R. v. Wilson, 2026 ONSC 417
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
– and –
JESSE BRANDON WILSON
Respondent
COUNSEL:
Konrad de Koning, for the Crown
Wayne Cunningham, for the Respondent
HEARD: April 3, 2023, September 22, 23, 25, 26, 29 and December 1, 2025
RESTRICTION ON PUBLICATION
By court order made under subsection 486.5 of the Criminal Code, any information that could identify the named witness, shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way.
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
Overview
1On April 3, 2023, Jesse Brandon Wilson appeared before the court and re-elected trial by judge alone and entered a plea of not guilty to the offences before the court. An Agreed Statement of Fact (ASF) was read into the record on consent which was not disputed by the defence. On the basis of the plea and the ASF, I found Mr. Wilson guilty of the following offence:
That or about the 21st day of August, in the year 2021, at the City of London, in the said Region did, in committing an assault on JAMES FOSTER, wound, maim, disfigure or endanger the life of the said JAMES FOSTER, and thereby commit an aggravated assault, contrary to Section 268, subsection (2) of the Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46.
2Following the conviction, a Gladue Report was ordered, and the Crown requested that an assessment pursuant to s. 752.1 of the Criminal Code be ordered.
3The Crown thereafter made application for an order pursuant to the provisions of s. 753(1)(a) of the Code to have Mr. Wilson declared to be a Dangerous Offender (DO) and sentenced to detention in the penitentiary for an indeterminate period.
4Based on the conviction, and Mr. Wilson’s past offending behaviour, counsel for the respondent concedes that the criteria for designating him as a Dangerous Offender pursuant to s. 753(1)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Code has been met, but he opposes the imposition of an indeterminate sentence.
5The issue for the court to determine therefore, is whether there is a reasonable expectation that a sentence less than an indeterminate sentence will adequately protect the public against the respondent committing another serious personal injury offence. The respondent submits that the court should impose a fixed sentence of two years imprisonment, after giving him credit for time spent in pre-sentence custody, followed by a Long-Term Supervision Order (LTSO). The Crown submits that the only way to adequately address the risk that the respondent poses to the community is to impose an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment.
The Circumstances of the Predicate or Index Offence
6Mr. Wilson and the victim of this offence, James Foster, did not know each other prior to the date of the offence. On Saturday, August 21, 2021, the two met by chance at the “Needle Exchange” in downtown London, Ontario. They engaged in conversation and agreed that Mr. Wilson would trade Mr. Foster a quantity of fentanyl for a quantity of crystal methamphetamine.
7They exchanged the substances. The substance provided by Mr. Foster turned out not to be crystal methamphetamine and Mr. Wilson demanded that Mr. Foster return the fentanyl he provided to him. Mr. Foster refused. Mr. Wilson then brandished a knife and slashed at Mr. Foster who ran away. Mr. Wilson pursued him on a bicycle.
8Mr. Foster ran towards his apartment building. The rest of the incident is captured on surveillance video which was submitted in evidence as part of the ASF. Mr. Foster attempted to evade Mr. Wilson by climbing over a wrought iron fence to get to the entrance of the building. As Mr. Foster attempted to climb over the fence, Mr. Wilson is seen riding up on the bike and stabbing Mr. Foster with a knife.
9Mr. Foster fell over onto the opposite side of the fence. As he did, his ankle got caught on the fence and he was hanging upside down with his ankle caught on the fence. The fall caused an oblique fracture of his right femur. Mr. Wilson continued to stab Mr. Foster as he was hanging on the fence. He is observed on the surveillance video making ten stabbing motions. Mr. Wilson then left the area.
10The police were called by a tenant of the building. The police attended, as did an ambulance. Mr. Foster was taken to hospital where it was discovered that he suffered three stab wounds to his right leg, one to his left leg and one stab wound to his back in addition to the fracture of his leg. Mr. Foster received emergency medical treatment including sutures to close the wounds and the fracture was set.
11Mr. Wilson was arrested later that day. A search incidental to his arrest resulted in the police locating a large hatchet concealed in the front waistband of his shorts, as well as two folding pocketknives. None of those objects were the weapon used to stab Mr. Foster. Mr. Wilson has been in custody since his arrest on August 21, 2021.
The Circumstances of the Offender
12Mr. Wilson’s background was provided to the court through the Gladue Reports1 prepared as well as the personal information he provided for the preparation of the Assessment Report by Dr. Philip Klassen.
13Mr. Wilson was born in Brantford, Ontario, on January 15, 1989. He is now 37 years old. He identifies as Status First Nations from Six Nations of the Grand River. His mother was Indigenous, but his father was not. His maternal grandmother was a survivor of residential schools, and he suffers from the intergenerational trauma of the Residential School system.
14Mr. Wilson reported to the Gladue Report writer that his father held a contempt for Indigenous people and their culture and moved their family off the reserve when he was a young child. This resulted in the respondent losing his connection to his Indigenous identity and it negatively impacted his sense of self-worth.2
15Mr. Wilson has fond memories of his early years living in Six Nations. However, things changed once they moved away from there. He was raised in poverty and often experienced unstable housing and neglect as a child. His parents would leave him and his siblings alone for weeks at a time with no food in the house. They were sometimes fed by neighbours.
