Case information

None.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Criminal Law - Sentencing - Appeals - Dangerous offenders - Long-term offenders - Fresh evidence - Whether the Court of Appeal erred by dismissing an appeal from a dangerous offender designation and an indeterminate sentence on the basis that it was legally irrelevant that a new dangerous offender hearing, if ordered, might reasonably produce a different result - Whether the Court of Appeal erred by concluding that the high standard for dismissing the appeal, in the face of the sentencing judge’s error in declaring the appellant to be a dangerous offender without first having considered the suitability of a long-term offender designation, was satisfied on the record including the fresh evidence.

In 1998, the appellant was declared a dangerous offender and given an indeterminate sentence. The sentencing judge did not first consider the suitability of a long-term offender designation. In 2008, the Court of Appeal for Ontario granted leave to the appellant to re-open an appeal from his sentence. With the Crown’s consent, he filed fresh evidence in the appeal proceedings. The fresh evidence consists of a risk assessment, created in 2010, based on the appellant’s progress since 2000. It indicates a possibility that the risk he poses can be controlled in the community by 2016, with appropriate supervision. The Court of Appeal dismissed the sentence appeal. It was satisfied that, having regard to the evidence before the sentencing judge and the fresh evidence admitted on appeal, there was no reasonable possibility that the result of the dangerous offender hearing would have been any different if the sentencing judge had considered the long-term offender provisions.