R. v. Thurley, 2018 BCPC 225

Citation: R. v. Thurley 2018 BCPC 225 Date: 20180802 File No: 216933-1 Registry: Surrey IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Criminal REGINA v. GLYNIS HELEN THURLEY ORAL REASONS FOR SENTENCE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE D. GAFFAR Counsel for the Crown: J. Harris and B. Oros Counsel for the Defendant: S. Hutchison Place of Hearing: Surrey , B.C. Dates of Hearing: January 24 and 26, 2018; February 7, 8, 15 and 16, 2018; March 15, 2018 Date of Sentence: August 2, 2018 A Corrigendum was released by the court on August 28, 2018. The corrections have been made to the text and the Corrigendum is appended to this document.

[1] Glynis Helen Thurley has entered guilty pleas to the assault with a weapon and unlawful confinement of her probation officer. She has also pled guilty to the assault with a weapon of another probation officer. I will refer to these offences as "the predicateoffences". Ms. Thurley has been in custody since the date of the incident, the 17th of May 2016. INTRODUCTION [2] Given Ms. Thurley's past and more recent conduct, the Crown now seeks that Ms.

Thurley be designated a dangerous offenderand sentenced to a fixed sentence of eight years in custody, to be followed by a 10-year long-term supervision order. [3] At the time of this decision, Ms. Thurley has been in custody for 27 months. With credit for time served calculated at 1.5 daysfor each day in custody, Ms. Thurley is entitled to credit for 40.35 months, which I rounded up to 40.5 months. Ms. Thurley would servea remaining four years, seven-and-a-half months in custody. [4] This is a joint submission. The defence agrees that Ms.

Thurley qualifies for the designation of dangerous offender and that Iimpose a sentence of eight years less credit for time served to be followed by the 10-year long-term supervision order. [5] I am prepared to accept the joint submission, because I find that it is not contrary to the public interest and does not bring theadministration of justice into disrepute in all of the circumstances, for the reasons that follow. [6] The joint submissions occurred after all the testimonial evidence was completed, after which the parties appropriatelyreconsidered their original positions. Regardless of this agreement, Ms.

Harris for the Crown correctly continued to make fulsomesubmissions in order to demonstrate the basis for the dangerous offender designation and the fixed sentence. [7] A dangerous offender designation (with its possible consequences) is a serious matter. Therefore, I am obliged to explain theevidence and my reasons for agreeing to the joint submission. I am also required to order, at the conclusion of these proceedings, that atranscript of my Reasons be prepared and sent to the Correctional Service of Canada. [8] There are two stages to this assessment: the designation stage and the penalty stage: R. v.

Boutilier, 2017 SCC 64 at paras. 13-15. At the designation stage, I must consider the nature of the offences for which Ms. Thurley has been convicted and evaluate the futurethreat posed by Ms. Thurley based on an alleged violent pattern of past conduct: Boutilier, at paras. 18, 23. The sentencing stage requiresthat I determine the least restrictive, appropriate sentence to manage the established threat after considering all of the evidence: Boutilier,at para. 31. Treatment prospects must be considered at both stages: Boutilier, at para. 45. [9] The Crown argues that the predicate offences, when added to Ms.

Thurley's longstanding mental health, violent and otherbehavioural issues and resulting criminal history, require the dangerous offender designation. However, Ms. Harris submits that a fitsentence requires a significant fixed sentence of eight years less time served followed by the 10 years of long-term supervision. Bothparties submit that such a sentence will adequately protect the public from serious violence or harm in the future, given Ms. Thurley'streatment needs and capabilities.

ISSUES [10] The dangerous offender provisions in the Criminal Code of Canada define a very small group of offenders: Boutilier, at para.28, citing R. v. Lyons, (SCC), [1987] 2 S.C.R. 309. Before I can accept the joint proposal, I must exercise my discretionin assessing the following issues that apply to this case:

a) at the designation stage:

i) whether the predicate offences are part of a broader pattern of violence when I consider her past conduct; ii) whether Ms. Thurley poses a real and high likelihood of repeating the harmful conduct against others in the future; and iii) whether her violent conduct is substantially intractable or unlikely to change in the future, which includes an assessment of herpast response to treatment and future treatment prospects.

b) at the penalty stage:

i) whether the suggested sentence of eight years in custody and ten years long-term supervision is the least restrictive meansavailable in reducing Ms. Thurley's threat to the public to an acceptable level. This issue requires that I consider treatment prospects,again, that may reduce Ms. Thurley's threat to an acceptable level; ii) whether the suggested sentence will sufficiently separate Ms. Thurley from the community to protect the public, denounce herconduct, deter her and others from similar conduct, enhance her rehabilitation and appropriately reflect the seriousness of the offencesand Ms.