16The respondent was raised in a home where drug abuse was prevalent. Mr. Wilson resided with his parents until he was about ten years old. Two of his siblings were apprehended by the Children’s Aid Society (CAS). He was initially sent to live with an uncle in Nova Scotia. He was subjected to psychological and physical abuse in that home. He was removed from that home by the CAS. The foster family he was first placed with left him with one of the few positive memories of his childhood. Eventually, he was made a Crown ward because of his mother’s drug use and inability to parent. He then lived in a series of foster homes, group homes and institutions as a child and a young teen. He began to exhibit behavioural issues, and he became involved in the criminal justice system. He left the care of the CAS when he was 16 years old.
17Mr. Wilson’s mother died in 2017 of a fentanyl overdose while he was in jail. He was close to his mother and loved her very much despite her issues. He described her as the only one who would love him consistently. Mr. Wilson reveals that there was domestic violence in the relationship between his mother and his father. He witnessed the violence when he was growing up and was himself a victim of physical, emotional and sexual violence. Mr. Wilson states that he was sexually abused by a CAS worker. He sued and received a settlement without an admission of liability.
18Mr. Wilson has four siblings and two half-siblings. He believes that they all suffer from fetal alcohol syndrome, although it is unclear whether this is a formal medical diagnosis. Mr. Wilson has no relationship with his older brother. He has twin siblings who reside in London with whom he has what is described as an on-and-off relationship. It appears he has little to no contact with his siblings.
19During the preparation of the first Gladue Report, Mr. Wilson became emotional and cried when discussing his childhood and his family stating that he has “never talked about this stuff”. He revealed that he has never participated in any therapy or counselling related to his troubled childhood.
20Mr. Wilson’s formal education ended when he was about 14 years old. He attended special classes for behavioural issues. He states that he has been diagnosed with ADHD, although he does not suffer from any learning disorders. Mr. Wilson has participated in some upgrading of his education while he has been in custody, and he is one credit shy of achieving his grade 12 diploma.
21As for his employment history, it is fairly limited. He was employed for two weeks when he was 16 years old, and this is reported by him as his longest period of employment. He worked for three days doing demolition work in Toronto, Ontario at one point. He has been on the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) since he was 18 or 19 years old.
22At the time of his arrest, Mr. Wilson was homeless. Prior to that, he lived for the most part with his mother until she died. He recognizes that he struggles with drug addiction, and he admits that he sometimes sold drugs to support his drug habit. The respondent reports that he does not have any real friends in the community.
23Mr. Wilson is not married and has no children. He has had three serious common-law relationships. His first serious relationship ended after he was convicted of sexual assault. He was also charged with assaulting his first spouse.
24His second serious relationship lasted for about four years from 2013 to 2017. That relationship ended when he went to jail. That partner also had issues with substance use. They engaged in intimate partner violence against each other and at times were on court ordered conditions not to associate with each other.
25His last partner was an addict. They were at times homeless and at times lived together at his brother’s house.
26Mr. Wilson is currently receiving Nabilone (a medicinal form of marijuana) and is on a methadone maintenance treatment program. He acknowledged that when he uses alcohol, he often blacks out and gets involved in physical altercations, and it has played a role in his criminal record.
27As for his issues with substance use, Mr. Wilson reports that he has used every drug including crack cocaine, crystal methamphetamine, ecstasy, and fentanyl. He admits to using cannabis even while in custody. The respondent began using drugs at age 14 or 15. He acknowledges that crack cocaine has been a problem for him. He has also used cocaine intravenously and has committed offences such as breaking and entering to support his cocaine use. Mr. Wilson has also used crystal methamphetamine intravenously. He began to use fentanyl after his mother died. He has overdosed on fentanyl and was administered naloxone and required medical intervention. His drug of choice appears to be methamphetamine.
28The respondent reported that he has not received mental health care in the community although he did while he was in custody at St. Lawrence Valley Institution. Mr. Wilson acknowledged that he did not take medication when he was in the community although he had been prescribed medication. While he has been in custody, he has received antipsychotic medication which he finds helpful.
29Mr. Wilson reported to Dr. Klassen that since he has been taking this medication, he experiences less auditory hallucinations and paranoia. However, he acknowledged that he still has cravings for crystal methamphetamine while in custody and that if he could access it, he would use it. The methadone maintenance program treats his opioid cravings but does not reduce his cravings for crystal methamphetamine.
30The respondent has a criminal record which began as a youth, when he was 12 years old. It was admitted at this hearing and was referred to extensively by counsel. The particulars of his criminal record were provided by the Crown and referred to by Dr. Klassen in his report. I do not intend to refer to each conviction, but I will refer to parts of the record. Notably, Mr. Wilson has been convicted of an offence every year between 2001 and 2021 except in 2013 and in 2020. During those years, he was serving federal sentences. He has 96 total convictions including 29 convictions for offences involving the use of violence or threats of violence and 49 convictions for violating court orders.
31As a youth, Mr. Wilson was convicted of breaching court orders, assault, uttering threats, counselling the offence of robbery and assault with a weapon, among other offences. He spent time in custody and under supervision in the community. He was placed on probation and violated the terms of those orders numerous times.
32As an adult, his first conviction was for an offence of robbery with violence on May 1, 2007, and he was sentenced to one day jail in addition to 26 days of pre-sentence custody. On that occasion, Mr. Wilson reports that he was intoxicated and with two others when they assaulted a stranger, punched him and stole his hat. On December 19, 2007, he was convicted of sexual assault and was sentenced to one day in custody in addition to 96 days of pre-sentence custody and placed on probation for 12 months. The victim was the 13-year-old sister of one of his partners. Mr. Wilson reports that he was drunk as was the victim and his partner at the time, and that the sexual activity was consensual. The facts admitted in court reflect that the victim was “passing out” when he had intercourse with her.
