CITATION: R. v. Ogbamichael, 2026 ONSC 4351

COURT FILE NO.: CR-23-70000573-0000

DATE: 20260731

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

– and –

TEKLE OGBAMICHAEL

Alexander Merenda, for the Crown

Kristen Dulysh, for Mr. Ogbamichael

HEARD: March 9, 10, 11, 12, June 3, 2026

RESTRICTION ON PUBLICATION: Subject to any further Order by a Court of competent jurisdiction, an Order has been made in this proceeding directing that the identity of the complainant and any information that could disclose such identity shall not be published in any document or broadcast in any way pursuant to s. 486.4(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada. This ban does not apply to publication of these reasons in law reports nor to a discussion of the underlying legal principles in other publications.

R.F. GOLDSTEIN J.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT ON DANGEROUS OFFENDER APPLICATION

CONTENTS

I. Overview.. 2

(a) The Index Offences. 3

(b) Mr. Ogbamichael’s Background. 4

(c) Mr. Ogbamichael’s Criminal History. 4

(d) Dr. Prakash’s Report, Testimony, And Diagnosis. 6

(e) Dr. Prakash’s Assessment Of Risk. 8

II. Issues. 9

III. Analysis. 11

(a) Is Mr. Ogbamichael likely to cause harm by failing to control his sexual impulses?. 11

(b) Is an indeterminate sentence required to protect the public?. 15

(c) If not, what is the appropriate determinate sentence?. 15

Impact on The Victim or Community. 15

Legal Parameters. 16

Positions of the Crown and Defense Regarding The Determinate Sentence. 16

Mitigating and Aggravating Factors. 16

Principles of Sentencing And Sentence Imposed. 17

(d) What is the proper length and terms of the LTSO?. 19

(e) What ancillary orders are required?. 20

IV. Disposition. 20

I. Overview

[1] In December 2022 and January 2023 Tekele Ogbamichael sat beside a series of young women and touched them while on public transit in York Region and Toronto. The police arrested Mr. Ogbamichael on February 6, 2023. He has been in custody ever since. On January 8, 2025, I found Mr. Ogbamichael guilty of one count of assault and four counts of sexual assault: R. v. Ogbamichael, 2025 ONSC 566. After the convictions, the Crown brought an application for an assessment pursuant to s. 752.1 of the Criminal Code. The defence did not contest the application. Dr. Arjay Prakash was designated as the assessor. He completed an assessment report on October 3, 2025.

[2] Unfortunately, the index offences form part of a longstanding pattern. Mr. Ogbamichael has a significant criminal record, commencing in 1999, involving convictions for sexual assaults on public transit. Many of those sexual assaults occurred while Mr. Ogbamichael was on a probation order prohibiting him from being on public transit.

[3] Mr. Merenda, for the Crown, submits that I should designate Mr. Ogbamichael as a dangerous offender pursuant to s. 753(1)(b) of the Criminal Code. I should then impose an additional 2-year penitentiary sentence followed by a 10-year Long Term Supervision Order (“LTSO”).

[4] Ms. Dulysh, for Mr. Ogbamichael, argues that Mr. Ogbamichael has already served a substantial period of time. He should receive a suspended sentence on the sexual assault counts, and a four-month sentence on the count of assault. Ms. Dulysh argues that Mr. Ogbamichael does not meet the criteria for a dangerous offender. She accepts, however, that Mr. Ogbamichael meets the requirements for an LTSO but argues that it should be limited to five years.

[5] Thus, the key issues in this case are whether Mr. Ogbamichael meets the criteria to be designated as a dangerous offender; the proper length of a determinate sentence; and the proper length of the LTSO.

[6] What follows are my reasons.

(a) The Index Offences

[7] The following is a summary of my reasons for judgment at Mr. Ogbamichael’s trial.

[8] H.T., a 23-year-old woman, described two incidents of touching. In December 2022 she was on a York Region Transit bus. Although she was not sure of the date, it was between 3:00 and 4:00 pm. She was sitting next to a window. Mr. Ogbamichael sat beside her. He had a black bag with a red logo on it. He put the bag on her. It was very heavy. It covered her vagina and her lap. There was pointed pressure. She could not identify anything that felt like a finger. She was not concerned that he had bad intentions, but it was unpleasant. It went on for about 30 minutes. I acquitted Mr. Ogbamichael of sexual assault in relation to this incident but convicted him of the lesser and included offence of assault.

[9] On December 21, 2022, H.T. was again on a York Region Transit bus. Mr. Ogbamichael again sat beside her. She recognized him as the person who had sat beside her earlier in the month. He was carrying the same black bag with a red logo. She gave him the benefit of the doubt that nothing untoward had happened during the first incident. He again put his bag over her lap and leg and began touching her. Much of the incident was captured on video by York Region Transit. I convicted Mr. Ogbamichael of sexual assault in relation to this incident.

[10] On December 22, 2022, B.G. was 16 years old. She got on the Toronto subway. She took a seat beside a window. Mr. Ogbamichael eventually got on the subway and sat beside her. He placed a bag on his lap, and it overlapped her lap. Mr. Ogbamichael grabbed her upper thigh and gripped it. He said “sorry” but got off the subway at the next station. I convicted Mr. Ogbamichael of sexual assault in relation to this incident.

[11] On February 1, 2023, S.K. was on a Toronto subway. She was 18 years old. Mr. Ogbamichael sat beside her. He placed a large backpack partially on her lap. She felt something on her upper thigh. He said “sorry” and she assumed it was an accident. A few moments later she felt his hand on her leg. He was trying to move his hand to her upper thigh. She got up and got off the subway. I convicted Mr. Ogbamichael of sexual assault in relation to this incident.

[12] On February 18, 2023, A.W-V. was on a Toronto subway. She was 19 years old. Mr. Ogbamichael sat beside her. He started touching her, near her underwear line. His bag was on his lap but touching her leg under the bag. She felt pressure from his hand twice. The first time it seemed like an accident but not the second. She moved and saw his hand on her. She got up and moved away. TTC surveillance video very clearly shows a person later identified as Mr. Ogbamichael take a seat next to A.W-V. The video is clear that his right hand was under the bag. He shifted his body slightly towards her and glanced at her. The video clearly shows A.W-V. getting up and moving away. I convicted Mr. Ogbamichael of sexual assault in relation to this incident.

