may be considered as part of this process.

42Provincial misconducts prior to 2023 were only proven on a balance of probabilities. From 2023 onward, provincial misconducts were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. All misconducts from March 23, 2006 to December 19, 2022 occurred in a provincial institution and therefore I have not considered them.

v.) Institutional Programming Records

43Mr. Daoud has participated in programming while in custody.

Ministry of the Solicitor General-Program Activity Records

44Mr. Daoud’s records indicate that, as of January 1, 2026, he completed the following programs while incarcerated at Maplehurst Correction Complex (MHCC) and the Toronto South Detention Centre (TSDC):

Course Title	Institution	Date of Completion	Total Commitment
Changing Habits	MHCC	March 1, 2025	1 hour
Thoughts to Action	MHCC	March 1, 2025	1 hour
Anger Management	MHCC	April 1, 2025	1 hour
Substance Use	MHCC	April 1, 2025	1 hour
Managing Stress	MHCC	June 1, 2025	1 hour
Use of Leisure Time	MHCC	June 1, 2025	1 hour
Goal Setting	MHCC	June 1, 2025	1 hour
Problem Solving	MHCC	June 1, 2025	1 hour
Recognizing Healthy Relationships	MHCC	June 1, 2025	1 hour
Supportive Relationships	MHCC	June 1, 2025	1 hour
Planning for Discharge	MHCC	June 1, 2025	1 hour
Looking for Work	MHCC	June 1, 2025	1 hour
Understanding Feelings	MHCC	June 1, 2025	1 hour
Spiritual / Cultural Coursework	MHCC	June 19, 2025 (ongoing)	Unknown
Managing Stress	TSDC	August 25, 2022	Unknown
Building Up (Employment)	TSDC	June 2, 2021 – July 27, 2021	Unknown
Looking for Work	TSDC	April 25, 2015	Unknown

45The completion of some of these programs (delivered by way of booklet) were supported with independent certificates provided by Mr. Daoud.

46It is also understood that, while at TSDC in 2024, Mr. Daoud successfully completed 29 of 30 credits required to achieve his high school diploma.

47In Justice Forestall’s November 29, 2022 reasons for sentence for Mr. Daoud’s manslaughter conviction, it is noted that while in TSDC, Mr. Daoud was studying with an Imam, participated in a creative writing project with the “Forgiveness Project”, and obtained a credit through the Ontario College of Art and Design (OCAD).

48It is further noted in Justice Forestall’s reasons for sentence that a letter from the director of the “Forgiveness Project” indicated that Mr. Daoud exhibited leadership and problem-solving skills during his participation.

49It is unclear whether the credit through OCAD was ever independently verified with a certificate or transcript.

50On the first date of his dangerous offender hearing, Mr. Daoud provided several other “certificates” to the court.

51He received a certificate from the Gospel Echoes Team, School of Correspondence Bible Studies, dated June 23, 2025. This certificate appears to include eight courses.

52Mr. Daoud also provided 25 certificates for studies he has completed through New Life Ministries.

Federal Penitentiaries – Program Activity Records

First Penitentiary Sentence

53Mr. Daoud completed his first penitentiary sentence in 2018.

54Mr. Daoud was identified as having a need for the “In Custody Program Module – Sex Offender Moderate” program.

55When Mr. Daoud entered Federal Custody, the institution identified several risk factors for Mr. Daoud to manage, and target areas for him to work on to manage those risks.

56They were as follows:

a. Risk Factor 1: Thoughts, Attitudes, and Believes Supports Sexual Offending and Risky Sexual Behaviours i. Personal Target to Manage Risk Factor 1: Manage Thinking that Justifies and Supports Sexual Offending and Risky Sexual Behaviours

b. Risk Factor 2: Ineffective ability to recognize and/or address problems i. Personal Target to Manage Risk Factor 2: Solve problems and cope with challenges effectively

c. Risk Factor 3: Relationships with intimate partners are harmful and / or ineffective i. Personal Target to Manage Risk Factor 3: Establish and maintain healthy intimate relationships

d. Risk Factor 4: Poor emotions management i. Personal Target to Manage Risk Factor 4: Use thinking and behavioural skills to manage emotions

e. Risk Factor 5: Relationships with associates, friends, family and others of influence are harmful and ineffective i. Personal Target to Manage Risk Factor 5: Establish and maintain healthy relationships and support

f. Risk Factor 6: Thoughts, attitude, and beliefs justify and support harmful substance abuse i. Manage thinking that justifies and supports substance abuse

57At the beginning of his sentence, Mr. Daoud was identified as “needing some improvement” with respect to every “Risk Factor”.

58However, he refused all “In Custody Program Module – Multi Target Programs” while in the institution.

59He was subsequently approved to complete the “Multi Target Program” while out in the community on parole.

60He participated in the “community program” from January 22, 2018 to February 19, 2018; however his program status is listed as “incomplete” following a parole suspension warrant for a breach of his condition to abstain from drugs.

61He re-entered the program on August 9, 2018, and remained in it until September 14, 2018, when his parole was again suspended following another parole violation for using drugs.

62Upon completion, the institution provided a “Program Performance Final Report”, authored on September 14, 2018.

63It is noted that – when present – he was “always an active participant, adding input to the session discussions. He completed all required exercises with thought and effort while demonstrating skill acquisition relating to community / personal examples”.

64The report finds, however, that he:

“…[a]ppears to be sincere about wanting to make positive long-term changes in his life, however he severely lacks commitment to making those necessary changes to affect change and motivate him to the action stage of change”

65He reported at the end of his sentence that the sexual assault he committed was “a bad one-night stand”. He maintained that the victim consented and said that he was the one who told her to “do what she had to do” and go to the police if she felt violated.

66With respect to social networks and influences, it is noted that on his initial release, he had:

“…[c]onsiderable opportunities to increase his social network, however he still refuses to extinguish his relationship with his past negative associates, and the thrill-seeking lifestyle associated with them.”

67Of the six Risk Factors identified when he entered custody, he made improvement in only one: Poor Emotions Management, which improved a single level to a rating of “moderate”.

68In totality, the report at page 226 concluded:

“Mr. Daoud has not made any progress in any target areas and did not appear to be integrating any of the skills in his “day to day” interactions and activities. He has not progressed toward any number of goals but rather created further obstacles; he failed to use any problem-solving skills to develop a plan of action in order to assist him to remain successful in the community. He did not appear to do any regular self-monitoring or to stop and think in order to manage his emotions and harmful thinking effectively. Mr. Daoud is cognizant of his personal standards, however, does not adhere to them and appears to be living his life otherwise.”

Second Penitentiary Sentence

69When Mr. Daoud entered the federal penitentiary system for the second time in 2022, he initially again refused to participate in all programming.

70This time, he was identified as requiring the “Integrated Correctional Program Model Sex Offender – High Needs” module.

71Ultimately, however, after being convicted of the predicate offences on February 29, 2024, he commenced the program on July 29, 2024, though his statutory release date was January 13, 2025. In order to assist him with completing it, facilitators worked with him “one on one”.

72It is noted in the records that Mr. Daoud participated well and worked well in his groups. His worksheets were completed with effort and detail.

73The institution again identified several risk factors for Mr. Daoud, along with personal targets to manage them:

a. Risk Factor 1: Poor Emotions Management i. Personal target to Manage Risk Factor: Use thinking and behavioural skills to manage emotions

b. Risk Factor 2: Thoughts, attitudes and beliefs justify and supports violence and aggression i. Personal target to Manage Risk Factor: Manage thinking that justifies and supports violence and aggression

c. Risk Factor 3: Thoughts, attitudes, and beliefs justify and support harmful substance abuse i. Personal target to manage risk factor: Manage thinking that justifies and supports substance abuse.

d. Risk Factor 4: Unstructured leisure time, engages in harmful activities, poor means of providing for self and dependents i. Personal target to manage risk factor: Maintain a balanced and productive lifestyle

e. Risk Factor 5: Relationships with associates, friends, family, and others of influence are harmful and/or ineffective i. Personal target to manage risk factor: Establish and maintain healthy relationships and support

f. Risk factor 6: Manage sexual preoccupations / sex drive i. Personal target to manage risk factor: Manage sexual preoccupations / sex drive.

g. Risk Factor 7: Thoughts, attitudes, and beliefs justify and support risky sexual behaviour i. Personal target to manage risk factor: Manage thinking that justifies and supports sexual offender and risk sexual behaviours.

74With programming, Mr. Daoud improved, going from: “needs a lot of improvement” in every “Risk Factor”, to “needs some improvement”.

75The report at page 56 concludes:

He has been referred to the community maintenance program, where he can continue his progress on emotions management, impulsivity, and challenge his expectations related to control and authority.

Mr. Daoud has the ability to use program skills to assist his path to his “good life”, however, his commitment to using the skills in high-risk situations will be the ultimate test.

76The report also notes that “…[h]e will benefit from finding a job he can be proud of as well as completing his high school education, finishing his last semester of graphic design, all of which are part of his goals”.

vi.) Education and Work History

77It was suggested to Dr. Chaimowitz, during cross-examination at this hearing, that Mr. Daoud has worked for significant periods when not incarcerated:

Q. Mr. Daoud himself estimates that he has worked about 70 percent of the time that he has spent in the community?

Dr. Chaimowitz: Okay.

Q. It's in your report.

Dr. Chaimowitz: Yes.

Q. In collecting his history, that seems like a fair estimate. Would that be fair?

Dr. Chaimowitz: Yes. In these varied positions he's held, yes.

78Dr. Chaimowitz’s assessment report is dated June 20, 2025. It was filed as an exhibit at this hearing. In his report, at page 11, Dr. Chaimowitz summarizes the information Mr. Daoud provided to him about his employment:

In terms of Mr. Daoud’s employment, he worked in the hotel with his mother as a cleaner when he was 16 or 17. He maintained this employment for two years, fulltime. He also worked with his mother in Nabisco factory at about the same age for two years.

He also worked in hotels as a bellboy for a year.

Mr. Daoud worked intermittently for KC Auto delivering car parts initially for about a year. The family went to Africa for two years and he returned to Sudan. Upon returning to Canada, he resumed his employment at KC Auto. In 2018, he worked at a pizza shop for about three months until he violated his parole.

In between, Mr. Daoud did the occasional construction work such as drywall, flooring, and so on. During the summers when he returned to Malaysia, he drove a taxi for a company, “Speedy”, which is now “Zoom Zoom”.

Mr. Daoud has been supported by Ontario Works at times but has not been on disability support. He last worked in 2018. He estimated that he has worked about 70% of his time in the community.

79The Crown was able to confirm only one independent source with respect to his work history: employment at KC Auto, that ended – as admitted by Mr. Daoud – when he was fired for being “stoned” on the job.

80Mr. Daoud’s self-reported account of his work history is not entirely consistent:

• The “Education and Employment Information re: Mr. Daoud” authored on February 23, 2017, by Mr. Brian Harbison during his first penitentiary sentence outlines that Mr. Daoud reported: “[h]e was working when arrested. He states he worked for 3 years as a delivery person and at a restaurant.”

• The “Education and Employment Information re: Mr. Daoud” authored on July 13, 2023, by Mr. Derek Nickles during his second penitentiary sentence outlines that Mr. Daoud reported: “[h]e was working at the time of his arrest. He stated employment history is car parts delivery driver (K.C. Auto 2017-20) yet claims six years of employment since leaving school.”