33His criminal record continued unabated. He has been convicted more than a dozen times of assault, assault with a weapon, or assault causing bodily harm, including assault offences which occurred in the context of intimate partner violence.
34Mr. Wilson has two periods of incarceration in the penitentiary. On December 30, 2011, he was sentenced to two years imprisonment for a conviction for breaking and entering a dwelling-house and six months jail concurrent for a charge of fail to comply with a probation order. The Correctional Services Canada (CSC) records reflect that, at that time he was noted to have a medium reintegration potential and was considered stable when on his medication.
35While he was serving his sentence in the penitentiary, Mr. Wilson spent significant time in segregation, up to 30 days at a time on several occasions and at one point, 83 days. He reported a decline in his mental health during those periods including engaging in self-harm. He did not receive any treatment during this time.
36On June 27, 2019, he was sentenced to two years and one day imprisonment following a conviction for possession of a Schedule I substance for the purpose of trafficking contrary to s. 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c. 19. During this sentence, he was in the high intensity care unit at the Regional Treatment Centre and participated in some counselling, although he was removed from the program. Once the Covid pandemic struck, programming for inmates was restricted and Mr. Wilson did not complete any meaningful treatment. He remained on the waitlist for the initial primer program offered by CSC. Mr. Wilson was released on parole and breached the conditions for using drugs.
37Dr. Klassen, in his report, reviewed each of the entries in the criminal record with Mr. Wilson. He found that Mr. Wilson often minimized his involvement in the offences and did not always accept full responsibility for his behaviour.
38Mr. Wilson describes in the Gladue Report that when he is subject to Intensive Supervision under a probation order, he has difficulty complying with the conditions. He admits to being late for appointments or failing to report and failing to advise the probation officer of a change of address. He also described the index offence and expressed remorse about it. He described hearing voices in his head that day, one he describes as the Devil, mocking him for being fooled by Mr. Foster, and the other as the Angel telling him not to do anything. He acknowledges that what he did was wrong and recognizes that he needs help to deal with his anger issues and issues surrounding unresolved trauma.
39Mr. Wilson also referred, in the Gladue Report, to a traumatic incident that occurred when he was an inmate at Millhaven Institution in 2020. Three days before he was scheduled for release, the inmate in the cell above him was murdered by another inmate. He recalled hearing that fight take place and hearing the sounds of the man being killed and begging for the assault to stop. It is described as an incident that “haunts him to this day”.
The Evidence at the Hearing
40Counsel filed an ASF on the Dangerous Offender Hearing. It is admitted that the index offence constitutes a serious personal injury offence as defined by s. 752 of the Criminal Code.
41The records provided by the Ministry of the Solicitor General were filed including a document entitled “Part A Risk Screening Redacted” which provided an update relating to the current period of the respondent’s incarceration. The Parole Board Canada documents were admitted for their truth.
42The court heard evidence from a number of witnesses. Since the designation of Mr. Wilson as a Dangerous Offender is not an issue, I need not address all of the evidence in detail, but I will address the evidence relevant to the issue of sentence.
43The court heard evidence from Shelley Griffith, a Parole Officer Supervisor with Correctional Services Canada with 26 years of experience. She reviewed the three volumes of records relating to Mr. Wilson’s periods of incarceration and his time on parole. She described that Dangerous and Long-term Offenders are treated exactly the same as other offenders with respect to classification, assessment and management of their sentences while incarcerated and after release on parole. Each inmate has a Case Management Team that is multi-disciplinary that provides support and the necessary interventions.
44Ms. Griffith testified that even offenders who are designated as a DO with an indeterminate sentence, become eligible to apply for full parole seven years from the date of their arrest, and may apply for day parole, three years earlier. At the Offender Intake Assessment, the focus is to gather as much information about the offender as they can in order to make an assessment of risk level and apply appropriate strategies. They then prepare a Correctional Plan that takes into account both dynamic and static factors that identify the risk level an inmate poses. If an inmate is Indigenous, an Elder conducts a review as well which takes into account their Indigenous history. An individual’s security classification is reviewed once per year and can change.
45Ms. Griffith testified that the Integrated Correctional Program Model (ICPM) provides for programming directed at addressing the needs of an offender with a focus on reintegration into society and the protection of society. This model consists of a primer program, a main program and a maintenance program.
46Christina Sinclair is a Regional Programme Manager with Correctional Services of Canada (“CSC”). She testified about the CSC’s available programming. The CSC provides inmates with anti-violence programming, as well as substance abuse programming tailored to both Indigenous and non-Indigenous offenders. Exhibit #6 describes the four distinct correctional program streams for male offenders including Multi-Target, Indigenous, Indigenous Sex Offender and Sex Offender programming. This model allows CSC to “target the needs and risks presented by specific offender populations” and to place offenders in the right program stream. In Ontario, the average time to access the first program for an offender is 252 days. The length of a sentence that an inmate has to serve is factored into how CSC prioritizes the programming offered to the offender.
47According to Ms. Sinclair, even though an inmate is assessed as requiring a particular program, he can be removed or suspended from a program for behavioural issues or if he misses too many sessions. Ms. Sinclair agreed with a suggestion by Mr. Cunningham that CSC has determined that Indigenous offenders respond better to programming involving other Indigenous persons and that is focused on their culture.