(b) Mr. Ogbamichael’s Background

[13] Mr. Ogbamichael is 61 years old. His personal history is set out in Dr. Prakash’s report. It is based largely on his own self-report.

[14] Mr. Ogbamichael was born in Ethiopia. He is an Orthodox Christian. He was the youngest of six children. When he was 13, due to political instability caused by the Ethiopian-Eritrean conflict, his family sent him to Sudan as a refugee. He studied marine engineering in Egypt on a United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees scholarship. He came to Canada as a sponsored refugee when he was 23. Growing up, he lived in a traditional family. He had positive things to say about both his parents. They have since passed away. His father had a second relationship and children from this relationship. He reported to Dr. Prakash that he has a good relationship with his siblings (one has passed away), all of whom are university-educated. He has friends who have supported him throughout his criminal troubles. He has had long-term relationships with women but has never married and has no children. Although he has been in this country for many years, it appears that he is not a citizen.

[15] Mr. Ogbamichael has a very positive history of education and employment. He was active in sports and school life when he studied marine engineering in Egypt. He also worked as a teacher and as a translator.

[16] When Mr. Ogbamichael came to Canada, he initially found it hard to find work. He went back to school and completed a four-year degree at the University of Toronto in applied science and engineering. During his studies, it appears that Mr. Ogbamichael suffered from a mental health crisis. He was hospitalized. He recovered, however, and graduated.

[17] Alcohol has been a problem for Mr. Ogbamichael. He accumulated convictions for impaired driving, but it seems that he has that aspect of his life under control.

[18] After completing his studies, Mr. Ogbamichael worked at various companies doing entry-level work. He eventually began doing more skilled work, including different types of engineering. He appears to have developed expertise in “robotic welding”. He has had steady employment throughout his life, interrupted only by stints in jail. Remarkably, he has developed a pattern of finding employment, doing a stint in jail and losing his job, and then finding another job when he comes out again. It appears to be only his criminality which has held him back. I turn to that next.

(c) Mr. Ogbamichael’s Criminal History

[19] Despite Mr. Ogbamichael’s education, his obvious skills in his field, his obvious intelligence, and his otherwise pro-social life, he has accumulated a significant criminal record. His criminality began in 1997, and his first conviction came in 1999. His convictions mostly involve sexual touching of young women on some form of public transit, or a breach of conditions associated with being on public transit. By my count, his record consists of 21 convictions, including: 7 convictions for sexual assault; 1 conviction for assault; 1 conviction for sexual interference; 1 conviction for breach of a conditional sentence order; 2 convictions for failing to comply with a recognizance; and 7 convictions for failing to comply with a probation order. Mr. Ogbamichael also has two convictions for “over 80” from 2004. The circumstances of the 8 convictions for sexual assault or sexual interference (prior to the index offences) were as follows:

• Sentence dated May 17, 1999 – sexual assault: On August 18, 1997, Mr. Ogbamichael sat beside a young woman on public transit. Using a bag for cover, he touched her in a sexual manner. He received a suspended sentence and probation for 18 months.

• Sentence dated June 2, 2005 – sexual assault: On September 30, 2004, Mr. Ogbamichael sat down beside a young woman on a Greyhound bus in Thunder Bay. He touched the victim on her thigh and vagina. He received a six-month conditional sentence.

• Sentences dated July 5, 2005 – breach of conditional sentence; sexual interference; sexual assault; fail to comply with recognizance: On the same day that he was sentenced for the 2004 sexual assault, June 2, 2005, Mr. Ogbamichael left the courthouse and within hours was on another bus in Thunder Bay. He sat down beside a 14-year-old girl and touched her on her hip and on her stomach. During the investigation the police learned that the day before, June 1, 2005, Mr. Ogbamichael had sexually assaulted a 12-year-old girl on the bus. He sat down beside her, put his jacket on his lap, and rubbed her hip with his hand. His conditional sentence was terminated. He was sentenced to 5 months on the sexual interference count, consecutive to the sentence he was then serving. He was sentenced to five months concurrent on the fail to comply with recognizance count; and five months consecutive to the sexual interference count.

• Sentences dated November 20, 2008 – sexual assault; fail to comply with recognizance; and fail to comply with probation: On June 1, 2008, Mr. Ogbamichael was nearing the end of his probation for the Thunder Bay offences. He was also on bail in relation to two alleged sexual assaults in Toronto. The bail was dated September 7, 2005. He was on a Greyhound bus from Guelph to Kitchener. He sat down beside the female victim. He began rubbing his hand on her thigh close to her vagina. She alerted the driver. Mr. Ogbamichael was arrested by the police as he attempted to flee. A pre-sentence report mentioned working with Dr. Gojer, and a diagnosis of toucherism. He received a global sentence of 18 months less 12 months pre-sentence custody, and three years probation.

• Sentence dated January 16, 2009 – sexual assault: On November 7, 2007, Mr. Ogbamichael sat beside the young female victim. He put a briefcase on his lap that overlapped on the young woman’s leg. He then slid his hand down her waistband. He was sentenced to 10 months concurrent to the sentence imposed on November 20, 2008, and three years probation.

• Sentence dated February 17, 2012 – fail to comply with probation: On January 14, 2011, Mr. Ogbamichael riding a city bus in Guelph in violation of the 2009 probation order. He was sentenced to ten months, which was upheld on appeal: R. v. Ogbamichael, 2015 ONCA 99.

• Sentences dated January 21, 2013 – assault and fail to comply with probation: Mr. Ogbamichael was riding the subway in violation of his 2012 probation order. He was found guilty of assault simpliciter and fail to comply with probation. He received a sentence of 180 days in light of pre-sentence custody, although it is not entirely clear from the transcript and the criminal record what, exactly, the judge sentenced him to.