• In his self reported “Education and Work History” document submitted to Joyceville Assessment Unit, Mr. Daoud reported the following:

3. WHAT SIGNIFICANT JOBS HAVE YOU HELD? Start with your most recent job first.

Type of Job	Number of years or months worked
For example – General Labourer	2011-2014
Delivered Car Part – Auto	2016-2017
Pizza Restaurant	2014-2015

81During his April 24, 2023 sentencing before Justice O’Donnell for Possession of a Controlled Substance for the Purpose of Trafficking (Cocaine), Mr. Daoud told the court – at the time of the offences (September 10, 2020) – the following about his work history:

Justice O’Donnell: “Have you been working? What do you do when you…”

Mohamed Daoud: “Um, I seem like, if you want to know the truth, I was working for KC Auto. I deliver car parts, and I have my graphic designing degree in graphic design. I was freelancing for graphic designing. I do billboards, I do, um, I work for a couple of companies, and I fell into a very, very bad cocaine habit due to problems with a girlfriend.”

82During the trial for the predicate offences, T.W. told the court that upon meeting Mr. Daoud in 2018 he was not working:

Q. Okay, now you said you understood he didn’t have a job?

T.W.: Right.

Q. What did you think he was doing for work if anything?

T.W.: I knew at the time that he was on government assistance, on welfare, and I knew that he, his main income was selling crack and cocaine.

83As noted above, Mr. Daoud also presents himself as having nearly completed a “Graphic Design Degree” in Malaysia, and some post secondary schooling in Sudan.

84On November 29, 2022, in her reasons for sentence with respect to Mr. Daoud’s manslaughter conviction, Her Honour noted the following of his accomplishments while in provincial remand:

He has participated in the limited programming available in custody. He has become religiously observant, attending services weekly and meeting with the Imam. He has also received religious reading material from the Imam. Mr. Daoud participated in the "Look Both Ways Creative Writing" program run by the Forgiveness Project and obtained a credit through the Ontario College of Art and Design. He also completed teambuilding activities and workshops on conflict management run by the Forgiveness Project. A letter from the director of the project indicates that Mr. Daoud exhibited leadership and problem-solving skills during his participation. The Forgiveness Project is committed to continuing to work with Mr. Daoud while he serves his sentence and upon his release.

85According to Mr. Daoud’s high school transcripts, he last completed some grade 9 and 10 credits in 2004.

86However, to his credit, it appears that after partaking in the “Amadeusz Program” at Toronto South Detention Centre in 2024, he successfully completed twenty nine of the thirty credits required for a grade 12 diploma.

vii.) The Report of Doctor Gary Chaimowitz

87Pursuant to s. 752.1 of the Criminal Code, Mr. Daoud was assessed for the purpose of this dangerous offender application under s. 753 (or alternatively a long‑term offender designation under s. 753.1).

88The assessment was conducted by Dr. Gary A. Chaimowitz, forensic psychiatrist, and Dr. Mini Mamak, forensic psychologist, following an extended in‑custody evaluation at St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton. The assessment was based on multiple clinical interviews with Mr. Daoud, an extensive collateral records review (police, correctional, court and medical records), collateral interviews and standardized psychological testing, including the use of actuarial risk instruments.

89In Dr. Chaimowitz’s report dated June 20, 2025, he concludes that Mr. Daoud constitutes a threat to the life, safety, physical or mental well-being of others and meets the psychiatric and psychological criteria for designation as a dangerous offender.

90I will briefly summarize Dr. Chaimowitz’s report now and then refer further to his report in my analysis.

a) Section 753(1)(a)(i) – Pattern of Repetitive Behaviour

91Dr. Chaimowitz states in his report that Mr. Daoud has a longstanding and entrenched pattern of repetitive criminal behaviour beginning in adolescence and persisting into adulthood, with escalation in both seriousness and violence.

92Dr. Chaimowitz sets out that Mr. Daoud’s criminal history includes early youth offences for robbery, threats, and assaults; an adult conviction for sexual assault in 2015; a conviction for manslaughter involving a firearm in 2022; and the present convictions involving sex trafficking and sexual assault with a firearm.

93The report at page 59 concludes:

…what is laid out in Mr. Daoud’s history is a pattern of repetitive behaviours for which he has been convicted. In those behaviours, he has demonstrated a failure to restrain his behaviour.

b) Section 753(1)(a)(ii) – Persistent Aggressive Behaviour

94Dr. Chaimowitz concludes at page 60 of the report that Mr. Daoud constitutes a threat to the life, safety, and physical or mental well being of other persons:

The pattern of behaviour that Mr. Daoud demonstrates is persistent and has been aggressive. When one considers the impact on the victims, it would be fair to say that the has shown a substantial degree of indifference with respect to the reasonably foreseeable consequences of his behaviour.

95And further at page 60:

Given his repeated offending, Mr. Daoud, from a psychiatric perspective, shows a significant degree of indifference to the potential effects of his behaviours on his victims.

c) Assessment Instruments

96In assessing Mr. Daoud’s risk of future offending, Dr. Chaimowitz and Dr. Mamak relied on a combination of professional judgment, actuarial risk instruments, and clinical assessment. The assessment included measures addressing general criminal recidivism, violent recidivism, sexual recidivism, psychopathy, dynamic risk, supervision response, cognitive functioning, and response style, such that both static and dynamic factors were evaluated.

d) Psychopathy Checklist–Revised (PCL-R)

97The Psychopathy Checklist–Revised (PCL-R) assesses interpersonal, affective, lifestyle, and antisocial traits associated with violent and persistent offending.

98Mr. Daoud’s total PCL-R score was 24, which does not meet the diagnostic threshold for psychopathy but is consistent with Antisocial Personality Disorder.

99However, while his Factor 1 (interpersonal-affective) traits were not elevated, his Factor 2 (antisocial/lifestyle) traits were elevated, placing him in the 96.3^rd percentile.

e) Level of Service Inventory–Revised (LSI-R)

100The LSI-R is an actuarial assessment of general criminal recidivism risk, incorporating criminal history, employment, substance use, attitudes, peers, and supervision response. Mr. Daoud scored in the moderate-high risk/needs range, with the report noting that offenders with similar scores demonstrate a 57% probability of reoffending within one year of release.

101Key criminogenic risk factors identified for Mr. Daoud included:

• Criminal history;

• History of substance use;

• Association with negative peer group;

• Pro-criminal attitude/orientation;

• Lack of leisure activity; and

• History of employment and financial instability

f) HCR-20 Version 3 – Violence Risk

102The HCR-20 v3 is a structured professional judgment tool used to assess risk of violent recidivism, based on historical, clinical, and future risk-management factors.

103The assessors identified that Mr. Daoud has the following historical risk factors as clearly present and relevant:

• Antisocial conduct;

• History of aggression and violence;

• Antisocial Personality Disorder;

• Employment instability;

• Relationship instability;

• Substance use history; and

• Poor supervision response.

104Dr. Chaimowitz, in his report, noted that to his credit, Mr. Daoud does not present with a major mental disorder, and he does not have a significant trauma history.

105In the clinical domain, the assessors referenced Mr. Daoud’s lack of insight and violence risk potential, and ongoing rule breaking behaviour while incarcerated as key risk factors. Dr. Chaimowitz’s report indicates that to Mr. Daoud’s credit he is not currently experiencing violent ideation or intentions and he is not demonstrating symptoms of a major mental disorder or affective, behavioural, or cognitive instability.

106The resulting professional judgment, at page 55 of the report, was that Mr. Daoud presents a high-moderate risk of violent reoffending:

In terms of a risk scenario, Mr Daoud’s demonstration of violence is likely to take place while associating with negative peers who hold violent attitudes. He is also likely to engage in violence in relationships wherein he feels the need to exercise control. His risk to offend violently within relationships would be increased under the influence of substances.

g) Static-99R – Sexual Recidivism Risk

107The Static-99R is an actuarial instrument designed to estimate sexual recidivism risk based on static historical factors.

108Mr. Daoud received a score of 6, placing him in Risk Level IVb – ‘Well Above Average’.

109The assessors note that individuals with this score demonstrate a five-year sexual recidivism rate of approximately 16–20%. As Dr. Chaimowtiz points out, conversely, between 80–84% of individuals would not be charged or convicted of a new sexual offence during the five-year time period.

h) Stable-2007 – Dynamic Sexual Risk Factors

110The Stable-2007 was completed to assess the dynamic risk factors associated with Mr. Daoud’s sexual offending.

111Mr. Daoud’s Stable-2007 score was 11, placing him in the moderate level of static dynamic needs.

112Significant identified dynamic risk factors for Mr. Daoud included:

• Impulsivity;

• Poor problem solving; and,

• Significant social influences.

113Dr. Chaimowitz states in his report, that to Mr. Daoud’s credit, he does not appear to demonstrate sexual pre-occupation, hypersexuality, sex as coping, or deviant sexual preferences.

114When combined with his Static-99R score, Mr. Daoud was placed in the IVb “well above average” priority category for supervision and intervention in comparison to other individuals charged or convicted specifically of sexual offences (page 56 of the report).

i) Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI)

115The PAI is a self-report measure designed to assess a broad range of personality characteristics, clinical symptoms, and potential psychopathology.

116While the PAI results were considered valid, the report did find that there was “some indication of idiosyncratic and defensive responding”. Regardless, Mr. Daoud’s profile showed clinically significant elevations related to:

• Polysubstance abuse; and,

• Moodiness.

117The assessors reference, at page 53 of the report, that when disinhibited by substance use Mr. Daoud is likely to act out:

When disinhibited by substances, Mr. Daoud is likely to act out in several ways. Mr. Daoud’s responses suggest that his use of drugs and alcohol have negatively impacted several areas of his life and has contributed to strained interpersonal relationships, legal difficulties, vocational failures, and financial struggles. He acknowledges struggling to curb his use of substances.

118Dr. Chaimowitz indicates in his report that Mr. Daoud’s responses to the PAI suggest that his attitudes about himself vary from pessimism and self-doubt to self-confidence and self-satisfaction. Dr. Chaimowitz described Mr. Daoud’s fluctuations as not extreme and as comparable to those experienced by most adults.

119Dr. Chaimowitz notes that Mr. Daoud’s described assertiveness, friendliness and concern for others is within the average range for most adults.

120Dr. Chaimowitz at page 53 of his report said:

Mr. Daoud’s treatment motivation was at par for those being seen in a treatment environment. His responses suggest that he acknowledges important problems and reports having a positive attitude towards the possibility of personal change, the value of therapy, and the importance of personal responsibility.

j) Self-Report Psychopathy Scale – 4th Edition (SRP-4)

121The SRP-4 is a self-report instrument used to assess psychopathic traits in adults. It evaluates interpersonal exploitation, callous affect, erratic lifestyle, and antisocial behaviour.

122Mr. Daoud’s SRP-4 profile is described at page 53 of the report:

Mr. Daoud’s SRP-4 profile revealed low levels of interpersonal manipulation and callous affect…and average levels of erratic lifestyle and antisocial behaviour …when interpreted against a justice-involved normative sample.

123Dr. Chaimowitz states at page 53 that “[t]hese reports suggest that Mr. Daoud does not present with significant features typically associated with psychopathy.” The scores on erratic lifestyle and anti-social behaviour do, however, indicate the presence of antisocial personality traits. Dr. Chaimowitz described that these are commonly observed traits with the justice-involved populations.

k) Cognitive and Neuropsychological Findings (WASI-II and RBANS)

124Although Mr. Daoud’s intellectual functioning fell within the average range on the WASI-II, neuropsychological testing (the RBANS screening tool) revealed significant cognitive vulnerabilities, particularly in delayed memory and information processing.