48Ms. Sinclair indicated that CSC is seeking to implement better education for their staff to be trauma-informed so that they can offer better treatment for inmates who have spent lengthy periods of time in segregation. She testified that the CSC operates Regional Treatment Centers that are staffed with social workers, and medical staff and are able to provide mental health interventions to assist in the stabilization and reintegration of individuals.
49The Crown also filed a document from the Ministry of the Solicitor General which included a list of “Misconducts” incurred by the respondent during his periods of incarceration. These institutional offences include possession of a “shank” or a hand-made knife while in the Elgin Middlesex Detention Centre (EMDC) in 2008, to numerous physical assaults on other inmates, which occurred both in the provincial jails and in the Federal penitentiaries, as well as other forms of misconduct including being in possession of drugs and threatening others. Some include self-harming behaviour. The misconducts involved 146 separate incidents up to and including July 25, 2025. I note that he was not found guilty of each of those allegations.
50As part of the ASF filed in this matter, the respondent admits the authenticity of a video recording filed in this hearing which depicts him assaulting an inmate on July 15, 2024, while he was in custody at the Toronto South Detention Centre. According to Mr. Wilson, the assault was precipitated by the other individual stating that he would “rape and kill his children”.
The s. 752.1 Assessment and the Evidence of Dr. Phillip Klassen
51Dr. Klassen conducted an Assessment of the respondent pursuant to s. 752.1 of the Code. The Report prepared by him and dated September 28, 2023, was filed as an exhibit at this hearing. The qualifications of Dr. Philip Klassen were admitted. He has practiced Forensic Psychiatry for 33 years. He is very experienced and a well-recognized expert in Forensic Psychiatry. He has completed approximately 260 s. 752.1 assessments and between 500 to 1000 assessments relating to fitness to stand trial and criminal responsibility. He was qualified as an expert in the field of Forensic Psychiatry to give opinion evidence in relation to clinical and actuarial risk assessment and risk management.
52Dr. Klassen met with the respondent in custody and interviewed him for approximately four and three-quarter hours. In addition to interviewing the subject of the report, Dr. Klassen tried to get information from other sources. The respondent was advised that he could decline to respond to questions if he chose to.
53Dr. Klassen testified that it is important to understand what occurred in Mr. Wilson’s childhood because it is a contributor to his offending behaviour. He testified that the respondent experienced lots of trauma in his youth as well as poor role-modeling. His lack of education and employment is relevant to a general propensity for offending.
54In general, Dr. Klassen found that the respondent did not experience many supportive relationships in his life. His use of drugs and alcohol, particularly stimulant drugs such as crack cocaine and methamphetamine correlate to criminal behaviour.
55Mr. Wilson described himself as quite depressed due to his current situation, and he sometimes engages in self-harm to reduce his “emotional pain”. The respondent has experienced hallucinations since he was 18 or 19 years old. He reports that he is anxious and experiences panic symptoms. Mr. Wilson also acknowledged to Dr. Klassen that he has difficulty with his anger.
56In the opinion of Dr. Klassen, Mr. Wilson suffers from Anti-Social and Borderline Personality Disorders, as well as substance abuse disorder. He states as well that individuals who have been chronically exposed to trauma, as in the case of the respondent, are often suspicious and mistrustful and can appear “quasi-psychotic”. However, Dr. Klassen does not believe that Mr. Wilson suffers from a psychotic illness such as schizophrenia. Dr. Klassen does not believe that Mr. Wilson suffers from a sexual behaviour disorder.
57Dr. Klassen reports that individuals with Anti-social Personality Disorder fail to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviours. They often present as irritable and aggressive; they may get into physical fights and commit acts of assault. These individuals show little remorse for the consequences of their acts. This designation is more about harm caused to others than about the individual.
58Individuals with Borderline Personality Disorder often demonstrate chronic instability in early adulthood with episodes of serious affective and impulse dyscontrol and high levels of use of health and mental health resources. This relates more to a person’s own distress. There is overlap between Borderline Personality Disorder and complex PTSD.
59Dr. Klassen reports that Mr. Wilson appears to suffer primarily from a stimulant use disorder as it relates to substances, although he may also have alcohol use disorder. Substance use has been an accelerant that contributes to the respondent’s instability.
60As for the risk assessment, Dr. Klassen reports that he scored Mr. Wilson using the PCL-R, the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised, (a diagnostic tool) as 28 out of a possible 40 points which places Mr. Wilson in the 76th percentile of North American offenders, a moderately high score. This correlates to an elevated risk of general and violent recidivism. On the HCR-20 V3 scale, on a continuum of 0 to 40 points, Mr. Wilson scored between 27 to 31 points, a high score. A score of this nature was described as concerning.
61Dr. Klassen did not employ actuarial tools during the assessment given recent jurisprudence from the Supreme Court of Canda which raised concerns about the applicability of those tools to the assessment of Indigenous offenders.
62In relation to risk management, Dr. Klassen is of the opinion that Mr. Wilson has “very marked difficulties with self-regulation” that have curtailed periods of treatment while he was at St. Lawrence Valley and are likely to interfere with treatment progress. He is also of the opinion that Mr. Wilson has actively sabotaged his own parole in the past because it is challenging for him to be in the community.
63Dr. Klassen testified that when he asked the respondent about the future, Mr. Wilson recognized that he needs structure, but he does not know if he could cope with a Long-Term Supervision Order. Dr. Klassen believes that he needs stabilization for trauma-related reactivity. In the opinion of Dr. Klassen, Mr. Wilson is at an above average level of psychopathy. However, personality disorders reduce in intensity and severity as people age, usually when they reach 50 years of age.