• Sentence dated March 21, 2014 – sexual assault and fail to comply with probation: On February 16, 2013, Mr. Ogbamichael sat beside a 19-year-old woman on a subway in Toronto who had fallen asleep. Mr. Ogbamichael placed a backpack on his lap. The backpack overlapped with the young woman. He rubbed her crotch and attempted to put his hands inside her pants. The victim woke up and got off the subway. Trotter J. (as he then was) sentenced Mr. Ogbamichael to 18 months on the sexual assault count and 12 months consecutive on the fail to comply with probation, less pre-sentence custody, followed by three years probation: R. v. Ogbamichael, 2014 ONSC 1693. His conviction and sentence appeals were dismissed: R. v. Ogbamichael, 2016 ONCA 65.

• Sentence dated June 29, 2016 – sexual assault and fail to comply with probation: On September 9, 2015, Mr. Ogbamichael sat beside a young woman on a TTC bus. He put his bag over his lap. He concealed his hand and then began touching the victim’s thigh and buttocks. He stopped when she yelled at him. The victim recognized Mr. Ogbamichael – by a remarkable coincidence, Mr. Ogbamichael had been charged with sexually assaulting the victim’s sister. She had been present during her sister’s testimony in court on that charge. Mr. Ogbamichael was subject to two probation orders at the time. He pleaded guilty before Justice Brewer. She sentenced him to one day in custody in light of the equivalent of 389 days in jail. She also placed him on probation for three years.

• Sentence dated July 16, 2019 – assault and fail to comply with probation x 2: The facts are set out in the decision of Spies J. on the Crown’s similar fact and Leaney applications: R. v. Ogbamichael, 2019 ONSC 3789. On October 3, 2016, Mr. Ogbamichael sat beside the 12-year-old victim on a TTC bus. He put a laptop bag on his lap and partially covered her lap. He touched her briefly and then apologized. She tried to move further from him. He started touching her vagina. She got off the bus and reported the incident to her school principal. He was convicted after a trial. He was sentenced to 14 months concurrent (less pre-sentence custody) on the fail to comply with probation convictions; 5 months consecutive on the assault; and probation for three years.

• Convictions dated January 28, 2025: I convicted Mr. Ogbamichael of the index offences, which occurred in 2022 and 2023.

(d) Dr. Prakash’s Report, Testimony, And Diagnosis

[20] Dr. Prakash provided a very comprehensive 35-page report, detailing Mr. Ogbamichael’s personal, medical, criminal, and psychiatric history.

[21] Mr. Ogbamichael’s mental health issues appear to have started as a student at the University of Toronto. He was hospitalized. He told Dr. Prakash that he basically had a “breakdown” as a result of pressure from things going on in Eritrea, personal circumstances, and other issues. In 2007 and then from 2008 to 2014 Mr. Ogbamichael saw Dr. Julian Gojer, another forensic psychiatrist. He attended group sessions with Dr. Gojer. One of Dr. Gojer’s diagnoses was toucherism. Mr. Ogbamichael said he was also diagnosed with depression and anxiety. He had taken the medication Sertraline for anxiety, depression, and PTSD. Dr. Gojer also referred him to Dr. Lisa Doupe, who worked on mindfulness and stress-reduction. Although he discussed sexual behaviour testing with Dr. Gojer, it did not progress as he was unable to pay for it.

[22] Dr. Prakash also noted that Mr. Ogbamichael had some history of substance abuse, particularly alcohol. According to his self-report, he began drinking four to ten bottles of beer each weekday between 1997 and 2005. It is certainly likely that he was indeed abusing alcohol, given his two convictions for having more than 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 milliliters of blood while driving.

[23] Dr. Prakash asked Mr. Ogbamichael questions about his sexual history. He denied any interest in pornography, including child pornography, but did indicate that he frequently went to strip clubs. He said that doing so disgusted him, but he went anyway. He denied any interest in paraphilias or fetishes. He also denied frotteurism, which is sexual arousal from touching or rubbing against someone without their consent.

[24] At the time of the assessment Mr. Ogbamichael was taking two anti-depressants, mirtazapine and fluoxetine.

[25] Ultimately, Dr. Prakash diagnosed Mr. Ogbamichael with toucherism. I reproduce his description from pages 25-26 of his report:

Based on the information above, it is my opinion that Mr. Ogbamichael suffers from the paraphilic disorder of Toucherism. The diagnosis/label of Toucherism is not located within the DSM V-TR (2022) and the reasoning for this is noted below in italics. The DSM does list the term frotteuristic disorder which, in my opinion, is closely related to a Toucheristic disorder. In some expert circles, the two paraphilias can be differentiated by the individual rubbing (Frotteurism) their e.g., genitalia against a non-consenting person vs. touching (Toucherism) against a non-consenting person usually against the non-consenting person’s breasts, buttocks, or genital area. The DSM combines both these acts and classifies the paraphilia as being a frotteuristic disorder.

A paraphilic disorder is a paraphilia that is currently causing distress or impairment to the individual or a paraphilia whose satisfaction has entailed personal harm, or risk of harm, to others. A paraphilia is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for having a paraphilic disorder, and a paraphilia by itself does not necessarily justify or require clinical intervention.

[26] Dr. Prakash did not diagnose Mr. Ogbamichael with PTSD, anxiety, a personality disorder, or a substance abuse disorder – although other doctors had diagnosed him with at least some of these conditions. Dr. Prakash did not diagnose Mr. Ogbamichael with an alcohol use disorder, although he noted that Mr. Ogbamichael had struggled with alcohol in the past but appeared to have it under control. Dr. Prakash’s opinion is that toucherism is the primary cause of his offending. Toucherism is a chronic, lifelong condition.

(e) Dr. Prakash’s Assessment Of Risk

[27] Dr. Prakash used actuarial and clinical methods of risk assessment. He scored Mr. Ogbamichael on several actuarial and structured judgement tools.

[28] The Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (“PCL-R”), measures psychopathy, which is the personality dimension most related to offending behaviour. Mr. Ogbamichael scored 6 out of 40, which is well below the threshold of 40 required to find that someone is psychopathic.

[29] The Sex Offender Risk Appraisal Guide (“SORAG”) is the sex offender version of the VRAG (Violence Risk Appraisal Guide). It assesses the risk of violent and sexual reoffending in adult men with a history of sexual offences. Mr. Ogbamichael scored in the 5^th of 9 ascending “bins”. This placed him at moderate risk of sexual recidivism. Dr. Prakash noted in his report that “Similarly scoring individuals recidivated sexually at a rate of 59% over ten years of opportunity in the community.”