Thurley's moral culpability for those offences. [11] I must consider the materials filed, the witness testimonies, and the submissions of counsel in order to determine whether thereare reasonable grounds to issue the orders sought. Although the Crown filed thousands of pages of documents, which were reviewed bythe court-appointed psychiatric expert, Dr. Todd Tomita, I do not intend to canvass or describe those documents in detail. I consider thefollowing documents and evidence to be the most relevant:

a) Ms. Thurley's criminal conviction history;

b) court transcripts relating to most, but not all, of Ms. Thurley's criminal convictions and sentencings;

c) the evidence of Dr. Todd Tomita, the court-appointed forensic psychiatrist;

d) the evidence of Kandace Goldstone, a programs officer for the Correctional Service of Canada;

e) the evidence of Trish Wetmore, a Correctional Service of Canada probation officer;

f) the evidence of Joanie Reimer, a member of the Correctional Service of Canada community mental health team, at this time;

g) the evidence of Patricia Shea, a Correctional Service of Canada community parole officer;

h) the evidence of Laura Wood, a Correctional Service of Canada community programs officer;

i) police reports;

j) a Presentence Report (2011);

k) forensic psychiatric or psychological reports (2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015);

l) Riverview and Surrey Memorial Hospital records (1998 to 2010);

m) B.C. Corrections mental health records (2011, 2012, 2014, 2015, May 2016 to September 2017); and

n) B.C. Correction logs (May 2016 to September 2017). [12] The Crown has provided the following cases, with no dispute on the law by the defence: R. v. Walsh, 2017 BCCA 195; R. v.Haley, 2016 BCSC 1144; R. v. Neve, 1999 ABCA 206; R. v. Boutilier, 2017 SCC 64; R. v. Lyons, (SCC), [1987] 2S.C.R. 309; R. v. Taylor, 2012 ONSC 1025; R. v. Bitternose, 2013 ABCA 220; R. v. Bisson, 2017 ONCJ 419. I have considered thefollowing additional case: R. v. Malakpour, 2018 BCCA 254. DESIGNATION STAGE [13] I turn now to the designation stage. My overall consideration at the designation stage is whether Ms.

Thurley poses a threat tothe life, safety or physical or mental wellbeing of other persons: Boutilier, at paras. 17-18. I must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubtthat Ms. Thurley poses a high likelihood of future danger or harmful reoffending against others before I can impose the dangerousoffender designation on Ms. Thurley: Boutilier, at para. 36, citing R. v. Currie, (SCC), [1997] 2 S.C.R. 260 at para. 25. [14] In the first element of the designation stage, I must determine if the predicate offences qualify as serious personal injuryoffences.

The second element requires that I assess her past conduct to determine if there is a pattern of violence or harmful conduct,including the predicate offences. The third element explores her treatment process. [15] The parties agree that I must consider the elements of s. 753(1)(a)(

i) of the Criminal Code of Canada. Accordingly, I mustassess the evidence in light of the following factors:

a) whether the evidence establishes that Ms. Thurley's conduct, including the predicate offences, formed a pattern of repetitivebehaviour;

b) if so, whether this pattern illustrates a failure to restrain her behaviour; and

c) whether she might pose a likelihood of causing death, injury or severe psychological damage to others due to her failure torestrain her conduct. SERIOUS PERSONAL INJURY OFFENCE [16] The Crown and defence agree that the first element of the designation phase has been met. They agree that the nature of theconvictions for assault with a weapon and the unlawful confinement of Ms. Thurley's probation officer and the assault with a weapon ofanother probation officer qualify as serious personal injury offences.

The circumstances of the offences were contained in the admissionsof fact filed in court prior to the court-ordered forensic psychiatric assessment. The Crown also made oral submissions at the same timeabout some of the circumstances, which do not appear to be disputed by counsel for Ms. Thurley. [17] Briefly, Ms. Thurley reached out to her probation officer and a police officer who regularly dealt with her, several hours prior tothe event. Ms. Thurley was in crisis and needed assistance. The police officer suggested that she go to the hospital and speak to medicalprofessionals. Ms.

Thurley did not want to do that. [18] Mid-morning on the 17th of May 2016, she attended at her probation office. The door was slammed shut after she entered theoffice of her probation officer, Tara Evans. Ms. Thurley bound Ms. Evans' wrists together with a zip tie and made her sit in a chairdirectly in front of the door. Over the course of the incident, Ms. Thurley became more agitated, produced a knife, tried to cut Ms.Evans' hair with the knife and eventually pointed the knife at Ms.