64In the opinion of Dr. Klassen, Mr. Wilson needs stabilization, probably through one-on-one counselling before he would be able to deal with the content of programming, but he would qualify for higher intensity treatment.
65In cross-examination, Dr. Klassen agreed with Mr. Cunningham that a willingness to accept treatment, as Mr. Wilson has expressed, is a cornerstone to successful treatment, however, he must be able to manage it.
66Dr. Klassen acknowledged that since Mr. Wilson has spent long periods of time in segregation, it could heighten his anxiety and incidents of self-harm. He agreed that segregating prisoners who have mental health problems results in isolation, increased anger, bitterness and boredom. He does not support the use of segregation.
67Dr. Klassen was cross-examined about the periods of segregation that Mr. Wilson has been subjected to. In 2011, the respondent was in segregation for a period of 50 days which Dr. Klassen referred to as a medium length period of segregation. He testified that this could produce increased anxiety and frustration in an inmate. He agreed that segregation can increase incidents of violence.
68Mr. Wilson spent over a year in segregation. Dr. Klassen expressed concern about the exacerbation of anxiety and distress in inmates who spend long periods of time in segregation. However, he also said that it is difficult to discern what role Mr. Wilson’s time in segregation has played, because he seems to have been on the same trajectory from when he was a youth to this point in time, even before spending time in segregation.
69In cross-examination, Dr. Klassen recognized that Mr. Wilson has experienced a great deal of trauma in his life due to his abusive father, generational residential school history, his mother’s severe addictions and involvement with the CAS. He also has concerns about his ability to make changes due to Mr. Wilson’s emotional dysregulation.
70Dr. Klassen was asked about what information might be useful to determine whether Mr. Wilson might be manageable in the community. According to Dr. Klassen, the availability of treatment and whether Mr. Wilson engages in treatment is an important factor. If Mr. Wilson successfully completes treatment while in custody, his instability would change, and his “triggers” should change as well.
Defence Evidence
71The court was provided with a letter authored by Jade Eskins, who is the Native Inmate Liaison Officer with Na-Me-Res (Native Men’s Residence) at the Toronto East Detention Centre. She wrote that while he was at the Toronto East Detention Centre, Mr. Wilson engaged in Indigenous cultural and rehabilitative programming, including participating in traditional ceremonies and counselling sessions. He has expressed interest in Indigenous treatment options, and a willingness to participate in programming to take accountability, understand intergenerational trauma and rebuild his life.
72B.B., the girlfriend of Mr. Wilson, (whose identity is protected by a publication ban pursuant to s. 486.5 of the Code) wrote a letter of support and testified at the hearing. She has known Mr. Wilson since 2020. They reconnected about a year ago and speak frequently by phone and in person. She has noticed what she describes as a meaningful change in the respondent from the man she first met in 2020. He has taken responsibility for his conduct, and she believes his progress is genuine. She is prepared to support him in the community by assisting him in connecting with counselling and mental health services.
73She currently lives in Brantford, Ontario with her five-yea- old daughter and works as a server in a restaurant. She also had experience being in the care of the CAS as a child. She was initially hesitant to become involved with Mr. Wilson when she first met him because he was on parole and was a drug user. She is not a user of drugs and did not want to get involved in that. Her opinion changed over the last year. She recognizes Mr. Wilson’s need for mental health treatment as well as treatment for drug use.
74In her experience, she does not believe that the respondent has an anger problem. She is not aware of all the incidents of assault that Mr. Wilson has been involved in while in custody.
75The court was provided with a letter from Cheyenne Williams, a Gladue Aftercare Worker of the Six Nations Justice Department, that details how they have worked to locate Mr. Wilson’s family members to facilitate a reconnection. It confirms that he is a status band member of Six Nations of the Grand River Territory. They are prepared to offer Mr. Wilson support that includes involvement in a traditional-led treatment facility, psychotherapy, Wellbriety programming and relapse prevention.
76In addition, the Offender Program Activity Report filed as Exhibit #17 reflects that between November 2022 and January 2025, Mr. Wilson has participated in approximately 20 programs offered through the various detention facilities where he has been incarcerated since his arrest on August 21, 2021. The programs include anger management, weekly chapel services, Indigenous programs and supportive relationships.
The Legal Principles Governing the Dangerous Offender Designation
77The Criminal Code provides for a two-stage process to determine whether an individual can be designated as a dangerous offender. At the first stage, the court must determine whether the offender should be designated as a dangerous offender based on his future risk to safety pursuant to s. 753(1). Once designated as a dangerous offender, the court will move to the second stage of the process and determine a fit sentence pursuant to s. 753(4).
78In R. v. J.C. 2025 ONCA 331 at paras. 14-15 the Court said:
Boutilier establishes that before designating a dangerous offender, a sentencing judge must be satisfied that the offender poses a high likelihood of harmful recidivism and that his or her conduct is “intractable”. The court defined intractable conduct as “behaviour that the offender is unable to surmount”: Boutilier, at para. 27. This requires the sentencing judge to conduct a prospective assessment of dangerousness, so that only offenders who pose a future risk are designated as dangerous and face the possibility of being sentenced to indeterminate detention.
15The court in Boutilier further clarified that the prospective assessment of dangerousness necessarily involves the consideration of future treatment prospects: at para. 43. 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”: Boutilier, at para. 45.
79Section 753(4.1) sets out the principles to be applied in imposing sentence. It states:
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.