125Dr. Chaimowitz described in his report “[a] significant weakness was noted in Delayed Memory, where he scored on the 0.4^th percentile.” Mr. Daoud’s performance in language fell in the borderline range – the 7^th percentile.

126Dr. Chaimowitz offered this conclusion at page 52 of his report:

While Mr. Daoud’s intellectual functioning, as measured by the WASI-II, fell within the Average range, his performance on the RBANS revealed neurocognitive vulnerabilities- most prominently in delayed memory. His borderline performance on language-based tasks, along with low average scores in attention, language, and visuospatial functioning, suggests that although he possesses basic reasoning and verbal abstraction skills, his ability to encode, retain, and retrieve new information is weak. These cognitive weaknesses likely contribute to poor decision-making, reduce his capacity to learn from past experiences, and make it more difficult for him to apply insights gained through treatment to daily life.

l) Response Style and Minimization

127Response-style measures (Paulhus Deception Scales) indicate that Mr. Daoud may be inclined to downplay personal shortcomings and present himself in a socially acceptable manner.

128Specifically on page 51 of the report Dr. Chaimowitz states:

This profile indicates that Mr. Daoud may be inclined to downplay personal shortcoming and present himself in a socially acceptable manner. While this may reflect a deliberate attempt to influence how he is perceived, it is also possible – and perhaps more likely – that the results reflect a lack of insight into his problem areas. Nonetheless, given the nature of the assessment, some degree of positive impression management is to be expected.

m) Summary of Risk of Recidivism

129The risk assessments reviewed at pages 54 and 55 of the report can be summarized as follows:

i. Mr. Daoud presents as a moderate to high risk individual. Incarcerated men with a similar LSI-R score demonstrate a 57% probability of reoffending within 1 year of release;

ii. Mr. Daoud’s risk to re-offend violently falls within the high-moderate range; and

iii. The sexual recidivism rate for individuals with a score the same as Mr. Daoud, is between 16 and 20%, after 5 years in the community.

n) Possibility of Control in Community

130In considering whether there is a reasonable possibility of eventual control of Mr. Daoud’s risks in the community, the report at pages 61 and 62 provides:

Given that, in our view, Mr. Daoud meets Dangerous Offender criteria, we then address the question about whether “is there reasonable possibility of eventual control of his risk in the community.” Mr. Daoud is charming, comes from a supportive family, can connect with people, and find support, notwithstanding all his offending and associated difficulties. His family stand behind him and will do whatever is required to support and assist him in the future. However, he does tend to minimize his involvement in some of the offending at least as we understand it. Notwithstanding this charm and notwithstanding a supportive family, he continues acting in an antisocial and criminal fashion. It is our opinion that his risk of serious violence will continue if he is not managed. It is Mr. Daoud’s continued offending behaviour that would suggest that there is concern about the possibility of eventual control in the community absent some intervention.

However, he has been able to restrain himself from offending for lengthy periods. Whatever was in place during those times may provide clues as to how he should be treated/managed in the future.

Dr. Daoud scores moderate to moderate-high on many of the risk assessment tools, which is not surprising given his criminal record. My PCL-R score of 24 is similar to Dr. Mamak’s score. His PCL-R score is compatible with a diagnosis of Antisocial Personality Disorder, but not psychopathy.

What is worth considering is that although Mr. Daoud’s intelligence lands in the average range, he does manifest some neurocognitive limitations which would suggest it takes him a long time to integrate some of the courses and programs that he does. His charm may mislead people into thinking that he is engaged in programs and understands the essence of whatever programs and courses he has taken. However the psychological testing would suggest that this is a man who will require repeated, ongoing programs/courses. His courses will need to be repeated and provided to him over time with continual reinforcement and repetition.

We believe that Mr. Daoud does have the ability to make the changes that could positively impact his life course and the life course of potential victims. In our view, it is the repetition of programs, continued use of programs repeatedly, that may eventually make their way into his consciousness and makeup. One or two successful program completions will not be sufficient. Yet with attention to this recommendation he may yet internalize what is being taught.

o) Treatment/Risk Strategies

131Dr. Chaimowitz wrote in his report that Mr. Daoud’s cognitive vulnerabilities – delayed memory and processing speed – have likely hindered his ability to fully engage in and benefit from past treatments.

132Mr. Daoud will require sustained treatment and close supervision. It is noted at page 57 of the report that Mr. Daoud “appears to recognize the need for change and has expressed a willingness to participate in treatment.”

133At page 63 of the report, recommendations are made in regard to Mr. Daoud’s risks:

• repeated programming and long-term programming to give him a chance of perhaps even understanding or being able to integrate what he has learned. Given his cognitive limitations, completion of a single course is likely not to lead to long term change. Hence, we would strongly recommend that he be closely monitored and heavily programmed going forward.

• close supervision and structure and, as indicated, repeated programming targeting his risk factors. Given his limited awareness of his offending behaviour and his minimizing responsibility and blaming others for his difficulties, he manifests significant cognitive distortions. He is thus a high risk, high needs man who will reoffend absent treatment engagement and close supervision.

• being engaged in high intensity programs to address his antisocial attitudes, problem solving, sexual offending, and substance use, capitalizing on his stated wish to change and engage in treatment. As noted, those programs need to be repeated multiple times, especially given his cognitive profile.

• maintenance programs in custody and when he reaches the community.

• extended supervision with residency condition.

• close monitoring, structured activities in the community with employment, volunteer, and school programming would be important. Mr. Daoud has the ability to learn a useful trade and be self-sufficient, that should be encouraged.

• close monitoring with respect to substance abuse, given his history of substance use, and

• close monitoring of his friends, acquaintances, and intimate relationships would be important given Mr. Daoud’s association with antisocial peers and his more recent offending.

p) Summary Description of Mr. Daoud

134At page 59 of the report, Dr. Chaimowitz offers the following observations regarding Mr. Daoud:

Mr. Daoud began to develop some difficulties in school and in fact, before the age of twelve had already begun to develop what would be described as a Conduct Disorder (a precursor of Antisocial Personality Disorder). That period was marked by antisocial acts, behavioural difficulties, youth charges, and the beginning of his substance abuse difficulties.

Mr. Daoud’s family had then and even now attempted to assist and they very well have sent him abroad to study/work to hopefully change his antisocial course to that of a prosocial one.

Nonetheless Mr. Daoud has a long history of antisocial behaviours attracting numerous charges and convictions over the years. He has a well-established Substance Use Disorder, specifically cannabis and stimulants. The conduct disorder notable in his adolescence has developed into an Antisocial Personality Disorder, a longstanding, chronic, and maladaptive way of dealing with the world. He may very well have had Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder as a child but was never treated for this.

Mr. Daoud does not have an active psychiatric disorder such as Schizophrenia, Schizoaffective Disorder, Bipolar Disorder, and such like.

Mr. Daoud in his interactions with us, and has been noted by other clinicians and family members who interacted with him, presents as a likeable and charming man. That charm likely has accompanied him throughout his life and has meant that people become attached to him and continue to support him, notwithstanding an awareness and some understanding of his criminal activities.

Mr. Daoud indicated to us that he essentially accepts all the actions that led to charges against him and believes these current charges and convictions offer him an opportunity to change his life course. He has expressed a willingness to work on his multiple issues and again has at least articulated prosocial goals.

viii.) Testimony of Dr. Chaimowitz

135Dr. Chaimowitz testified on March 2nd and March 10th, 2026. His viva voce evidence supplemented and clarified his written dangerous offender assessment by addressing updated institutional records, recent custodial behaviour, medication history, programming engagement, and risk management feasibility.

136Dr. Chaimowitz testified that none of the new information provided to him altered his ultimate opinion regarding Mr. Daoud’s level of risk.

a) Positive and Protective Factors

137Dr. Chaimowitz testified that Mr. Daoud possesses genuine strengths, including:

• The absence of major mental illness;

• Emotional capacity and empathy;

• An ability to form meaningful attachments;

• Strong and unusually persistent family support; and

• Willingness to engage in programming and treatment.

138He described Mr. Daoud as personable, warm, and reflective, and expressly distinguished his presentation from “the psychopathic type people we see in these hearings.”

139He further explained that although Mr. Daoud is charming and pleasant and that people like being around him, this very warmth could also serve his criminality and ability to evade responsibility:

So, he’s not – doesn’t appear to be manipulatively charming, superficial charm that would you sometimes see because people talk about him with a deep degree of affection, at least in information I’ve seen. Obviously, there are victims who would have a very different perspective. So that is a positive prognostic factor because people like to be around people that they like and who come across as warm, and Mr. Daoud comes across as a warm human being, and people are attracted to it for a reason. However, it’s also a risk factor because it could also disarm people and not actually see what’s going on behind the scenes.

140Dr. Chaimowitz testified that the key components for Mr. Daoud’s future will be to stay away from drugs absolutely – for the foreseeable future, or in perpetuity, and to avoid anti-social peers.

b) Anti-Social Personality Disorder

141Dr. Chaimowitz testified that, in his opinion and as referenced in his report, Mr. Daoud meets the diagnostic criteria for Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD). He said the majority of individuals in the criminal justice system have antisocial features.

142He described that ASPD is a maladaptive and entrenched way of interacting with the world that includes a series or pattern of antisocial acts that is part of the person’s character, and not just something they do at times.

143Dr. Chaimowitz made clear that Mr. Daoud does not meet the criteria for psychopathy. On the PCL-R, Mr. Daoud demonstrated low interpersonal-affective (Factor 1) traits, meaning he is not cold, callous, sadistic, or predatory in the classic psychopathic sense.

144Dr. Chaimowitz further acknowledged that this is a positive protective factor, as psychopathy is associated with extreme intractability and limited treatment response. It was his opinion that – to his credit – Mr. Daoud retains capacity for empathy, for meaningful attachments to others, and for guilt and remorse. Dr. Chaimowitz testified that Mr. Daoud has a genuine internal motivation for change, but that this motivation is to be tested.

145Dr. Chaimowitz testified that ASPD is difficult to treat but that does not mean that it is not treatable. There are usually a combination of therapies, including cognitive behaviour therapy, medication, programming and substance use programming. Dr. Chaimowitz confirmed that Mr. Daoud has substance use disorder.

c) Cognitive Vulnerabilities, Antisocial Behaviour, and Change

146Dr. Chaimowitz testified that Mr. Daoud has neurocognitive limitations.

147In Dr. Chaimowitz’s view, this means that Mr. Daoud would likely require even more programming than the average offender:

One of the things that came out in the psychological testing is that notwithstanding him having average intelligence, he has some deficits, and those deficits would need to be taken into consideration when providing him with treatment programs. So he likely will require more programming, repeated programming for him to essentially get it. He, he is not – he doesn’t have the ability – according to the psychological testing, to absorb the information in ways that the average person would be able to. So he would require repeated programming compared to the average to give him a chance for that programming to have an impact.

d) Substance Use Disorder as a Compounding Factor

148Dr. Chaimowitz testified that substance use is a critical amplifier of Mr. Daoud’s risk. He specifically noted that substance use was present during all of Mr. Daoud’s three major clusters of serious offending.

e) Indication of Successful Treatment: Insight

149Dr. Chaimowitz testified to new information concerning Mr. Daoud’s completion of high-intensity sexual offender programming.