[30] The Static-99R (“Static-99R”) is another actuarial tool. It estimates the probability of future sexual offending by males who have been charged or convicted of at least one sexual offence against a child or adult. Mr. Ogbamichael scored at +7. Dr. Prakash stated as follows in his report:

This score placed Mr. Ogbamichael in a “high” risk category. Compared to other adult male sex offenders, his score places him at the 94th percentile. Taking into account that about 4% of sex offenders shared the same score as Mr. Ogbamichael, the percentile means that roughly 92% of offenders scored lower that Mr. Ogbamichael, and 4% scored higher. Similarly scoring individuals committed a new sexual offence at a rate between 33% and 49% over 10 years of opportunity.

[31] The Historical, Clinical, Risk Management 20 V3 (“HCR-20”) is a structured professional judgment tool. It also deals with the risk of violence. It relies on 20 items – 10 historical or static items; 5 clinical or dynamic items; and 5 future or risk management items. Dr. Prakash’s analysis of Mr. Ogbamichael under the HCR-20 depended on his conditions of release. He had 4 historical risk factors, and clinically he did well in the institutional setting. In terms of future risk management, however, Dr. Prakash noted that in other structured situations in the community he had plans and professional services and responded well to treatment. And yet he still re-offended. His score suggested a moderate risk of future violence.

[32] The Structured Assessment of Protective Factors For Violent Risk (“SAPROF”) is also a structured professional judgement tool, like the HCR-20. There were structural factors in his favour: his university education, secure attachment to his parents, motivation, life goals, financial management, and so forth.

[33] Overall, Dr. Prakash found that Mr. Ogbamichael is in a high category for sexual recidivism, despite having many strengths and despite not having a typical offender profile. He pointed largely to Mr. Ogbamichael’s offending pattern.

II. Issues

[34] The purpose of Canada’s dangerous offender regime is to protect the public: R. v. Jones, 1994 CanLII 85 (SCC), [1994] 2 S.C.R. 229 at para. 124. The offender is to be separated from the public while the offender is treated and ultimately, if possible, reintegrated into society. Sentencing principles such as rehabilitation and totality play a role, but they are secondary to the protection of the public: R. v. Johnson, 2003 SCC 46 at para. 23.

[35] Where the Crown applies for an offender to be designated as a dangerous offender, the Court must engage in a two-step process. At the first stage, the court determines whether the offender is a dangerous offender. At the second stage, the court determines the proper penalty.

[36] At the first stage in this case, the Crown is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt Mr. Ogbamichael is a dangerous offender. There are different routes to a dangerous offender designation. The index offences involve sexual offending. S. 753(1)(b) of the Criminal Code therefore applies:

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

(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.

[37] To obtain a dangerous offender designation under this route the Crown must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

• First, that Mr. Ogbamichael has been convicted of a serious personal injury offence;

• Second, that Mr. Ogbamichael by his conduct in sexual matters has shown a failure to control his or her sexual impulses; and,

• Third, that Mr. Ogbamichael is, in the future, likely to cause injury, pain, or other evil (which I will generally refer to as “harm”) through failure to control his sexual impulses.

[38] The first two elements are retrospective. The court must look at Mr. Ogbamichael’s past behaviour and determine if the Crown has met its burden. In this case, Ms. Dulysh concedes on behalf of her client that Mr. Ogbamichael has been convicted of a serious personal injury offence. Ms. Dulysh also concedes that Mr. Ogbamichael has shown a failure to control his sexual impulses.

[39] The only question on this issue is whether Mr. Ogbamichael is, in the future, likely to cause harm through failure to control his sexual impulses. This third element is prospective: R. v. Boutilier, 2017 SCC 63 at paras. 36-40.

[40] A court has no discretion if all three elements are met. If they are, I must declare Mr. Ogbamichael to be a dangerous offender. I must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the offender actually constitutes a future threat to safety in light of all the relevant evidence. This includes an assessment of the risk of future harm and intractability: see Boutilier at para. 41.

[41] The question of treatment is relevant to both the designation and penalty stages. At the designation stage, treatability is related to an offender’s prospective risk. Clinical programs to determine the presence of mental illness or personality disorder, and the prospective prospects for treatment are relevant to the possibility of future harm: Boutilier, at paras. 43-44. At the designation stage, “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.” Even where the prospects for treatment are not so compelling as to affect the conclusion on dangerousness, those prospects will still be relevant in determining the appropriate sentence: Boutilier at para. 45.

[42] Thus, the real issue at the designation stage in this case is whether Mr. Ogbamichael is likely to cause injury, pain, or other evil through failure to control his sexual impulses. As noted, treatment options play a role in this prospective analysis.

[43] Regarding the penalty phase, sections 753(4) and 753(4.1) of the Criminal Code set out the sentencing court’s options:

753 (4) If the court finds an offender to be a dangerous offender, it shall

(a) impose a sentence of detention in a penitentiary for an indeterminate period;

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

(c) impose a sentence for the offence for which the offender has been convicted.

(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.

[44] The court, therefore, has three options:

• First, the court can sentence the offender to an indeterminate period of incarceration in the penitentiary;

• Second, the court can impose a determinate sentence of at least two years and order that the offender be subject to a long-term supervision order (“LTSO”) for a maximum of ten years; or,

• Third, impose a determinate sentence.

[45] An indeterminate period of incarceration is mandatory unless the court is satisfied that a lesser measure will adequately protect the public. The Ontario Court of Appeal described the analysis this way in R. v. Smith, 2023 ONCA 575 at paras. 97-98:

As noted above, where the requirements of s. 753(1)(a) are met, detention for an indeterminate period will be imposed unless the court is satisfied by the evidence adduced during the hearing of the application that there is “a reasonable expectation that a lesser measure … will adequately protect the public against the commission of … a serious personal injury offence”: s. 753(4.1).