80In R. v. Straub, 2022 ONCA 47 at para. 59, the Court of Appeal confirmed that dangerous offender proceedings are sentencing proceedings to which a judge must apply the sentencing objectives and principles set out in s. 718-718.2, however paramount consideration must be given to the protection of the public as set out in s. 753(4.1) of the Code.
81In Straub at paras. 62 to 63, the court said the following in relation to the penalty phase of the proceedings:
Section 753(4.1) mandates imposition of an indeterminate sentence unless there is a reasonable expectation that a lesser sentence will adequately protect the public against the dangerous offender’s violent recidivism. The standard to be applied to the evidence adduced at the hearing is whether there is a reasonable expectation that a lesser measure will adequately protect the public against the offender’s violent recidivism. The standard is reasonable expectation, not reasonable possibility. The term “reasonable expectation” suggests a “likelihood”, “a belief that something would happen”, or “a confident belief, for good and sufficient reasons”: Pelly, at para. 35; R. v. D.J.S., 2015 BCCA 111, at para. 30, leave to appeal refused, [2015] S.C.C.A. No. 194; R. v. Sanderson, 2018 MBCA 63, at para. 20; Awasis, at para. 73. The standard “reasonable expectation” is more stringent than “reasonable possibility”: R. v. Groves, 2020 ONCA 86, at para. 15.
Treatability is a relevant factor at the penalty stage of dangerous offender proceedings. But evidence of treatability must extend beyond speculative hope about successful treatment. The evidence must give some indication that the offender can be treated within an ascertainable time: Awasis, at para. 73, citing, R. v. Little, 2007 ONCA 548, 87 O.R. (3d) 683, at para. 42, leave to appeal refused, [2008] S.C.C.A. No. 39. See also, Boutilier, at para. 45.
82The court goes on to consider that manageability of a dangerous offender’s behaviour is also a factor to be considered at the penalty stage. The court should consider evidence in relation to the following criteria: whether the offender avoided treatment, or has failed to respond to or terminated treatment, if he has breached court orders, or lacked motivation, or continued to be involved in high-risk conduct, or has a serious personality disorder, and is a high risk to engage in violent recidivism, see: Straub at para. 64.
83In R. v. S. (R.) 2020 ONCA 765 at para 40, the Court stated:
40As the Supreme Court of Canada explained in Boutilier, at para. 60, s. 753(4) requires a sentencing judge to "impose the least intrusive sentence required to achieve the primary purpose of the scheme", which is the goal of public protection. This requires a sentencing judge to conduct a thorough inquiry as to whether the dangerous offender can be controlled in the community, by considering all the evidence from the hearing to determine the most fit sentence. Part of this inquiry is to assess the degree of the offender's intractability, and whether a proposed disposition can surmount it: Boutilier, at paras. 45, 67-68. Consequently, a finding that an offender's risk can be managed in the community requires an evidential foundation.
84Since Mr. Wilson is an indigenous offender, the court must consider Gladue factors at all stages of the dangerous offender application as well, see: R. v. Wesley 2018 ONCA 636 at para. 23.
The Positions of the Parties
85Although Mr. Cunningham, on behalf of the respondent, concedes that the Crown has met its onus at the designation stage, and that Mr. Wilson should be declared to be a dangerous offender, he submits that at the second stage of the inquiry, that he should not be sentenced to an indeterminate sentence, but rather, he should be sentenced to a period of imprisonment of two years, followed by a Long Term Supervision Order for ten years.
86The respondent is an Indigenous man whose life has been shaped by trauma. He has not completed meaningful treatment because certain aspects of his life have impeded treatment in the past.
87The respondent submits that there is a reasonable expectation of control of his behaviour in the community and a fixed sentence should be imposed. Counsel points out that Mr. Wilson has taken life skills programs available to him in the detention centres and has expressed a willingness to participate in programming and treatment which has not happened previously, which makes the risk he poses to the community manageable.
88According to Dr. Klassen, the respondent has accepted responsibility for his conduct and has expressed a willingness to change. Through socialization and through interventions, his behaviour can be controlled.
89Mr. Wilson now has a girlfriend who is prepared to support him and this provides strong motivation to bring about change. Since his incarceration in 2021, he has had no infractions due to hoarding or possessing contraband narcotics. This bodes well since a number of the offences he has committed involve the use of illicit substances. The defence submits that through treatment and external controls, there is a reasonable expectation of reducing the respondent’s risk of reoffending to a point that will adequately protect the public.
90Mr. Cunningham emphasized that Mr. Wilson has been subjected to long periods in segregation which increases the risk of self-harm, depression and anxiety and interfered with his ability to access treatment when he served his first penitentiary sentence.
91The respondent does not concede that the Crown has proven all of the institutional misconducts upon which he relies to the requisite standard, but he acknowledges that the incident of July 14, 2024, is made out and puts the Crown to the strict proof of any aggravating circumstances relied upon.
92The defence submits that the court must consider whether any risk posed by Mr. Wilson can be reduced to a manageable level in the community. In this case, the defence points to the fact that the respondent has co-operated in the process and participated in the preparation of the Gladue reports and the report of Dr. Klassen, that he does not suffer from any major mental illness, that he has accepted responsibility and expressed remorse for his conduct, that he is prepared to engage in treatment, and that he has never been offered the ability to get intensive treatment as suggestive of an evidentiary foundation for finding that treatment could reduce the risk posed by him.
93The respondent suggests that the community controls offered by virtue of a Long-Term Supervision Order would permit the Parole Board to impose conditions including a structured residence, culturally appropriate programming and other supports that would serve to protect the public.