150Dr. Chaimowitz testified that genuine change would require the development and demonstration of meaningful insight into Mr. Daoud’s offending:

[O]ne would look for improved insight, different ways of dealing with the world, if they’re impulsive, less impulsivity, some acceptance of their responsibility, some genuine remorse, reduction or lack of lying, staying away from antisocial peers, but the most important part is, is insight, because absent insight all you’ve got is external controls. So you, you need to recognize your role, your responsibility, and then internalize that. So when we talk about risk, we talk about risk assessment, risk prediction, risk management, but the hard part is the risk mitigation, which is the ability to go from managing the person, in other words, containing those things to internalizing the changes so that they do not reoffend, so the antisocial personality diagnosis dissipates, and that is really hard, which does require internalizing all of that, rather than using external controls.

f) Risk and Intractability

151In terms of intractability, Dr. Chaimowitz testified as follows:

Q: And then my last question, Doctor, is, is there a reasonable expectation, in your view, of control of Mr. Daoud and his risk absent this intensive repeated programming and highly structured oversight?

A: So, so it’s, it’s no. But you’ve, you’ve answered part of my question, which is he does require, in my view, repeated intensive treatment and monitoring. And as you’ll note from my report, there are a number of other features which are linked, which is the – a residential clause, if he ever was out in the community, monitoring, ongoing treatment, testing, and so on. But absent that, in my view, the likelihood of him reoffending is high.

g) Treatment Length

152Ultimately, Dr. Chaimowitz testified that – to manage his risks – Mr. Daoud will likely require lengthy treatment, management, and monitoring:

[I] don't know how Mr. Daoud will respond to whatever treatment because I don't know what treatment he's going to get, and I don't know where he's going to get the treatment. Given the risk that is attached to Mr. Daoud, the risk is a function of frequency and, and intensity, gravity, and he's committed some grave offences. So, one needs to reduce that to as close to zero as you can get.

And, and given, in my view, the significant role that his substance use has played in his offending, one needs to make sure that his substance use is as — is, is zero, in as much as you can do that. It took him a long time to get to this point. He's 40 or 41right now, he's been using drugs for decades. He's going to need a lot of treatment by trained experts, and, and one's going to need to see that he's remained sober, free of drugs, for an extended period of time before one can start

maybe pulling back a little bit of — pulling back on the therapy.

But after a year, we'll have a better sense. After two years, we'll have a better sense. After three, after four, and I'm estimating, you asked me for a number, maybe five years, but not less than that.

But the testing, inasmuch is going to be connected to the criminal justice system, is something that would need to go on in perpetuity.

153Dr. Chaimowitz is not saying that Mr. Daoud will only need to be monitored for five years. He states, clearly, that maybe after five years – but not less than that – he may be able to pull back on the therapy if he remains sober from drugs.

ix.) Letters of Support

154Mr. Daoud filed 20 letters of support. I will not summarize each letter separately. I have reviewed and considered the letters and this is a summary of what the letters reveal about Mr. Daoud:

a. Mr. Daoud is a protective, kind, and caring sibling. He shows compassion to others. He is also kind and empathetic to others.

b. Mr. Daoud has severe ADHD. His parents did not allow treatment as they feared he would be stigmatized.

c. His family are willing to help him seek treatment for his addiction issues and treatment for his ADHD. His family will support him emotionally and financially. They now have the resources to do so. They are committed to doing so.

d. Mr. Daoud is motivated to change and is remorseful.

e. Mr. Daoud has been a spiritual mentor to others. Faith has been an anchor in his life.

f. Mr. Daoud is creative, artistic and loves being a D.J.

g. Mr. Daoud has been a compassionate, loyal and generous friend.

h. Mr. Daoud played a foundational role in launching and sustaining a Sudanese youth basketball program. He has done other volunteer work.

i. Friends will support him financially upon his release and have offered him a home and employment opportunities.

j. He has a supportive partner who works full-time. Mr. Daoud is described by her as a supportive partner.

155Imam Habeeb Alli the Muslim Faith Chaplain at Beavercreek/Warkworth Institutions described that Mr. Daoud “works on his Faith diligently and has left a great impression upon the inmates and staff. He continues to be a good supporter of our weekly programs and Juma.” In his letter he said:

Mr. Daoud is a caring person and remorseful of his index offense. He also participates in Muslim Overcomers and Restorative Justice Program. I will continue to counsel him upon release. Coming from a war torn county of Sudan and having lived in community housing he ended up with serious childhood trauma that has been part of his journey. We speak Arabic together.

x.) Mr. Daoud’s Statement to Court

156On April 24, 2026, Mr. Daoud exercised his right to make a statement to the Court as part of the sentencing process under s. 726.

157A brief summary of his statement is as follows:

a) He has been assaulted multiple times while in custody, including being stabbed. There have been lockdowns. He has been triple bunked. He had to sleep on a mattress on the floor. When the toilet overflowed his bed was covered in feces. The toilet can be filled with feces for several days until a plumber comes.

b) He has a better understanding of his ADHD and cognitive difficulties, having heard from Dr. Chaimowitz. He indicates that this explains why he would start a lot of things and not finish them.

c) He does not mind repeating programming as suggested by Dr. Chaimowitz. He has learned a lot from the programming he has had.

d) He stated that he takes accountability and ownership for his actions.

e) His actions have harmed his community, the victims and his family.

f) He is now taking ADHD medication.

g) He has almost completed high school by taking courses while in custody.

h) He has plans for a business venture if he is released.

xi.) Evidence from Mr. Daoud

158Mr. Daoud provided an affidavit sworn March 2, 2026 in which he details the lockdowns and triple bunking he has experienced in custody. He also describes the assaults that he has experienced while in custody.

159He also provided a supplemental affidavit sworn March 4, 2026.

VI. THE APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE CRIMINAL CODE

160Sections 753 and 753.1 of the Criminal Code are relevant to this proceeding and state:

753 (1) On application made under this Part after an assessment report is filed under subsection 752.1(2), the court shall find the offender to be a dangerous offender if it is satisfied

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

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

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

(iii) any behaviour by the offender, associated with the offence for which he or she has been convicted, that is of such a brutal nature as to compel the conclusion that the offender’s behaviour in the future is unlikely to be inhibited by normal standards of behavioural restraint; or

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

Presumption

(1.1) If the court is satisfied that the offence for which the offender is convicted is a primary designated offence for which it would be appropriate to impose a sentence of imprisonment of two years or more and that the offender was convicted previously at least twice of a primary designated offence and was sentenced to at least two years of imprisonment for each of those convictions, the conditions in paragraph (1)(a) or (b), as the case may be, are presumed to have been met unless the contrary is proved on a balance of probabilities.

Time for making application

(2) An application under subsection (1) must be made before sentence is imposed on the offender unless

(a) before the imposition of sentence, the prosecutor gives notice to the offender of a possible intention to make an application under section 752.1 and an application under subsection (1) not later than six months after that imposition; and

(b) at the time of the application under subsection (1) that is not later than six months after the imposition of sentence, it is shown that relevant evidence that was not reasonably available to the prosecutor at the time of the imposition of sentence became available in the interim.

Application for remand for assessment after imposition of sentence

(3) Notwithstanding subsection 752.1(1), an application under that subsection may be made after the imposition of sentence or after an offender begins to serve the sentence in a case to which paragraphs (2)(a) and (b) apply.

Sentence for dangerous offender

(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

Sentence of indeterminate detention

(4.1) 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.

If application made after sentencing

(4.2) If the application is made after the offender begins to serve the sentence in a case to which paragraphs (2)(a) and (b) apply, a sentence imposed under paragraph (4)(a), or a sentence imposed and an order made under paragraph 4(b), replaces the sentence that was imposed for the offence for which the offender was convicted.

If offender not found to be dangerous offender

(5) If the court does not find an offender to be a dangerous offender,

(a) the court may treat the application as an application to find the offender to be a long-term offender, section 753.1 applies to the application and the court may either find that the offender is a long-term offender or hold another hearing for that purpose; or

(b) the court may impose sentence for the offence for which the offender has been convicted.

Application for finding that an offender is a long-term offender

753.1 (1) The court may, on application made under this Part following the filing of an assessment report under subsection 752.1(2), find an offender to be a long-term offender if it is satisfied that

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

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

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

Substantial risk

(2) The court shall be satisfied that there is a substantial risk that the offender will reoffend if

(a) the offender has been convicted of an offence under section 151 (sexual interference), 152 (invitation to sexual touching) or 153 (sexual exploitation), subsection 163.1(2) (making child sexual abuse and exploitation material), 163.1(3) (distribution, etc., of child sexual abuse and exploitation material), 163.1(4) (possession of child sexual abuse and exploitation material) or 163.1(4.1) (accessing child sexual abuse and exploitation material), section 170 (parent or guardian procuring sexual activity), 171 (householder permitting sexual activity), 171.1 (making sexually explicit material available to child), 172.1 (luring a child) or 172.2 (agreement or arrangement — sexual offence against child), subsection 173(2) (exposure) or section 271 (sexual assault), 272 (sexual assault with a weapon), 273 (aggravated sexual assault) or 279.011 (trafficking — person under 18 years) or subsection 279.02(2) (material benefit — trafficking of person under 18 years), 279.03(2) (withholding or destroying documents — trafficking of person under 18 years), 286.1(2) (obtaining sexual services for consideration from person under 18 years), 286.2(2) (material benefit from sexual services provided by person under 18 years) or 286.3(2) (procuring — person under 18 years), or has engaged in serious conduct of a sexual nature in the commission of another offence of which the offender has been convicted; and

(b) the offender

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

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

Sentence for long-term offender

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

Exception — if application made after sentencing

(3.1) The court may not impose a sentence under paragraph (3)(a) and the sentence that was imposed for the offence for which the offender was convicted stands despite the offender’s being found to be a long-term offender, if the application was one that

(a) was made after the offender begins to serve the sentence in a case to which paragraphs 753(2)(a) and (b) apply; and

(b) was treated as an application under this section further to the court deciding to do so under paragraph 753(5)(a).

(4) and (5) [Repealed, 2008, c. 6, s. 44]

If offender not found to be long-term offender

(6) If the court does not find an offender to be a long-term offender, the court shall impose sentence for the offence for which the offender has been convicted.

VII. ISSUES:

161The overarching issues are as follows:

1. Is Mr. Daoud a dangerous offender?

a. Did Mr. Daoud commit a serious personal offence? The defence has conceded that the answer to this question is yes.

b. Does Mr. Daoud represent a threat to the life, safety or physical or mental wellbeing of other persons, on the basis of one of the patterns of conduct set out at ss. 753(1)(a)(i) or (ii)? In particular, for this “threat assessment”, the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt:

i. The predicate offence is part of a pattern of violence, as defined in s. 753(1);

ii. There is a high likelihood of harmful recidivism; and

iii. The violent conduct is intractable.

2. If Mr. Daoud is not a dangerous offender, is he a long-term offender? The defence concedes that he is a long-term offender.

3. What is the appropriate sentence for Mr. Daoud?

a. If Mr. Daoud is designated a dangerous offender:

i. Is the court satisfied that there is reasonable expectation that a determinate sentence and long-term supervision order (or determinate sentence only) will adequately protect the public against the commission by the offender of murder or a serious personal injury offence?

ii. If not, then an indeterminate sentence must be imposed.

b. If Mr. Daoud is designated a long-term offender:

i. What is a fit sentence for Mr. Daoud considering the requirements in s. 753.1(3)?

VIII. LAW AND ANALYSIS

OVERVIEW:

162The dangerous offender scheme involves two stages: the designation phase and the penalty phase: R. v. Boutilier, 2017 SCC 64, at paras. 13-15.