A reasonable expectation in this context was described by this court in R. v. Straub, para. 62, as suggesting a “likelihood”, “a belief that something would happen”, or “a confident belief, for good and sufficient reasons.” The standard of “reasonable expectation” is more stringent than reasonable possibility: Straub, at para. 71; R. v. Tynes, 2022. [CITATIONS OMITTED]

[46] The defence and the Crown agree that an LTSO should be imposed in this case but differ on the length. I am obviously not bound by their agreement, but in this case, as will be seen, I agree with Crown and the defence on that point. The issues I must, therefore, decide are:

(a) Is Mr. Ogbamichael likely to cause future harm by failing to control his sexual impulses?

(b) Is an indeterminate sentence required to protect the public?

(c) If not, what is the appropriate determinate sentence?

(d) What is the proper length and terms of the LTSO?

III. Analysis

(a) Is Mr. Ogbamichael likely to cause harm by failing to control his sexual impulses?

[47] Ms. Dulysh argues that this court should not designate Mr. Ogbamichael as a dangerous offender. She argues that several factors show that the Crown cannot prove that Mr. Ogbamichael is likely to cause harm through a failure to control his sexual impulses. The offender cannot be designated unless the court is satisfied that he is a future threat after a prospective assessment of risk: Boutilier, at para. 23. She relies on the following statement by Justice Code in R. v. Gibson, 2013 ONSC 589 at para. 18:

When applying this meaning to the “likelihood” test found in s. 753, the courts have stressed that it refers to probable “risk” or “potential for harm”, as a present fact, rather than to proof of a future event which would be an impossibility.

[48] Ms. Dulysh noted that Dr. Prakash stated in his report that “Given that he is at high risk of sexual recidivism, there appears to be a likelihood he will commit a future sexual offence if released imminently into the community”. Dr. Prakash, however, walked back his assertion at least to some extent in cross-examination. On March 11, 2026, at p. 14-15 of the transcript, he stated:

Q. So, there's — again, so everyone knows what I'm talking about: “Clearly Mr. Ogbamichael has shown a failure to control his sexual impulses. Given that he is at high risk of sexual recidivism, there appears to be a likelihood he will commit a future sexual offence if released imminently into the community.” Okay?

A. Yes.

Q. So, that — that paragraph is, like, a reiteration of the paragraph I just — I just said?

A. Correct.

Q. Right? So, like, all you're doing is you're taking that — you're taking the language from the dangerous offender provision, “likelihood he will commit a future offence”...

A. Yes.

Q. ...but your conclusion is based on the same consideration of — of criminal record and frequency of offending that the prior paragraph was based on?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And imminently means today? Like, when you say released imminently into the community, you're saying if Mr. Ogbamichael walked out on the street today.

A. Correct.

Q. Okay. So, your opinion is not taking into consideration a release with conditions or treatment?

A. Correct.

Q. Okay. And then you say, “At this juncture, I don't have other comments that may help Your Honour decide whether the dangerous offender designation should be made.”?

A. Correct.

Q. So, what you're — what you’re signaling here, and frankly being very clear about, is that you are not — you're not making that legal conclusion?

A. Correct.

Q. You're not answering the question of whether there's a likelihood of causing injury, pain, or other evil to other persons through a failure in the future to control his or her sexual impulses. That's the legal question for His Honour?

A. Correct.

Q. Understood. And there's an obvious — like, the word of — the word imminently, adding that to your opinion is, like, an important caveat that you're — you’re signaling that you're not taking into consideration, like, other aspects that maybe the court will take into consideration?

A. Correct.

[49] Ms. Dulysh also argued that there was no evidence that Mr. Ogbamichael had a personality disorder that would make him resistant to treatment. He had a low score on the PCL-R (again, a tool used to measure psychopathy). He also scored as a moderate risk for sexual re-offending on the SORAG (again, an actuarial tool used to predict sexual violence). He did have a high score on the Static-99R (another actuarial tool used to measure the risk of sexual offending), due to his criminal record. He also scored at a moderate risk of future violence on the HCR-20 (the structured assessment tool).

[50] Ms. Dulysh also pointed to Dr. Prakash’s testimony regarding the possibility of burnout effect – the notion that a person ages out of criminality. Dr. Prakash acknowledged the possibility of burnout but pointed out that there is less of an effect with someone who has a paraphilic disorder, such as toucherism.

[51] Respectfully, and acknowledging Ms. Dulysh’s skillful cross-examination of Dr. Prakash and her persuasive submissions, I find I cannot agree. I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Ogbamichael meets the criteria to be designated as a dangerous offender. In my view, his behaviour is intractable, meaning behaviour that he is unable to surmount: Boutilier, at para. 27.

[52] Mr. Ogbamichael suffers from toucherism. While it is not inherently resistant to treatment, like a personality disorder, it is nonetheless a life-long condition. As Dr. Prakash pointed out, burnout has less of an impact simply because of the manner in which Mr. Ogbamichael commits sexual offences. And despite being a pro-social person in every other aspect of his life – educated, motivated, employed – he appears unable to control this impulse. He was able to report to probation, comply with court orders at least in part, and engage in recommendations from his parole officer.

[53] The following exchange between Dr. Prakash and me illustrates the point:

THE COURT: So, can I just ask, I'm not sure — really sure I understand your answer. You're saying that he is able to report, comply, engage in recommendations from the probation officer, but what do you mean you're not discounting the breaches of probation around using public transport and basically reoffending. Like, it strikes me that those two things are kind of at odds with each other.

A. I agree, Your Honour. We have this at odds type picture with Mr. Ogbamichael. Everything in one hand is telling us he should have been able to curb this offending pattern. His age, his upbringing, his education, his intelligence and all the other strengths we've mentioned, yet this pattern still continues. But the question was about if there was a plan for Mr. Ogbamichael, would he be able to follow that plan and, in my opinion, the evidence suggests that he has motivation. He did not avoid treatment. He valued the results of treatment and the education he learned from it. But as I mentioned, Your Honour, there was still breaches of court orders, and there was still sexual recidivism.

THE COURT: It's — I mean, what you're describing is somebody who's a — like a drug addict who goes to rehab, does well, looks like they can kick the habit, but then just can't help themselves.

A. I agree. There is an internal drive, and you've mentioned an addiction as being another internal driver. That could be a theory of what is driving Mr. Ogbamichael's sexual offending and addiction. We're calling it toucherism, but the principles remain the same.