94Mr. Wilson himself, when he addressed the court, expressed remorse. He described jail as his “safe place”, and he declared that he is not a lost cause.
95The respondent submits that an appropriate sentence for the index offence is in the range of four to six years. Given the time he has been in pre-sentence custody, enhanced at one and one-half days for each day, Mr. Wilson has already spent the equivalent of over six years in custody. Therefore, an appropriate sentence would be two years in the penitentiary followed by an LTSO for ten years.
96The Crown submits that at the penalty stage, the focus is on whether Mr. Wilson is treatable and there is no evidence before the court that he is. The Crown submits that in these circumstances, anything less than an indeterminate sentence will not adequately protect the public. Mr. de Koning describes Mr. Wilson as a violent offender who is incapable of being controlled in the community.
97The Crown submits that the totality of the evidence does not disclose a reasonable expectation that a lesser sentence would adequately address public safety. Although the court must impose the least intrusive sentence required, in the circumstances nothing short of an indeterminate sentence would be appropriate.
98There must be evidence to establish that there would be external controls in the community sufficient to address his conduct. To date, the respondent has not taken advantage of treatments offered to him in the past. The Crown suggests, as well, that the evidence of B.B. should be disregarded, she is not in a position to offer any controls on the offender’s conduct. Although she is prepared to offer support to the offender, she does not know him well since their relationship has been conducted entirely while the respondent has been in jail. Otherwise, the respondent is without any other social supports.
99Mr. de Koning asks the court to accept the evidence of Dr. Klassen that the offender poses a high risk to re-offend, and that few if any gains in risk reduction can be expected if he is released in the community, although the Crown is sympathetic to his troubled past.
100The offender has been non-compliant in the past with orders involving community supervision. He has been convicted of 49 offences involving breaching court orders. In order to be satisfied that the risk that Mr. Wilson poses could be controlled in the community, the court would have to be satisfied that there is some evidence that the offender would comply with any order that would be imposed. In the circumstances it is submitted that the court cannot be satisfied of that.
101It is likely that if the respondent is released, he will revert to the use of substances and to the commission of violent offences.
102If the court finds that an indeterminate sentence should not be imposed, the Crown submits that it would be appropriate to impose the maximum sentence permitted for an offence of this nature, that is 14 years followed by a ten-year LTSO.
103The Crown also seeks ancillary orders.
Analysis
The Designation Stage
104Counsel agree that Jesse Wilson meets the criteria to be designated as a dangerous offender under s. 753(1)(a)(i) or (ii) of the Criminal Code. As a result, it is not necessary for me to review the evidence in regard to the designation stage, in any great detail. I agree with counsel that the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt:
a) That the predicate offence is a serious personal injury offence as defined in s. 752;
b) That Mr. Wilson is a threat to the safety, or physical or mental well-being of others because of a pattern of repetitive behaviour that demonstrates
i. a failure to restrain his behaviour, and
ii. a likelihood that he will cause death or injury or inflict severe psychological damage to others through failure in the future to restrain his behaviour pursuant to s.753(1)(a)(i); and/or
c) Mr. Wilson is also a threat to the life, safety or physical or mental well-being of others because of a pattern of persistent aggressive behaviour which shows a substantial degree of indifference about the reasonably foreseeable consequences to others of his behaviour pursuant to s. 753(1)(a)(ii).
105Based on the criminal record, the index offence and the violence committed by Mr. Wilson while he has been in custody (setting aside for now the other offences of violence committed by Mr. Wilson that constitute institutional misconducts), he has demonstrated a pattern of repetitive behaviour that is likely to cause death or injury to others and that he is unable to restrain.
106Mr. Wilson has also engaged in a pattern of aggressive behaviour that shows substantial indifference to his victims. He tends to minimize or blame others for his offending conduct and appears to lack empathy for his victims.
The Sentencing Stage
107In determining the appropriate sentence in the circumstances, the court must exhaust the less intrusive options before considering whether to sentence the respondent to an indeterminate sentence.
108The court has reviewed the evidence in relation to the offender’s background, including his Indigeneity, and has considered all of the evidence presented at this hearing. There is no doubt that Mr. Wilson has suffered significant hardship and trauma in his life beginning when he was a young child. His mother’s family bears the impact of the intergenerational trauma caused by the residential school system. His mother was an addict who was unable to care for her children.
109His father was an abusive man who took Mr. Wilson and his family away from the reserve and in doing so, took him away from his culture and took away his sense of identity. Mr. Wilson ended up under the care of the CAS. He was exposed to abuse of every kind; physical, emotional and sexual.
110Given this background, it is probably not a surprise that Mr. Wilson began exhibiting behavioural issues that resulted in his incurring criminal charges starting at the age of 12.
111Mr. Wilson has little education, and no employment skills. He has a long-standing history of using drugs and alcohol that is strongly linked to his criminal behaviour. He is often under the influence of drugs or alcohol when he commits offences, including when he committed the index offence. His drug of choice is methamphetamine which is not really conducive to pharmacological interventions like opioid addiction that can be treated with the use of methadone. Mr. Wilson admitted to Dr. Klassen that he still has cravings for methamphetamine and that if he could access it, he would use it. Mr. Wilson does not recognize that alcohol is a problem for him. There is no evidence that the respondent has ever been treated for substance abuse issues.