163As set out at para. 31 of Boutilier:

The designation stage is concerned with assessing the future threat posed by the offender. The penalty stage is concerned with imposing the appropriate sentence to manage the established threat.

DESIGNATION STAGE – DANGEROUS OFFENDER

164The Crown must prove the elements of s. 753(1) beyond a reasonable doubt. As set out at paras. 13-18, 26 and 29 of Boutilier, where the following are proven, designation is mandatory:

1. Serious personal injury offence: Has the offender been convicted of, and to be sentenced for a serious personal injury offence? Mr. Daoud concedes this issue.

2. Requisite threat level: Does the offender represent a threat to life, safety or physical or mental well-being of other persons, on the basis of one of the patterns of conduct in s. 753(1)?

165As part of the threat assessment, the following three criteria must be proven:

a. Pattern: the predicate offence is part of a broader pattern of violence;

b. Harmful recidivism: There is a high likelihood of harmful recidivism; and

c. Intractable: The violent conduct is intractable.

166Where the Crown has not met their burden on the dangerous offender criteria, the court may consider whether the offender is a long-term offender: s. 753.1(1).

The Role of the Expert Witness: Dr. Gary Chaimowitz

167In R. v. Lyons, 1987 CanLII 25 (SCC), [1987] 2 S.C.R. 309, the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that in determining the likelihood of the risk of recidivism and the possibility of controlling that risk in the community, expert opinion evidence of forensic psychiatry is relevant to the judge’s assessment. A trial judge is not bound to accept the expert’s opinion.

168At times, in particular when predicting future dangerousness, the evidence of a psychiatrist is highly speculative. Experts are of particular assistance to the court, as to whether the offender currently suffers from a psychological disorder which may be relevant to the likelihood of future dangerous conduct: see Lyons at paras. 96-100; R. v. R.M., 2005 CanLII 43295 (ON SC)at para. 70.

169The court should consider the psychological evidence related to control and then ask whether a on a case-by-case basis, the offender is treatable and amenable to control: see R. v. McGarroch, 2003 CanLII 1974 (ON SC), at para. 110.

170As set out in R.M., at para. 70 and R. v. F.E.D, 2007 ONCA 246, at para. 50, a trial judge is obliged to reach their own conclusion about the offender’s risk based on a reasonable consideration of all the evidence. Para. 70 of R.M. provides:

70 In determining the likelihood of risk of reoffence and the possibility of controlling that risk in the community, it is relevant for the judge to take into account the expert opinion evidence of psychiatrists: R. v. Lyons at paras. 97-100. That is not to say that the trial judge is bound to accept the opinion of one psychiatrist or the other, but rather that the expert evidence is relevant to the judge's inquiry, with determinations as to the weight and reliability of that evidence left to the judge: R. v. Currie, 1997 CanLII 347 (SCC), [1997] 2 S.C.R. 260. In this regard, the Supreme Court in R. v. Lyons referred with approval (at para. 98) to the following "common sense observations" of Ewaschuk J. in Re Moore (1984), 1984 CanLII 2132 (ON HCJ), 10 C.C.C. (3d) 306 (Ont.H.C.) at 310-311:

I accept the submission that the evidence of a psychiatrist, psychologist or criminologist is at times highly speculative and in certain instances a lay person is in as good a position to make a prediction as to future dangerousness. In the final say, the court, however, must be so satisfied and not the expert witnesses. That is not to say that the experts may not assist the court, especially as to whether the offender currently suffers from a psychological disorder, e.g. psychopathy, which may be relevant to the likelihood of future dangerous conduct.

171With respect to the speculative nature of psychiatric evidence predicting future dangerousness, the report of Dr. Chaimowitz includes the following caveat:

Risk Assessment Caveats

There are some limitations to risk assessment instruments in general. Risk assessment instruments used in sexual offence recidivism prediction do not actually predict the qualitative nature of the recidivism act. What this means in practice is that these tools predict any sexual offence including anything with a sexual component. They do not also consider the impact of treatment, although in Mr. Daoud’s case pharmacological treatment would not be recommended. Sexual recidivism occurs at a low base rate and this means that it is hard specifically to attach risk to an individual.

172Dr. Chaimowitz has been a psychiatrist since 1988 and became a staff psychiatrist in the Forensic Program in 2001. He was Head of Service in the Forensic Program at St. Joseph’s Healthcare in Hamilton for 21 years. He has testified as an expert in dangerous offender proceedings approximately 30-40 times.

173Dt. Chaimowitz interviewed Mr. Daoud for over 10 hours, on multiple occasions, and reviewed a significant volume of records as are detailed in his report. He also interviewed collateral family members and the like.

The Requisite Pattern under s. 753(1)(a)(i)

174As Mr. Daoud has conceded that he has been convicted of, and is to be sentenced for, a serious personal injury offence, I move directly to a consideration of the requisite patterns.

A. Law

175Under s. 753(1)(a)(i) the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the offender has engaged in a pattern of repetitive behaviour showing a failure to restrain his behaviour in a manner that has caused death, injury, or severe psychological damage to other persons.

176The dangerous offender designation does not contemplate a finding of dangerousness based on a generalized risk of harm or reoffence. Rather, the court must assess the prospective risk by reference to behaviour that fits the requisite pattern. Integral to the risk assessment is the link between the predicate offence, the pattern of past conduct, and the risk that the same pattern will continue in the future. The predicate offence must form part of an ongoing pattern that gives rise to a likelihood that the same type of behaviour will continue in the future. It follows that the pattern of repetitive behaviour must “contain enough of the same elements of unrestrained dangerous conduct to be able to predict that the offender will likely offend in the same way in the future”: see R. v. Hogg, 2011 ONCA 840, at paras. 40, 43; R. v. Patel, 2020 BCCA 92, at paras. 196-205, 212-225; and R. v. Lynch, 2022 ONCA 136, at paras. 53-55.

177As set out in R. v. Cook, 2020 ONCA 809, at para. 20, while the requirement that the behaviour cause “death” or “injury” are self-explanatory, the requirement of “severe psychological harm” is more nuanced. This type of harm requires that the offender’s actions caused more than “serious psychological harm.” At a minimum, the conduct must have substantially interfered with the victim’s psychological integrity.

178Although it is not necessary that the offender have a lengthy history of violence or aggression in order to meet the requirement of a pattern, the fewer the incidents, the more similar they must be. For example, there may be a need for remarkable similarity where only two offences are involved, whereas fewer exact similarities might be needed where four offences are involved: see Hogg, at para. 39; R. v. Neve, 1999 ABCA 206, at para. 113; R. v. Szostak, 2014 ONCA 15, at para. 51.

179Critically the context in which an offender committed the past criminal conduct will also be relevant. A failure to consider the context will undermine the judge’s conclusion on (1) which past conduct goes on the pattern scale, and (2) the likelihood of the behaviour continuing in the future as a result of the offender’s failure to restrain or his/her substantial indifference to causing harm: see R. v. Naess, 2004 CanLII 53065 (ON SC), at para. 63.

180As set out in para. 151 of Neve, it is an error for a trial judge to take into account offences that do not belong on the pattern scale. Paragraph 151 states:

In addition, we have concluded that the defence is correct in its contention that the sentencing judge took into account offences which do not belong on the pattern scale because they do not, in all the circumstances, fall within the parameters of ss.753(a)(i) or (ii). We include here Neve’s previous convictions for carrying a concealed weapon, breaking and entering and uttering threats.

181Both parties relied on R. v. Dow, 1999 BCCA 177. At para. 24 the court described the elements of the “repetitive behaviour” pattern in s. 753(1)(a)(i):

In short, the significance and the relevance of common elements of the pattern must be determined by whether they tend to show first, repetitive behaviour, second, that there has been a failure in each case to restrain the behaviour, and third, that there has been injury to other persons arising from that failure. If any of those three elements is missing, then there may be a pattern but it will not be a relevant pattern. But if all three are present then the essential elements of a relevant pattern are revealed.

B. Position of the Parties

182The parties agree that the predicate offences and the 2015 sexual assault go on the pattern scale. They disagree about whether the other offences, including youth offences and correctional misconducts, go toward establishing this pattern.

Crown Position

183The Crown did not take an explicit position on how the court should conduct this “pattern scale” analysis. However, the Crown appears to take the position that all of Mr. Daoud’s past offences, including his youth and correctional offences, go to both this pattern and the requisite pattern under s.753(1)(a)(ii). Implicit in this position is that it is not necessary for every offence put on the pattern scale to cause death, injury or severe psychological harm. For example, the offences on the youth record do not cause such harm.

Defence Position

184The Defence position is that the youth offences, correctional misconducts and adult offences, other than the 2015 sexual assault and the predicate offences, do not go on the pattern scale. This, the Defence claims, is the result of screening each offence for the elements listed above from Dow. The Defence submits that all offences and misconducts except for the predicate offences and 2015 sexual assault did not result in death, injury or severe psychological harm to the victim.

185The Defence further argues that Mr. Daoud’s manslaughter conviction cannot be considered part of this pattern as it is markedly different, when considering the context.

186The Defence further submits that, regarding the manslaughter conviction, Mr. Daoud did not “cause” death in the way contemplated by s.753(1)(a)(i).

187The Crown did not make any submission on this specific issue of the manslaughter conviction, but did include it as part of the pattern in its analysis.

C. Application

188In my view, the Crown has failed to prove the requisite pattern under s. 753(1)(a)(i) beyond a reasonable doubt.

189Much of the conduct the Crown relies upon does not meet the requisite pattern because, on its face, it did not inflict death, injury, or severe psychological harm on a victim.

190This includes Mr. Daoud’s entire youth record, Mr. Daoud’s adult record for theft, breaches, and drugs, and Mr. Daoud’s institutional misconducts.

191The Crown and Defence agree that in terms of context police synopses or arrest reports cannot be given any weight. The facts that Mr. Daoud plead guilty to or was found guilty on are not known. The Ontario Court of Appeal has repeatedly cautioned, including expressly in a dangerous offender context, that the initial bail synopsis (the equivalent of the police arrest report) is unreliable and often not reflective of the actual facts found by the Court at trial or admitted by the accused upon a plea: see R. v. J.K.L. 2012 ONCA 245, at paras. 88-94; R. v. Williams, 2018 ONCA 437, at paras. 42-45.

192Regarding the institutional misconducts, for the reasons set out above, I can only consider the misconducts from 2023 forward to present because they are the only misconducts proven beyond a reasonable doubt. None of them meet the requisite pattern as by description, they do not involve inflicting death, injury, or severe psychological harm on a victim.

193When considering Mr. Daoud’s adult offences, the 2015 sexual assault and the predicate offences clearly go on the pattern scale. The issue is whether the manslaughter conviction does.

194In my view, Mr. Daoud’s behaviour involving the manslaughter conviction is substantively different in nature and context than the other offences on the pattern scale. Mr. Daoud played a role as a lookout in what was supposed to be a plan to steal cocaine from a drug dealer. Mr. Daoud knew that the plan involved his co-accused brandishing a loaded firearm to coerce the drug dealer into handing over the cocaine. Mr. Daoud remained in a vehicle and waited while his co-accused entered another vehicle to commit the robbery. Mr. Daoud did not handle the firearm or engage with the victim in any way. He also did not subjectively foresee that his co-accused would discharge the firearm. He plead guilty to offence, “accepted responsibility”, was “genuinely remorseful,” and completed programming while in custody: see R. v. Daoud, 2022 ONSC 6622, at paras. 4-12, 29, and 31)

195Although Mr. Daoud is criminally liable for the death under the broad scope of conduct captured by the offence of manslaughter and the doctrine of party liability, in my view, Mr. Daoud’s behaviour did not “cause” the death in the sense contemplated by s.753(1)(a)(i). Nor can his conduct as a lookout properly be characterized as unrestrained violent behaviour – and certainly not of a nature that fits within the pattern for violence the Crown relies upon in connection with the predicate offences and the 2015 sexual assault. I am mindful in this determination that the fewer the incidents on the pattern scale, the more similar they must be.