Evans' neck and the back of her head in a violent manner. [19] During the incident, a co-worker (Adrian Kuznick) tried to intervene but retreated after Ms. Thurley approached him with theknife in a threatening manner. Ms. Evans was shaking uncontrollably and crying, but tried to calm Ms. Thurley down. [20] The incident ended when Ms. Thurley threw down her knife and backed away from Ms. Evans to the other side of the room. [21] At the time of these offences, Ms.

Thurley was bound by the terms of a peace bond and two probation orders. [22] I agree with the parties that the circumstances qualify as serious personal injury offences. In any event, I have no judicialdiscretion in this matter. I must refer to the applicable definition of such offences in s. 752: Boutilier, at para. 17. Accordingly, Ms.

Thurley's predicate offences involved the use or attempted use of violence against other persons; conduct that endangered or was likely to endanger the life or safety of other persons; and conduct that inflicted or was likely to inflict severe psychological damage upon other persons. PATTERN OF VIOLENT CONDUCT & FAILURE TO RESTRAIN CONDUCT [ 23 ] I turn now to the second element of the designation stage, in which I examine Ms. Thurley's past conduct to determine if there is a pattern of violent behaviour and a demonstrated failure to restrain her conduct. The Crown and defence agree on the following findings:

a) Ms. Thurley's history of criminal convictions and other offending conduct establishes a pattern of repetitive behaviour that shows a failure to restrain her behaviour. Ms. Thurley's past conduct shares key significant and relevant elements involving a degree of violence or aggression that was threatened or inflicted on others: R. v. Walsh , at para. 22 , citing R. v. Dow , 1999 BCCA 177 at paras. 24- 29 ; R. v. Neve , at para. 113 .

b) Ms. Thurley has shown a level of intractability that permits me to impose a dangerous offender designation. [ 24 ] I will now summarize and analyze the evidence relating to Ms. Thurley's mental health, criminal conduct and institutional history. I do not intend to describe the information provided to me in detail. Mental Health [ 25 ] I start with Ms. Thurley's mental health. Ms. Thurley has a longstanding history of mental health difficulties. She is now 51 years old. Ms. Thurley suffered a substantial head injury earlier in her life. She has received mental health care for almost her entire adult life.

The continuous diagnosis has been borderline personality disorder. [ 26 ] However, I also note that she has been diagnosed with several other psychiatric conditions: schizoaffective disorder, schizophrenia and atypical psychotic disorder. At various times, she has experienced intense auditory and visual hallucinations. Some of these hallucinations have commanded her to do things. On occasion, her thoughts focused on harming herself or others. While in mental health distress in the past, Ms. Thurley has acted out angrily, aggressively and sometimes violently against herself and others. [ 27 ] Ms.

Thurley resided at the Riverview Psychiatric Hospital for approximately eight to nine years. Riverview Hospital was a mental health and psychiatric hospital that has now been dismantled. [ 28 ] Ms. Thurley also resided and received treatment at the Forensic Psychiatric Hospital for approximately nine to 10 years. [ 29 ] After that, Ms. Thurley has been in and out of various psychiatric wards and custodial centres. Unfortunately, I have been told that some community hospitals and mental health clinics are not able to admit or treat Ms.

Thurley due to the manner in which she acts out, which imperils the safety of staff and other patients. In a 2011 report, a psychiatrist referred to this issue and that some facilities feel they lack the necessary resources to deal with Ms. Thurley's issues. The documents refer to Ms. Thurley's low frustration level, which results in her assaulting and threatening other patients and staff members in hospital and correctional facilities, in the past. Criminal Conduct [ 30 ] Ms. Thurley's criminal convictions for assaultive and threatening behaviour began in 1998.

However, there is an eight-year gap between 2001 and 2009. [ 31 ] A recurring theme is Ms. Thurley's reference to and use of knives (or similar weapons) while in mental health crisis. While in the community and in restrictive psychiatric settings, Ms. Thurley has threatened to produce a knife, actually produced a knife or actually used a knife in assaultive behaviour over the past 20 years. [ 32 ] In October 1998, she committed (and was later convicted of) assault with a weapon for stabbing a Riverview Hospital security guard in the back with a pair of scissors.

She was found criminally responsible but continued to be certified under the Mental Health Act . She was treated at the Forensic Psychiatric Institute, as it was then known, for patients involved in the criminal justice system. [ 33 ] In June 1999, Ms. Thurley committed (and was later convicted of) two separate offences of assault at Riverview Hospital, where she hit two staff members in the head with her fist. [ 34 ] In May 2001, she committed mischief and possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose.