112The respondent’s criminal record shows a persistent pattern of behaviour involving offences of violence or threats of violence and the failure to abide by court orders. Mr. Wilson stated that the most time he has spent in the community since he was 16 years old is four months.3
113His last conviction prior to the index offence involved a guilty plea to the possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking. At the time of the offence, he was in violation of a condition of his probation order prohibiting him from communicating with an unnamed individual. While he was serving that sentence, his institutional behaviour was noted as being poor and he was noted after assessment as requiring a high level of intervention based on the static factors considered (i.e. those factors that do not change). After he violated his parole and was recommitted, Mr. Wilson admitted that he was out for nine days before using drugs again.
114This history of prior conduct, including the most recent misconduct offence involving an assault that he committed while in custody, and which is captured on surveillance video could be seen as a predictor of his future behaviour.
115Mr. Wilson recognizes that he has an anger problem. That problem is not new. The respondent has been dealing with anger issues for a long time and he has not sought out any meaningful treatment for that issue.
116Dr. Klassen is of the opinion that Mr. Wilson is at a high risk to re-offend. He suffers from a number of conditions that exacerbate that risk including Borderline Personality Disorder, Antisocial Personality Disorder and Substance Use Disorder. Dr. Klassen also expressed concern that because Mr. Wilson has victimized various people, including strangers and domestic partners, it would be difficult to fashion conditions that could protect the public generally.
117The question I must ask myself is whether there is a reasonable expectation that the risk that Mr. Wilson poses to the community can be managed by a determinate sentence, or a determinate sentence followed by a LTSO?
118The factors outlined by Justice Hill in R. v. B. (D.) 2015 ONSC 5900 at para. 221, provide a helpful guide to the relevant circumstances that a court can consider in responding to that question. In this case, Mr. Wilson has been co-operative in the dangerous offender process. He has previously expressed interest in receiving counselling but has failed to complete it. For example, he was discharged from St. Lawrence Valley Institution due to non-adherence with treatment protocols and other issues. He was also discharged from the Regional Treatment Centre in 2020.
119Mr. Wilson has a history of drug hoarding behaviour, although in fairness, that type of behaviour has not happened for some time.
120In relation to the predicate offence, the court can consider whether there is a lack of insight, failure to accept responsibility or lack of empathy for the victim. The respondent explained that he was high when the offence occurred. He has expressed some remorse for his conduct, but he also engages in the minimization of his own conduct.
121One of the factors that the court can consider is the offender’s institutional behaviour in advance of this hearing. The offender has spent time at a number of institutions and has participated in the counselling that has been offered. He has also engaged in assaultive behaviour against another inmate.
122One of the factors the court may consider is whether the offender has been compliant with community supervision in the past. Mr. Wilson has been convicted of breaching court orders on 49 separate occasions. In the Gladue Report, he complained about the nature of the Intensive Supervision Probation order, and how the supervisors are “hard on him”. Furthermore, he advised Dr. Klassen that he did not want to be bound by a LTSO.
123His prospects for voluntarily complying with court orders in the future look bleak based on his past performance. He has previously been sentenced to every form of sentence available, particularly jail and periods of probation and it has failed to curb his offending behaviour.
124Unfortunately, Mr. Wilson has spent the majority of his life in institutions.
125If the court were only considering the sentencing factors set out in s. 718 though 718.2 of the Code, I would find that there are significant aggravating factors present and very few mitigating factors. His inability to control his impulses appears to arise from a combination of factors, and likely is deeply rooted in the childhood trauma he experienced and his inability to stay away from the use of drugs. Having said that, I accept that Mr. Wilson is willing to accept treatment and is remorseful and willing to change.
126The court must consider whether there are sufficient external controls in the community to adequately protect the public. The respondent has demonstrated in he past that once released from custody, he tends to revert almost immediately to substance abuse which leads inevitably to the commission of criminal offences. He unfortunately does not have many supports in the community. I appreciate that B.B. has offered herself as a support, however, I question whether she could provide meaningful support to the respondent given her limited relationship with him. She must also consider the best interests of her young daughter. Further, B.B. testified that she does not believe that Mr. Wilson has an anger problem, although she also said she would assist him in getting counselling and treatment.
127I have considered whether it would be appropriate to impose a determinate sentence with an LTSO. Although the level of supervision of someone on an LTSO is much greater than someone on regular parole, it would not prevent the commission of another offence by the respondent that might put the community at serious risk. It would be reactive to his violation of conditions or the commission of a further offence.
128While treatability is a relevant factor when determining the appropriate penalty, it cannot be based on a speculative hope, that if sentenced to less than an indeterminate sentence, the offender would be successful in treatment. There must be some evidence that the offender can be treated within an ascertainable time. In this case, the court has not been provided with any such evidence.
129There is no evidence that if he is sentenced to a determinate sentence, even with an LTSO, that Mr. Wilson would be able to comply with conditions so as to diminish the risk that he poses to the safety of the general public. He has not complied with conditions while in the community or while he has been in custody.
130In my view, given the totality of the circumstances, Mr. Wilson poses a high risk to re-offend, and the court is not satisfied that there is a reasonable expectation that the imposition of a lesser sentence will adequately protect the public. As a result, Mr. Wilson will be designated a dangerous offender, and I will sentence him to an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment.
131In addition, I will impose the following ancillary orders. There will be a DNA Databanking order as this is a primary designated offence and there will be a s. 109 weapons prohibition imposed for life.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Maria V. Carroccia
Justice
Released: January 19, 2026
CITATION: R. v. Wilson, 2026 ONSC 417
COURT FILE NO.: CR-22-257 (London)
DATE: 20260119
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
and
JESSE BRANDON WILSON
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
Carroccia J.
Released: January 19, 2026