196Mr. Daoud concedes that the predicate offences and the 2015 sexual assault are evidence of unrestrained behaviour causing harm. In my view, these offences are insufficient to establish the requisite pattern. As established above, “the fewer the incidents, the more similar they must be” to establish the pattern. However, the nature and context of the two sets of offences are markedly different. The 2015 sexual assault entailed a single incident after a party with a woman previously unknown to Mr. Daoud. The behaviour reflects a failure to restrain his sexual impulses. The predicate offences, on the other hand, involved offences committed in the course of an ongoing relationship marred by financial instability and significant long-term substance abuse engaged in by both Mr. Daoud and the victim. The harmful behaviour reflected in the human trafficking and sexual service offences was fuelled by financial motivations rather than sexual impulses. In addition, the criminal harassment and the sexual assault in this particular case are reflective of controlling behaviour and not sexual impulsivity. In short, the nature, context, and driving forces behind the behaviour are distinct.

197I agree with the Defence that a pattern has predictive force only to the extent that it reflects sufficiently similar manifestations of unrestrained behaviour. Where the past conduct is disparate in nature, dissimilar in context, and driven by materially different motivations, the purported “pattern” loses any meaningful capacity to predict future unrestrained behaviour.

198In regard to Dr. Chaimowitz’s evidence on this point of the requisite pattern, he seems to have considered Mr. Daoud’s youth record, institutional misconducts and all of his adult record. For the reasons I have given, none of the youth record or institutional misconducts should have gone on the pattern scale. Further, not all of the adult record should have. It is his opinion that the requisite pattern had been established. I have determined otherwise and therefore do not accept his opinion in this regard.

The Requisite Pattern under s. 753(1)(a)(ii)

A. Law

199Under s.753(1)(a)(ii), the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the offender has engaged in a pattern of persistent aggressive behaviour showing a substantial degree of indifference respecting the reasonably foreseeable consequences to other persons.

200The difference between the requirement of repetitive behaviour under s.753(1)(a)(i) and persistent aggressive behaviour under s.753(1)(a)(ii) is that the risk of harmful recidivism arises in the former case based on a failure to restrain one’s behaviour, whereas in the latter case it is based on a substantial indifference to foreseeable harm.

201The requirement of a “substantial indifference” to foreseeable harm entails a conscious but significantly uncaring awareness of injury to others. This captures “the truly evil personality type who has no compassion for others at any time.” The requirement of “indifference” connotes notions of “disregard, lack of sympathy or empathy, callousness and coldness, and lack of concern or sensitivity.” This indifference must be measured by reference to the offender’s history overall. Finally, the behaviour exhibiting this type of substantial indifference must be a pattern – as that concept has been defined above – and must be persistently aggressive: see R. v. George (1998), 1998 CanLII 5691 (BC CA), 126 C.C.C. (3d) 384 (B.C.C.A.), at para. 23; R. v. Dorsey, 2009 CanLII 70131 (ON SC), at paras. 101-102; R. v. Windebank, 2023 ONSC 4809, at para. 112; and R. v. R.M.P., 2020 ONSC 6337, at para. 142.

202Counsel agree with the approach to indifference set out in R. v. Wong, 2016 ONSC 6362, at para. 224:

In examining whether Mr. Wong’s conduct demonstrates indifference, his attitude must be examined more generally. A demonstration of indifference which is limited to the time at which the offence was committed is not sufficient. A broader examination of the offender’s personality is required in order to determine if the offender lacks compassion towards others. The Crown must demonstrate that the offender has a conscious, but uncaring awareness of causing harm to others and that this has occurred over a long period, involving frequent acts with significant consequences. Expert evidence can be drawn upon in deciding whether the previous acts of aggressive conduct demonstrate the requisite indifference (R. v. George (1998), 1998 CanLII 5691 (BC CA), 126 C.C.C. (3d) 384 (B.C.C.A.) at para. 23; R. v. Robinson, supra at para. 123; R. v. Vanderwal, 2010 ONSC 265, [2010] O.J. No. 246 (Ont. S.C.).

203The requirements for this pattern are set out in R. v. Smith, 2023 ONCA 575, at para. 37, as (i) there is a pattern of behaviour, (ii) involving persistent acts of aggression causing serious harm and demonstrating a substantial degree of indifference to the consequences of the offender’s action, that (iii) creates a serious risk of ongoing harm to the public. The Court of Appeal also said at para. 37 that the fact that there is a gap between offences is not determinative provided the three criteria are met.

204The parties agree that the predicate offences, particularly those that occurred from April to September, 2020, fall on this pattern scale. This would include the sexual assault with a weapon, the assault and the criminal harassment offences.

B. Position of the Parties

Crown Position

205The Crown relies on all of Mr. Daoud’s past offences, including youth offences and correctional misconducts to establish this pattern. The Crown’s position is that under this prong, similarities between predicate and past offences are not relevant, relying on Wong, at paras. 217-219.

Defence Position

206The Defence made a written submission that the behaviour under this prong must be part of a pattern, as that concept has been defined under the “repetitive behaviour” pattern under s. 753(1)(a)(i), meaning I think that the pattern must show similarity between offences – either high similarity where there are fewer offences, or lower similarity where there are numerous offences. This position is consistent with Joseph A. Neuberger & Nick Whitfield, Assessing Dangerousness: Guide to the Dangerous Offender Application Process (Toronto: Thomson Reuters, 2026), at §4:22 Threat – A Pattern of Persistent Aggressive Behaviour (Westlaw) which provides:

It is true that both patterns [in ss.753(1)(a)(i) and (ii)] rely on a threat requiring the Crown to prove a behaviour based on repetitious acts committed in the past. Again, the pattern must either show a similarity between past acts (R. v. Langevin) or a significant number of non-identical acts (R. v. Dow).

207Another key point of emphasis from the Defence is that indifference should be assessed more broadly, by looking at the general attitudes of the offender, not just by assessing indifference at the time of the offence. The Defence refers to George, at para. 23:

Looking at the point more generally, if indifference is to be determined only at the time of offence, the outcome will almost always be a foregone conclusion. An offender rarely measures the moral quality of his or her act at the time of a personal injury offence. In my view the attitude of the offender must be examined more broadly in order to fulfil what I take to be Parliament's intention; namely, to identify the truly evil personality type who has no compassion for others at any time. The approach taken by the learned trial judge casts too broad a net. It must always be remembered that dangerous offender proceedings may lead to the most severe penal sanction in our law, a lifetime of custody.

C. Application

208In my view, the Crown has failed to prove the requisite pattern under s. 753(1)(a)(ii) beyond a reasonable doubt.

209I have not considered Mr. Daoud’s youth records or institutional misconducts. The context of the youth offences is unknown. They do not seem to involve aggression causing serious harm. Similarly, the institutional offences since 2023 do not involve acts of aggression causing serious harm. In my view, the predicate offences and the 2015 sexual assault are the only offences that qualify as the type of behaviour contemplated in s. 753(1)(a)(ii). The youth entries for robberies, thefts, and uttering threats are at the low end of the spectrum of seriousness and do not entail the use of weapons or the infliction of any violence. They do not meet the threshold of aggression that demonstrates “substantial indifference” to reasonably foreseeable consequences. Additionally, Mr. Daoud’s specific role in the manslaughter – being a lookout for his co-accused, who was going to rob a drug dealer of his cocaine – does not qualify as aggressive behaviour on his part demonstrating substantial indifference to reasonably foreseeable consequences.

210I find that the 2015 sexual assault and the predicate offences (all of them) demonstrate acts of aggression causing serious harm and demonstrating a substantial degree of indifference. The issue is whether they constitute a pattern.

211For the reasons set out above in the prior section, there are significant differences between the 2015 sexual assault and the predicate offences.

212The incidents of criminal behaviour that meet the definition under s. 753(1)(a)(ii) – the 2015 sexual assault and the current offences against the complainant – take up a small portion of Mr. Daoud’s life and are separated by a time gap. Of note, these incidents were also fuelled by substance use.

213Further, portions of Mr. Daoud’s life have been spent demonstrating a great deal of empathy, care, kindness, and generosity to those around him. Twenty individuals filed support letters in this case, attesting to countless first-hand experiences with Mr. Daoud demonstrating these attributes. Dr. Chaimowitz testified “I don’t think I’ve ever seen this many letters of support…this is probably the most extensive collection of letters of support that I’ve read” and “there were more letters supportive of him than I’ve seen in any other similar case.” The letters come from disparate sources, including family members, friends, neighbours, inmates, his partner, and his Imam in the jail. Some of these letters are from individuals who have known Mr. Daoud for years or his entire life. In my view, this broader context must be considered in the determination of whether Mr. Daoud demonstrated a substantial degree of indifference.

214Pursuant to s. 757 of the Criminal Code, Parliament legislated that character evidence is admissible “on the question of whether the offender is or is not a dangerous offender”. This character evidence is particularly relevant to the inquiry under s. 753(1)(a)(ii), which examines the offender’s interpersonal-affective traits (i.e., callousness, lack of sympathy, empathy, or regard for others etc.).

215I have already summarized, in a general way, the letters of support filed on Mr. Daoud’s behalf. The letters speak to Mr. Daoud’s devotion and care for his family, including his siblings, his grandmother and his nephews. Several of the letters speak to Mr. Daoud’s generosity and loyalty as a friend. The letters also address his outreach to community members, volunteering and mentoring. Former inmates provided letters referring to Mr. Daoud’s efforts to bring peace while in custody by de-escalating conflict and guiding an inmate towards faith.

216Dr. Chaimowitz’s assessment and testimony corroborate the authors of the letters’ portrayal of Mr. Daoud’s behaviour as genuine, generous, selfless, empathetic, kind, compassionate and caring toward others. Dr. Chaimowitz agreed that Mr. Daoud “comes across as all of that” (the attributes exhibited by the letters). He testified that Mr. Daoud’s charm is not superficial, but genuine.

217I have also considered Mr. Daoud’s scoring on the Factor 1 scale in the PCL-R test. The Factor 1 scale is designed to test interpersonal-affective traits, measuring for characteristics such as callousness, lack of empathy, superficial charm, and manipulativeness. Mr. Daoud’s Factor 1 score was not elevated. Dr. Chaimowitz highlighted that his charm and warmth were sincere, not superficial, that he had capacity for remorse and expressed remorse, that he had the capacity to have meaningful attachments to many people, and that he appeared genuinely internally motivated for change – albeit something that was to be tested in the future.

218In conclusion, Mr. Daoud’s history does not demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt a pattern of persistent aggression of the kind described in s. 753(1)(a)(ii). Viewed in context and totality, he cannot be characterized as “the truly evil personality type who has no compassion for others at any time.”

219As I have not found the requisite pattern described in ss. 753(1)(a)(i) or (ii), it is not necessary for me to consider whether there is a high likelihood of harmful recidivism and intractability; however, I will do so for completeness of the analysis.

There is no High Likelihood of Harmful Recidivism

A. Law

220As set out at para. 37 of Boutilier and para. 43 of Lyons, even when a past pattern has been established, this is insufficient, unless the evidence also establishes a high likelihood of harmful recidivism. The pattern of conduct must be (1) “very likely to continue” and (2) very likely to result in the endangerment of the life, safety, or physical well-being of others.