[54] Dr. Prakash testified that toucherism is a lifelong, chronic condition. While sexual offending can burn out, with paraphilias as opposed to more violent disorders it is less likely. Dr. Prakash was of the view that burnout might be less likely with Mr. Ogbamichael, as he was already older than most sexual offenders. Dr. Prakash testified that Mr. Ogbamichael will need an indefinite course of management and treatment.

[55] I acknowledge that the structured assessment and actuarial tools do not uniformly suggest that Mr. Ogbamichael is at a high risk of re-offending sexually. Dr. Prakash’s clinical view is that Mr. Ogbamichael presents a high risk, notwithstanding some prospect of treatment. I give Dr. Prakash’s view considerable weight. In particular, the section of Dr. Prakash’s report dealing with the HCR-20 is very relevant. He stated at p. 31:

My analysis for Mr. Ogbamichael on the HCR-20 V3 is dependent on release conditions. Regardless of the nature of release conditions, Mr. Ogbamichael had 4/10 historical risk factors as being present and relevant. A less relevant historical risk factor was opined to be substance use (as Mr. Ogbamichael has had long periods of abstinence). Clinically (past six months), Mr. Ogbamichael has appeared to do well in the correctional setting e.g., good insight into his sexual deviance, no evidence of violence, no evidence of institutional drug use, no regular/serious misconducts. The presence and relevance of Mr. Ogbamichael’s future violence risk factors (the “R” in HCR), are notable as despite having Professional Services and Plans (one of the “R” factors), despite having a stable Living Situation (one of the “R” factors), despite having good personal supports (friends, and Eritrean community), and despite responding well to treatment and supervision e.g., attended mostly all his appointments, Mr. Ogbamichael still re-offended.

[56] The implication is that an important factor for determining the future risk of harm is Mr. Ogbamichael’s past behaviour. Mr. Ogbamichael has persisted in committing the same kind of sexual offence over the course of 25 years. Each offence usually involved the same elements: public transit, a young woman or girl, and an attempt at surreptitious touching, often covered up by a bag or knapsack. As the years went on, nothing deterred him: not probation orders, not the certainty of ever-increasing periods of time in jail, not the certainty of losing his job. As I keep pointing out, he simply could not help himself, despite having all the educational, community support, and intellectual tools to understand what he was doing.

[57] Unfortunately, Mr. Ogbamichael’s treatment prospects are not so compelling that I cannot conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that he does not present a high likelihood of harmful recidivism. It is true that Mr. Ogbamichael has never been offered medications to reduce sex drive, including injectables. Those medications have resulted in low levels of recidivism in others. It is also true that Mr. Ogbamichael requested funds for phallometric testing and paid for additional sessions with a doctor. In my view, however, Mr. Ogbamichael has had ample opportunity over the years to avail himself of different medications. He has seen a psychiatrist – Dr. Gojer. It should be noted that he also denies that he committed these offences for sexual gratification – although Dr. Prakash believed it was more likely that he has a lack of awareness or full insight. Overall, while there are prospects for treatment, I find that they are not so compelling that Mr. Ogbamichael does not present a risk.

On the contrary, when I consider all the evidence – including evidence of intractability and the long and consistent pattern of offending – I find beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Ogbamichael is likely to cause harm through a failure to control his sexual impulses. I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that he is likely to reoffend sexually. Everything about his past offending suggests that is likely to be his future. Since I have no discretion once this finding is made, I am required to find that Mr. Ogbamichael is a dangerous offender.

(b) Is an indeterminate sentence required to protect the public?

[58] The Crown’s position is that only an LTSO is required to protect the public. An indeterminate sentence is not required. I agree. There are, as Dr. Prakash testified, some reasons for optimism. Additionally, Mr. Ogbamichael will be 70 years old or approaching 70 when if a ten year LTSO is imposed. Although burnout does not entirely apply, there are some reasons to think – as Dr. Prakash testified – that it might apply to a limited extent to Mr. Ogbamichael.

[59] I find, therefore, an indeterminate sentence is not required.

(c) If not, what is the appropriate determinate sentence?

[60] When considering the proper sentence to impose, I take into account the following:

• The impact on the victims and the community;

• The legal parameters;

• The positions of the Crown and defence and cases in support;

• The mitigating and aggravating factors; and,

• The principles of sentencing.

Impact on The Victim or Community

[61] S.K. was the only victim to provide a victim impact statement. She was 18 years old at the time of the offence. She described the great anxiety she continues to feel, worried that it could happen again. Understandably, travelling to and from work and being in close proximity to others generates that anxiety. She often feels unsafe in public situations but is working to lessen her feelings of paranoia. She is proud that she decided to come forward and testify, however,

[62] Susan Wonch, the manager the manager for Transit Enforcement and Security submitted a community impact statement on behalf of York Region Transit. There was a significant negative effect on York Region transit because of Mr. Ogbamichael’s sexual offences. Transit users, according to Ms. Wonch, stopped using York Region Transit or made significant alterations in their routes. There was reputational damage to the whole system.

[63] B. Gregory, a representative of the Toronto Transit Commission, also provided a community impact statement. This was the crux of his statement:

In 2024 there were 109 reported incident [sic] of sexual assault on the TTC, 11 of those were against TTC employees. The action of the accused can not be tolerated. Action [sic] like these have contributed to TTC customers and TTC staff's feelings of being unsafe on the transit system. No one on the TTC should be afraid that they are going to be touched inappropriately. In 2023 the Toronto Star release a survey stating that roughly 40 per cent of TTC users feel the system is “pretty unsafe” or “very unsafe,” according to the survey of 1,000 adults in Toronto, actions like the ones perpetrated [sic] by the accused are a contributing factor to why people feel unsafe on the transit system.

Legal Parameters

[64] The maximum penalty for sexual assault contrary to s. 271 of the Criminal Code is ten years when prosecuted by indictment. Since the youngest victim was already 16 at the time of the offence, the maximum penalty of 14 years for victims under 16 does not apply.

Positions of the Crown and Defense Regarding The Determinate Sentence

[65] Crown counsel, Mr. Merenda, takes the position is that a further two years in custody is required. Mr. Ogbamichael was convicted of four sexual assaults and one assault on public transit. As noted throughout these reasons, he has an incredibly long record for doing exactly the same thing. The impact on the community is significant. Mr. Ogbamichael has never been to the penitentiary. Penitentiary time would allow him to be set up properly for his LTSO.

