The Crown applied to have the offender, R.R., declared a dangerous offender following convictions for two counts of sexual assault.
The defence sought a long-term offender designation.
The court considered R.R.'s extensive criminal history, including prior sexual assault convictions and uncharged allegations, a psychiatric assessment, and a Gladue report.
Applying the framework from R. v. Boutilier, the court found that while R.R. presented a risk of reoffending, the evidence did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt a "high likelihood of harmful recidivism" or that his conduct was "intractable," particularly considering his age, future incarceration, and the availability of new correctional programs.
Consequently, the court did not designate R.R. a dangerous offender but found him to be a long-term offender, imposing a further 33 months imprisonment and 10 years of long-term supervision with specific conditions.