B. Application

221In my view, the offences that I have put on the pattern scale are not sufficiently persistent or repetitive to be predictive of a high likelihood of harmful recidivism. The behaviour that qualifies under the pattern analysis is isolated, infrequent, and contextualized by negative peer associations and substance use – risk factors that Mr. Daoud has made progress on combatting.

222The absence of any criminal offending while Mr. Daoud was in Sudan and Malaysia for several years underscores his capacity to live a pro-social life. The Crown’s submissions that this gap in offending should be given no weight as an indicator of rehabilitative potential without “verification” is wrong in law. At the designation stage, the Crown bears the onus of proving all the elements of dangerousness beyond a reasonable doubt. Requiring Mr. Daoud to provide evidence to prove that he is not dangerous reverses the burden of proof.

223In my view, any pattern that exists is not sufficiently entrenched so as to demonstrate a high likelihood of harmful recidivism.

The Risk is Not Substantially or Pathologically Intractable

A. Law

224Even when there is a high likelihood of harmful recidivism, the court must still go on to determine whether the risk is intractable. “Intractable” conduct is behaviour that the offender is “unable to surmount”: see Boutilier, at para. 27; Lyons, at para. 43.

225Intractability is a consideration at both the designation and sentencing stages.

226There are generally two categories of evidence capable of establishing a reasonable possibility of eventual control in the community: (1) evidence that the offender can be meaningfully treated within a determinate period of time; and/or (2) evidence that the offender’s risk can be otherwise managed through factors such as supervision, community supports and programming, burnout associated with ageing etc.: see R. v. Little, 2007 ONCA 548, at paras. 40-44.

227Paragraph 45 of Boutilier provides:

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.

228As set out in Little, at para. 39, the analysis is concerned with risk reduction – not risk elimination. The sentencing judge need only be satisfied of a “reasonable possibility” of eventual control of the risk posed by the offender, rather than a certainty.

B. Position of the Parties

229The parties dispute whether the Crown has proven that Mr. Daoud’s risk is intractable.

230One of the disputed issues in the intractability analysis is how the court should treat the evidence of burnout. I note that the burnout issue is also relevant to the sentencing stage, because intractability is a consideration at both stages of the dangerous offender hearing.

231The parties agree that burnout cannot be considered if it is purely speculative. There must be some evidence related to Mr. Daoud’s specific prospects of burning out. The parties diverge on whether Dr. Chaimowitz gave evidence that would link the burnout phenomenon to Mr. Daoud, such that the court can consider burnout in its risk assessment.

232Both parties point to an opinion Dr. Chaimowitz gave in the case of R v. Primmer, 2021 ONCA 564, at para.88, but argue opposite points on its application.

233In Primmer, the Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge’s conclusion that burnout would be “purely speculative” given the expert testimony of Dr. Chaimowitz and another expert, Dr. Klassen. Dr. Chaimowitz’s opinion was that “there was no evidence that the appellant’s future maturation was anything more than a possibility.”

234Both parties point to Dr. Chaimowitz’s testimony during this hearing on March 2, 2026, where Dr. Chaimowitz said “[burnout] is a possibility for him”, referencing Mr. Daoud.

Crown Position

235The Crown submits that it would be an error to consider burnout in Mr. Daoud’s case, because based on Dr. Chaimowitz’s evidence, burnout would be purely speculative as it was in Primmer.

236The Crown argues that Dr. Chaimowitz’s opinion here is essentially the same as the one he gave in Primmer. The Crown points to Dr. Chaimowitz’s March 2 testimony. The Crown asked “I guess that means you wouldn’t be able to opine one way or the other whether Mr. Daoud is part of the group who was likely to burnout or not”, and he said “no I couldn’t opine on that; it’s a possibility for him.”

Defence Position

237Defence says that Primmer is distinguishable because in that case, Dr. Chaimowitz expressly testified that burnout would not apply to Mr. Primmer given his specific issues.

238Defence points to Dr. Chaimowitz’s testimony on this application that people with elevated Factor 2 scores are more likely to burn out than people with factor one scores. Mr. Daoud has elevated Factor 2 scores, and does not have elevated Factor 1 scores.

239Further, Defence notes that Dr. Chaimowitz said “[burnout] is a possibility for him”.

C. Application

240In my opinion, the Crown has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Daoud’s risk of harmful recidivism is substantially or pathologically intractable. The record as a whole, reinforced by Dr. Chaimowitz’s testimony, demonstrates that Mr. Daoud: a) has the capacity and motivation for significant change and improvement; b) has been embarking upon meaningful steps towards rehabilitation; and c) has already demonstrated progress.

241The following evidence in the record supports these assertions:

i. Mr. Daoud exhibits many pro-social personality traits. He reflects remorse and a desire for change. This was not only expressed by him and perceived by Dr. Chaimowitz, but reflected in 20 support letters filed on sentencing, the authors of which speak of experiencing first-hand Mr. Daoud’s very strong motivation for change. Mr. Daoud also has expressed pro-social future goals, including abstinence from substance, and desire for a pro-social life. Dr. Chaimowitz testified that Mr. Daoud “was tearful at times when he should have been. He reflected remorse. He identified goals that he had for the future, which appeared to be pro-social. And either – and a, and a wish to change.” Dr. Chaimowitz also testified “He wants a pro-social life. I believe that to be true as he says it. He acknowledges that he shouldn’t be using drugs in the future and wants a better life for himself. Whether he’s able to follow through with that I, I don’t know. But he needs a lot of help to stay away from drugs and alcohol, and a lot of help in terms of the supports needed to manage his antisocial history.”

ii. Mr. Daoud successfully completed one round of the integrated correctional program module while in custody. This programming targeted six factors, including behavioural and cognitive issues, attitudes, beliefs and relationships. On all six factors, Mr. Daoud improved, moving from “needs a lot of improvement” to “needs some improvement”.

iii. Dr. Chaimowitz agreed that, given another opportunity to engage in a further round of intensive programming, Mr. Daoud’s amenability to supervision and compliance should continue to improve “there is some hope and it is positive.”

iv. Comprehensive neurocognitive testing has revealed cognitive deficits for Mr. Daoud that now allow for better insight into treating him. In particular, these cognitive deficits allow increased understanding of what is required to increase the likelihood of success in treating Mr. Daoud – namely, repeated programmed and maintenance programs, to help Mr. Daoud retain and internalize concepts learned. Dr. Chaimowitz agreed with this. There is no evidence that Mr. Daoud’s cognitive deficits had been diagnosed prior to the testing Dr. Chaimowitz conducted.

v. Mr. Daoud has a rich source of community support from family members and friends – uniquely so. As Dr. Chaimowitz testified his family has always supported him but now, unlike in the past, they have the financial resources to support him. Dr. Chaimowitz testified that “they will provide whatever money can buy that may go towards keeping him…out of trouble.” As set out in the letters filed, they will offer him not only financial support, but also housing, employment, spiritual support, and emotional support.

vi. Mr. Daoud has a history of employment while in the community and realistic employment goals for the future, which is a stabilizing factor. His employment history, includes work in food service/hospitality, driving and delivery work, trades and labour, and graphic design. Dr. Chaimowitz testified that Mr. Daoud “to his credit does have a work history as many do not.” A previous employer interviewed for the assessment described Mr. Daoud as “hardworking and reliable”. Mr. Daoud also secured institutional employment in the jail – something that Dr. Chaimowitz agreed requires the inmate to first accrue a certain amount of trustworthiness and dependability. He was described by corrections staff as “pleasant and polite with corrections staff and peers.” Dr. Chaimowitz agreed with the estimate that Mr. Daoud has worked about 70 per cent of the time he has spent in the community.

vii. Mr. Daoud’s Static-99 and Stable scores indicate a likelihood of not reoffending sexually in the next five years at 80-84%. This significant likelihood of not reoffending could increase further if Mr. Daoud managed his substance use.

viii. Mr. Daoud does not meet the criteria for psychopathy, which Dr. Chaimowitz testified is a positive factor, as this would make him more likely to recidivate at a higher rate and it would make his risk factors more resistant to treatment.

ix. Mr. Daoud does not have a major mental illness, which is a positive prognostic factor. Dr. Chaimowitz testified that Mr. Daoud suffers from anti-social personality disorder. Dr. Chaimowitz testified that “there are types of therapy, such as cognitive behaviour therapy, that have shown some success in anti-social personality disorder and may also assist him with substance use.” In Dr. Chaimowitz’s opinion, given Mr. Daoud’s cognitive testing, he would require “repeated groups and ongoing therapy on a regular basis.” He would require monitoring as well for his substance use for an extended period. In cross-examination, Dr. Chaimowitz said it is commonly accepted that anti-social personality disorder is harder to treat than other disorders but that doesn’t mean its not treatable. He said a combination of therapies, medication and programming can be used. It does not appear that this diagnosis and these treatments have ever been offered to Mr. Daoud before.

x. Mr. Daoud suffers from ADHD into adulthood. Dr. Chaimowitz agreed that he has been taking medication for it for the past year, he has remained compliant with medication, he does not appear to be abusing the medication, and he reports doing well on the medication. Mr. Daoud appears never to have taken ADHD medication before. His parents did not support this, fearing Mr. Daoud would be stigmatized.

xi. Dr. Chaimowitz confirmed that Mr. Daoud “is definitely taking this [dangerous offender application] seriously” as demonstrated by his efforts. Dr. Chaimowitz acknowledged that Dr. Mamak, in the assessment report stated that “[h]is responses suggest that he acknowledges important problems and reports having a positive attitude towards the possibility of personal change, the value of therapy and the importance of personal responsibility.”

xii. Dr. Chaimowitz has identified two very distinct criminogenic factors that drive Mr. Daoud’s offending behaviour – substance use and associating with negative peers. In Dr. Chaimowitz’s opinion, both of those risk factors can be targeted through programming and treatment, including regular testing and monitoring.

xiii. In Dr. Chaimowitz’s opinion Mr. Daoud will require the following to manage his risk:

a. Substance use treatment, including regular testing and monitoring;

b. Cognitive behavioural therapy and other therapies to assist with anti-social personality disorder and possibly medication; and,

c. Programming and monitoring to target the inclination to associate with anti-social peers.

xiv. Although Dr. Chaimowitz testified that Mr. Daoud would require lifelong abstinence from substances, he did not testify that treatment and monitoring would be required indefinitely. Rather, he indicated that treatment and monitoring would be required for the foreseeable future of “maybe five years”, it will depend on how he does. Five years would be a minimum in Dr. Chaimowitz’s view.

xv. Dr. Chaimowitz acknowledged that:

a. Mr. Daoud has never had the benefit of structured, meaningful substance use counselling until his recent incarceration at Warkworth institution;

b. Mr. Daoud was reported to have made improvements in this domain (moving from “needs much improvement” to “needs some improvement”);

c. Mr. Daoud self-initiated further voluntary substance-use counselling when he returned to provincial custody – something Dr. Chaimowitz characterized positively as a “helpful sign”;

d. Mr. Daoud also reads self-help books;

e. Mr. Daoud sought in-patient addiction supports while at Maplehurst; and,

f. Mr. Daoud expressed a willingness, desire, and motivation for change in relation to his substance-use issues.

242Dr. Chaimowitz testified that the record suggested that Mr. Daoud’s motivation in regard to his substance-use issues was genuine and he has shown the ability to engage with programming and make improvements. He opined that, if Mr. Daoud is able to manage his substance-use issues, that should have a significant impact on his risk of recidivism.