[66] Ms. Dulysh argues that at this point Mr. Ogbamichael is very close to a time-served position. He has served a considerable period of time in pre-sentence custody, sufficient to denounce the conduct and provide a measure of specific and general deterrence. She concedes that given Mr. Ogbamichael’s record there is no case directly on point but does point to the fact that the offences were relatively minor.

Mitigating and Aggravating Factors

[67] The aggravating factors in this case include Mr. Ogbamichael’s lengthy criminal record for exactly the same type of offence; and the harm that it has caused specifically to the victim, S.K., who submitted a VIS. I infer that his behaviour was similarly harmful to the other complainants. I also note the harm set out in the community impact statements.

[68] I also consider the mitigating factors. One of the mitigating factors here are the harsh conditions of custody, as set out in the lockdown records. Mr. Ogbamichael also provided an affidavit setting out the harsh conditions. He was frequently locked down and triple bunked. The ranges are overcrowded and often infested with vermin. At the Toronto South, the inmates went several weeks without a clothing or towel exchange. The inmates went on a hunger strike to protest. At the Toronto East, there were regular clothing exchanges but no bedding changes.

[69] I take these harsh conditions of custody into account as mitigating factors: R. v. Smith, 2023 ONCA 500 at para. 52; R. v. Marshall, 2021 ONCA 344; R. v. Duncan, 2016 ONCA 754.

[70] These harsh conditions of custody have been the subject of numerous condemnations by judges of this court and the Ontario Court of Justice, and yet the problems keep piling up. As demonstrated by recent cases of this court, inmates are likely to get lengthier and lengthier periods of credit for these harsh conditions.

[71] There are other mitigating factors. While in custody Mr. Ogbamichael completed several courses run by Brighter Dayz, an organization that helps with the re-integration of offenders. He also completed several Correctional courses. He enrolled in a course run by Centennial College. Mr. Ogbamichael has support in the community. It is apparent that he has maintained connections with his community and friends within his community. He has submitted several letters of support from those friends. I take that community support into account.

Principles of Sentencing And Sentence Imposed

[72] A judge may impose a sentence that is longer than would otherwise be appropriate if there had been no dangerous offender finding. The enhanced sentencing objective of the protection of the public means that the normal sentencing range may not apply: R. v. Spillman, 2018 ONCA 551 at para. 32. As well, the sentencing judge may consider rehabilitative programming in the penitentiary when setting a fixed sentence: Spillman at paras. 40-41. This situation is distinguishable from R. v. Hoshal, 2018 ONCA 914 at paras. 19-21. Hoshal dealt with a situation where the offender was not found to be a dangerous offender but was placed on a long-term supervision order. The sentencing objectives when an offender is found to be a dangerous offender are similar where an offender is found to be a long-term offender but the protection of the public – which applies to both – is enhanced for dangerous offenders.

[73] That said, I am satisfied that at this point a further significant sentence is not required and would not be proportionate to the gravity of the offences.

[74] Mr. Ogbamichael has been in custody since February 6, 2023. As of today, July 30, 2026, that is 1271 real days. That is over 3 ½ years. Mr. Ogbamichael will be credited with 1.5 days for each day in custody: Criminal Code, s. 719(3.1). He will be credited with 1906.5 days (which I will round up to 1907 days), which works out to about 5.2 years or about 63 ½ months (based on 30 days per month). A further two-year sentence would work out to a sentence of well over 7 years. I do not wish to downplay the seriousness of the offences, but these are ordinarily dealt with by the Crown as summary conviction offences and rarely involve jail time – indeed, the first few offences resulted in non-custodial sentences. For a first offender a suspended sentence and probation is usually imposed for this type of offence. It is only the significant escalation by Mr. Ogbamichael that has taken things to this level.

[75] In saying this, I wish to be clear that I am not downplaying the seriousness of the offences. They involved sexual assaults on young women and girls on public transit – a place that should be considered a safe space. We all must use transit. Mr. Ogbamichael made it less safe for everyone, and in particular to the young women and girls who were victimized. That said, the offences did not involve significant levels of violence, penetration, or exploitation. Similar offences have attracted significantly lower sentences: R. v. Hilan, 2015 ONCA 455; R. v. P.G., 2020 ONSC 4438. They were obviously not as serious as forced penetrative sexual assaults, which typically attract penitentiary terms starting in the range of 3 years: R. v. A.J.K., 2022 ONCA 487 at para. 77.

[76] In my view, Mr. Ogbamichael has spent close to the proper amount of time in custody. The equivalent of about 63 ½ months for the sexual assaults reflects his moral blameworthiness, the principles of general and especially specific deterrence, and denunciation. A further short period of time in custody at a provincial institution to ready the correctional plan and provide a further amount of deterrence and denunciation takes into account all the sentencing principles – especially a large dollop of specific deterrence and denunciation – but also protects the public adequately. In coming to this sentence, I take into account the harsh conditions of custody as a mitigating factor.

[77] Accordingly, I sentence Mr. Ogbamichael to a global sentence of 1997 days in custody, or about 5.4 years on the sexual assault counts. He will serve a further 60 days in custody on Count 1, the assault count. On each of counts 2, 3, and 4 he will be sentenced to 491 days on each count (about 16 months), consecutive to each other, with credit for 491 days on each count. On count 5 he will be sentenced to 494 days (to make the math work), also consecutive, with credit for time served of 494 days.

[78] The warrant of committal will read as follows:

• Count 1 – assault: 60 days.

• Count 2 – sexual assault: 491 days imprisonment with credit for 491 days, time served.

• Count 3 – sexual assault: 491 days imprisonment with credit for 491 days, time served, consecutive to Count 2.

• Count 4 – sexual assault: 491 days imprisonment with credit for 491 days, time served, consecutive to Count 3.

• Count 5 – sexual assault: 494 days imprisonment with credit for 494 days, time served, consecutive to Count 4.

[79] To be clear, Mr. Ogbamichael’s 60-day sentence starts today. It will be tight, but that will give the correctional authorities at least some time to come up with a correctional plan for Mr. Ogbamichael’s LTSO. I turn to that next.

(d) What is the proper length and terms of the LTSO?

[80] Both counsel submit that Mr. Ogbamichael should be subject to an LTSO. Mr. Merenda indicated that the Crown was not seeking an indeterminate sentence because Mr. Ogbamichael is a very unusual, perhaps even unique offender. As Dr. Prakash testified, he does not have a typical offender profile. He is well-educated, professional, and motivated. The Crown’s view is that a long-term supervision order will adequately protect the community.

[81] I agree. There is a reasonable possibility of eventual control in the community. Dr. Prakash’s view was that with the correct medication, including, possibly, injectables, there is a reasonable possibility that Mr. Ogbamichael’s risk can be reduced.

[82] How long should that order be? Regrettably, Mr. Ogbamichael’s record of offending suggests that the problem is deep and longstanding. Much treatment will be required to address that problem. More importantly, I find that given his record a longer period of supervision than the five years suggested by the defence is necessary to protect the public. The Parole Board of Canada (“Parole Board”) has the option to loosen conditions if Mr. Ogbamichael is successful in dealing with his disorder and re-integrating into the community. As well, pursuant to s. 753.2(3) of the Criminal Code a member of the Parole Board or Mr. Ogbamichael’s correctional supervisor may apply to reduce the time period or terminate the LTSO. The court may do so if Mr. Ogbamichael shows that he no longer represents a substantial risk of re-offending and is no longer a danger to the community.

[83] Everyone subject to an LTSO is subject to the conditions prescribed by the Parole Board pursuant to s. 161(1) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Regulations. The Parole Board is empowered to make reasonable conditions to protect society and facilitate re-integration: Corrections and Conditional Release Act, s. 134.1(1), (2). The Regulations prescribe the general conditions for all prisoners on statutory release.

[84] The Parole Board can order the taking of medication as part of the conditions of an LTSO, but no one can be physically forced to take medication against their will. Failure to do so, however, could be considered a breach of the order under s. 753.3(1) of the Criminal Code unless the person had a reasonable excuse: R. v. Ramgadoo, 2012 ONCA 921 at paras. 50, 53. A sentencing judge should consider whether to make a mandatory treatment order as part of a long-term supervision order: Ramgadoo at para. 59. In my view, mandatory treatment is required to both protect the public and to re-integrate Mr. Ogbamichael. Indeed, treatment is the predicate for my finding that there is a reasonable possibility of eventual control in the community.

[85] Mr. Ogbamichael will be subject to an LTSO for ten years. The terms will include:

• Take counselling and treatment as required by your LTSO supervisor;

• Take actuarial or psychological testing is required by your LTSO supervisor;

• Live at an address approved of by your LTSO supervisor when in the community and do not change your address without the prior written approval of your LTSO supervisor;

• Have no contact, directly or indirectly, with H.T., B.G., S.K., or A.W-V.

[86] Ms. Dulysh called evidence from Gherezghiher Tewelde. Mr. Tewelde is Mr. Ogbamichael’s godfather. Mr. Tewelde is a retired corrections officer and lives in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. He is willing to have Mr. Ogbamichael live with him and assist in his reintegration. I was impressed with Mr. Tewelde’s evidence and his willingness to assist Mr. Ogbamichael. I do not believe that I can make it a term of the LTSO that Mr. Ogbamichael live with someone in another province, but the LTSO can be transferred. I recommend that the correctional authorities consider letting Mr. Ogbamichael reside in Saskatoon with Mr. Tewelde at some point. In my view, it would assist with his integration. Mr. Ogbamichael can look for a job and Mr. Tewelde can assist in keeping him off public transit.

(e) What ancillary orders are required?

[87] Mr. Ogbamichael will be required to provide a sample of his DNA.

[88] He will also be subject to an order under the Sex Offender Information Registry for life. Sexual assault is a primary offence for the purposes of the Sex Offender Registry: Criminal Code, s. 490.011(1). Where the sentence is more than two years, the offence was prosecuted by indictment, and the victim is under 18, an order is mandatory: Criminal Code, s. 490.012(1). B.G. was 16 at the time of the offence and I have sentenced Mr. Ogbamichael to more than two years, so this section applies in her case. An order is also mandatory in respect of the other victims. Mr. Ogbamichael has previously been convicted of a primary designated offence: Criminal Code, s. s. 490.012(2)(a).

[89] The order applies for life on at least three different mandatory bases:

• He has been convicted of two or more designated offences in the same proceeding (Criminal Code, s. 490.013(3)(a));

• He was previously convicted of a primary offence (Criminal Code, s. 490.013(5)(a) and Criminal Code, s. 490.013(6)).

[90] Even if the mandatory orders did not apply, I would make an order for life on the basis of s. 490.013(3)(b), which states:

490.013 (3) An order made under subsection 490.012(1) or (3) applies for life if

(b) the court is satisfied that those offences demonstrate, or form part of, a pattern of behaviour showing that the person presents an increased risk of reoffending by committing a crime of a sexual nature.

[91] I think it is obvious that this subsection would apply if the other sections did not.

IV. Disposition

[92] Mr. Ogbamichael is declared a dangerous offender. He is sentenced to a global sentence of 1997 days in custody on counts 2, 3, 4, and 5, with credit for 1997 days, therefore time served. He is sentenced to a further 60 days in custody on count 1. He will then be on a long-term supervision order for 10 years.

[93] Mr. Ogbamichael should understand that his dangerous offender designation is for life, but it does not mean that he is sentenced to an indeterminate period in the penitentiary. Once he has completed his long-term supervision order he will not be under the supervision of the authorities unless he re-offends. If he does re-offend, he will be potentially subject to an indeterminate period of incarceration or another long-term supervision order: Criminal Code, s. 753.01(4).

[94] Dangerous and long-term offender applications are always difficult and complicated. Both Crown and defence counsel dealt with this case in a very professional manner. I thank them both.

R.F. Goldstein J.

Released: July 31, 2026

CITATION: R. v. Ogbamichael, 2026 ONSC 4351

COURT FILE NO.: CR-23-70000573-0000

DATE: 20260731

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

– and –

TEKLE OGBAMICHAEL

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT ON DANGEROUS OFFENDER APPLICATION

R.F. Goldstein J.