243Similarly, Dr. Chaimowitz acknowledged the efforts and progress Mr. Daoud has made in programming related to negative peers. This included improving his risk needs on this domain from “needs lots of improvement” to “needs some improvement”, and remaining largely free of any institutional misconducts for the last two years.

244Dr. Chaimowitz concluded that there was “some room for optimism” for Mr. Daoud, which includes a supportive family with the resources to help him, the fact that Mr. Daoud “appears committed to treatment” and that he “has the capacity to show some improvement.” Dr. Chaimowitz said all these things are positive. Dr. Chaimowitz ultimately agreed that Mr. Daoud’s dynamic risk factors (e.g. substance use, anti-social peer associations) “should improve with time and treatment” and that there was “[s]ome hope that with the necessary components and requirements in place…Mr. Daoud’s risk of recidivism can be significantly impacted.” In particular, Dr. Chaimowitz highlighted that the recommendations he has made in respecting of targeting Mr. Daoud’s substance use and anti-social peer influences “can go a long way to reducing the likelihood of him reoffending.” These recommendations were not restricted to a carceral setting but included options for Mr. Daoud should he be placed in the community.

245Against this total evidentiary backdrop, the Crown has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Daoud’s risk of harmful recidivism is “substantially or pathologically intractable.”

246I will now deal with the concept of burnout.

247In-chief, Dr. Chaimowitz explained the concept of burn out, the concept of criminality and anti-social behaviour burning out with age. He indicated this begins after about the age of 40 years, which is Mr. Daoud’s age. He said it is a trend that cannot attach to any individual. Dr. Chaimowitz said he could not opine on whether Mr. Daoud would burn out or not, but added “it is a possibility for him.” This appears to be similar to his opinion in Primmer.

248In cross-examination, Dr. Chaimowitz confirmed that Mr. Daoud scored higher on his Factor 2 personality traits than he did on his Factor 1 traits. He agreed that Factor 2 traits are more likely to burn out that Factor 1 traits.

249In my view, this additional evidence concerning Factor 2 traits differentiates Mr. Daoud’s situation from the Primmer case. This is a distinguishing factor. Burnout is a consideration for Mr. Daoud.

Conclusion

250Mr. Daoud is not a dangerous offender.

IV. THE APPROPRIATE SENTENCE

251I have concluded that Mr. Daoud is not a dangerous offender. He is designated a long-term offender. This has been conceded by the Defence and he meets the three criteria.

252I have summarized each side’s position on sentence above.

253The parties agree that the mandatory minimum sentence for Mr. Daoud for the sexual assault with a firearm is four years, and the maximum is 14 years: s. 272(2)(a.1).

254The parties also agree that Mr. Daoud is eligible to received Summers credit beginning on his statutory release date for the manslaughter conviction – January 13, 2025.

Human Trafficking

255The court in R. v. Lopez, 2018 ONSC 4749, at para. 52 described the inherently exploitive nature of human trafficking:

For many years Canadian courts have decried the inherently exploitive, coercive and controlling actions of “pimps” in relation to prostitutes. The unfortunate contemporary reality of the sex trade is that male pimps typically are involved in the exploitation, degradation and subordination of women. At its most basic level, it is a form of slavery, with pimps living parasitically off the earnings of prostitutes. Pimps exercise their control over prostitutes by means of a variety of tactics including emotional blackmail, verbal abuse, threats of violence and/or pure physical violence and brutality. The prostitutes that are the subject of this coercive exploitation are typically vulnerable and disadvantaged women, who have been manipulated and taken advantage of by the pimp. Even in cases where their initial participation in the sex trade is voluntary, including perhaps their business association with the pimp, and adopted for reasons of perceived increased security and safety in an inherently dangerous line of work, the relationship invariably becomes one-sided and exploitive. Prostitutes are ultimately forced, in one way or another, to provide sexual services for money in circumstances where they would not otherwise have agreed to such services, and the money earned from those sexual services is collected by the pimp. Accordingly, in a very real and practical sense, pimps traffick in the human resources of prostitutes, callously using their sexual services as an endlessly available commodity to be simply bought and sold in the market place. Accordingly, pimps have been aptly described as a “cruel, pernicious and exploitive evil” in contemporary society. See, for example, Reference re ss. 193 and 195.1(1)(c) of the Criminal Code, 1990 CanLII 105 (SCC), [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1123, at pp. 1134-1135, 1193-1194; R. v. Downey, 1992 CanLII 109 (SCC), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 10, at pp. 32-35; R. v. Grilo (1991), 1991 CanLII 7241 (ON CA), 64 C.C.C. (3d) 53 (Ont.C.A.), at pp. 60-61; R. v. Naud (1996), 1996 CanLII 485 (BC CA), 106 C.C.C. (3d) 348 (B.C.C.A.), at paras. 40-44, affirmed, 1997 CanLII 373 (SCC), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 312; R. v. Miller, [1997] O.J. No. 3911 (Gen.Div.), at paras. 33-45.

256Some of the factors the court should consider when determining the appropriate sentence for human trafficking are set out in R. v. K.P., 2023 ONSC 6767, at para. 32:

At para. 53 of Lopez, Campbell J. identified various circumstances as relevant in the determination of sentence. Several of these factors were previously set out in R. v. Tang, 1997 ABCA 174, and R. v. Miller, [1997] O.J. No. 3911 (Gen. Div.), and are known collectively as the “Tang/Miller factors”. They include:

1. The degree of coercion or control imposed by the accused on the complainant’s activities;

2. The amount of money received by the accused and the extent to which he allowed the complainant to retain her earnings;

3. The age of the complainant and any special vulnerability she may have;

4. The working conditions in which she was expected to operate, including health and safety concerns;

5. The degree of planning and sophistication, including whether the pimp was working in concert with others;

6. The numbers of customers the complainant was expected to service;

7. The duration of the exploitative conduct;

8. The degree of violence, if any, apart from that inherent in the accused’s parasitic activities;

9. The effect on the complainant of the accused’s exploitation;

10. The extent to which the accused compelled sexual favours for himself from the complainant;

11. Any attempts by the accused to prevent the complainant from leaving his employ.

257As set out in R v. Swaby, 2024 ONSC 6141, at para. 46, in the context of human trafficking it is a “highly aggravating” factor that an offender uses illicit drugs or alcohol to manipulate the victim. Paragraph 47 of R. v. S.L., 2024 ONSC 2263 provides:

A very significant aggravating factor is that S.L. used cocaine to keep the complainant addicted so that she would continue the sex work which materially benefitted him.

258In R. v. K.P., Justice Baltman found the range of sentences for human trafficking for a first time offender with one victim to be between four to eight years. The range was described as just that, a range, and not a limit. Cases with highly sympathetic factors may bring it down, while cases with heavily damaging factors may push it up.

259The Crown referred to R v. P.O., 2023 ABKB 656, wherein the offender received a sentence of 19.5 years in total, including seven years for human trafficking. The offender treated the victim with brutality.

260The Crown also referred to R. v. A.S., 2017 ONSC 802, where the offender received 12 years for human trafficking. The offender was highly abusive and sexually assaultive.

261The Crown also referred to R. v. Burton, 2018 ONCJ 153, aff’d 2023 ONCA 44, wherein the offender received 8.5 years for human trafficking plus a ten-year LTSO. There were two victims.

262I did not find the Defence cases on sentencing for human trafficking helpful given the Defence position that six to eight years is the appropriate sentence. All the cases reflected sentences below that duration.

263I hereby sentence Mr. Daoud to a sentence of eight years on the human trafficking conviction.

264I have considered Mr. Daoud’s criminal record. I have also considered that his supplying T.W. with drugs was a component of the control he exercised over her. Mr. Daoud trafficked T.W. over a period of time, for nearly two years from September of 2018 to the summer of 2020. According to her testimony, he kept all her money and controlled the amount of work she was required to do.

265I have also considered the following mitigating factors:

a. The rehabilitative efforts Mr. Daoud has made since then.

b. The physical assaults Mr. Daoud has experienced in pretrial incarceration. I specifically refer to his affidavit sworn March 2, 2026 and the assaults he has suffered since.

Financial Benefit from Trafficking

266The Crown asked for a sentence of seven years for the conviction for financial benefit from trafficking. The Defence did not say anything specific in regard to this – just that it should be concurrent, to which the Crown agreed, and the total sentence should be six to eight years. I therefore impose a custodial sentence of seven years for the financial benefit from trafficking conviction, concurrent to the human trafficking sentence.

Procuring

267The Crown asked for four years for procuring. The Defence position was two years and that it should be concurrent to which the Crown agreed. I impose a custodial sentence of four years for procuring, concurrent to the human trafficking sentence. Four years is an appropriate sentence in all the circumstances.

Financial Benefit from Sexual Services

268The Crown’s position is that this conviction should be stayed pursuant to R v. Kienapple. The Defence did not oppose this and therefore, I so order.

Sexual Assault with a Weapon

269As set out above, counsel agree that the statutory minimum is four years and the maximum is 14 years.

270The Defence provided no case law on the appropriate sentence for sexual assault with a weapon as the Defence position is that the sentence should be included in the six to eight year total sentence and served concurrently.

271The Crown referred to R. v. R.C., 2018 ONSC 2114, at para. 11:

Much like the cases of R. v. Smith, and R. v. M.Q., this case involves prolonged and extreme incidents of sexual and physical abuse in the context of a marital relationship. It is hard to compare severity when dealing with cases at the extreme end of the spectrum. Cases of this sort involve the most severe type of violation to both the personal autonomy and physical integrity of the victim. This case has the added dimension of sexual assault involving a firearm and has the aggravating feature of a “gang” rape. In cases of sexual assault involving a firearm, Parliament has chosen to set a minimum sentence of 4 years. (Section 272 (2) (a.1)).

272The Crown also referred to R v. P.O., where the offender received seven years for the sexual assault with a weapon, consecutive to the seven years for human trafficking.

273The Crown also relied on R. v. Last, 2006 CanLII 5454 (ON SC) wherein the offender received a ten year sentence for sexual assault with a firearm.

274As set out in R. v. Burke, 2022 ONSC 3356, at para. 39, sex workers are very vulnerable. Sentences must emphasize denunciation and deterrence.

275Under s. 718.20, the court must also consider the increased vulnerability of an intimate partner. Mr. Daoud and T.W. were in an intimate partnership.

276In my view an appropriate sentence is eight years for the sexual assault with a weapon. This recognizes the severity of this sexual assault. Mr. Daoud inserted a handgun into the mouth and vagina of an intimate partner and repeatedly pulled the trigger.

277The Crown says this sentence should be consecutive to the sentence for human trafficking and the Defence takes the position it should be part of the six to eight year sentence.

278The Crown provided the case of R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9, on the issue of whether a sentence should be consecutive or concurrent, with reference to para. 155:

The decision whether to impose a sentence concurrent with another sentence or consecutive to it is guided by principles. While the issue warrants further discussion in another case, the general rule is that offences that are so closely linked to each other as to constitute a single criminal adventure may, but are not required to, receive concurrent sentences, while all other offences are to receive consecutive sentences (see, e.g., R. v. Arbuthnot, 2009 MBCA 106, 245 Man.R. (2d) 244, at paras. 18-21; R. v. Hutchings, 2012 NLCA 2, 316 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 211, at para. [84](https://www.canlii.org/en/nl/nlca/doc/2012/2012nlca2/2012nlca