On that occasion, she used a hammer to smash a door and produced a knife at a mall after failing to return to the Forensic Psychiatric Hospital while on a day pass. [ 35 ] Between approximately 2002 and 2009, Ms. Thurley was not convicted of any criminal offences. She was largely under the care of the psychiatric professionals connected to the Forensic Psychiatric Hospital during this period of time. [ 36 ] In July of 2010, Ms. Thurley assaulted a Surrey Memorial Hospital staff member when she choked that person from behind and punched that person. In November 2010, Ms.

Thurley committed (and was later convicted of) assault against the same cleaning staff member on the psychiatric unit. She perceived that this person had insulted her. She placed this person in a chokehold and punched this person a number of times in the back of the head. A short time later, she threatened to shoot and kill a hospital staff member. [ 37 ] In May 2011, Ms. Thurley committed (and was later convicted of) uttering threats to her therapist. She was upset and had thoughts of harming others, including her therapist.

She produced a knife, subdued and threatened her psychologist during the appointment. [ 38 ] In 2012, Ms. Thurley was involved in two assaultive incidents leading to convictions. In May 2012, Ms. Thurley put another Surrey Pretrial Centre inmate in a headlock and struck her from behind on the top of that person's head. Ms. Thurley continued to hit this

person until staff intervened. This other inmate was in a wheelchair at the time. [ 39 ] In September 2012, she committed the assault causing bodily harm of her roommate when she struck her roommate on the head with a hammer, causing personal injury. [ 40 ] On five occasions between 2014 to 2015, Ms. Thurley was involved with the criminal justice system. She received four criminal convictions, as well as a peace bond.

The incidents generally occurred after she reached out to persons in authority (e.g. her probation officers, police officers and mental healthcare providers) while describing violent thoughts and verbally threatening the safety of others. On three such occasions, she was found with a knife in her possession. [ 41 ] As previously noted, Ms. Thurley's violent and threatening conduct at various hospitals and clinics in the Lower Mainland Surrey area has resulted in her being banned from attending at many mental health facilities unless there is a dire emergency.

Her ability to receive psychiatric mental health care in the community when in crisis or on the verge of a crisis was curtailed by her own previous conduct. Conduct in Custodial Setting [ 42 ] I turn now to her conduct in a custodial setting. Copious correctional and institutional records have been provided to the court. Given the joint submission, I do not intend to delve into the details of the various documents. Most notable incidents have been referred to in prior mental health reports and Dr. Tomita's report.

I have looked at the most recent correctional logs from October 2016 until September 2017 to obtain a general sense of Ms. Thurley's more recent progress, attitude and efforts. [ 43 ] Dr. Tomita referred to a Forensic Psychiatric Institute social worker note from 2001, where the social worker commented that there had been a "brutal" assault against a staff member that did not result in a criminal court determination. Importantly, the social worker noted that Ms. Thurley's conduct went in cycles of approximately six months when Ms.

Thurley functioned well, before self- sabotaging and reverting back to old behaviours. The records reflect Ms. Thurley's fluctuating levels of functioning, threatening behaviour and violence. [ 44 ] In a custodial setting, Ms. Thurley's behaviour has seen some improvement over the years. I note that the documents describe better coping skills and increasing physical self-restraint between 2011 through 2017, whenever she was in a women's correctional facility. However, I also note that she was convicted of setting fire to her bed and striking a correctional officer while in the same women's facility in 2015.

Since that incident, there has been demonstrated progress within the strict confines of the women's correctional institution. Findings re Pattern and Self-Restraint [ 45 ] I turn now to my findings regarding a pattern and self-restraint. Ms. Thurley has demonstrated a pattern of acting out in a violent manner against others in a mental health, institutional and residential context when she is frustrated, annoyed or feels disrespected. She has repeatedly choked and hit individuals on the head from behind with her hands in clinical, mental health, institutional and residential settings.

She has used a hammer on her victim's head on two occasions. She has repeatedly uttered threats to persons in authority regarding harm to others while either producing or possessing a knife when the authorities responded. [ 46 ] I note that the 2016 predicate offences occurred after Ms. Thurley again reached out to persons in authority for help. Five years after Ms. Thurley produced a knife during a session with her mental health psychologist in 2011, she repeated similar conduct with her probation officer in the 2016 predicate offences.

I observe that the 2016 predicate offences can be seen as an escalation from the 2011 offence. Ms. Thurley brought materials to bind her probation officer as well as the knife to their meeting. She used the knife to cut Ms. Evans' hair and held it to her neck and head area. [ 47 ] Based on the foregoing, I am satisfied that Ms. Thurley's past criminal offences and predicate offences demonstrate a pattern of repetitive violent and harmful conduct. This pattern illustrates a failure to restrain her behaviour in the past.

HIGH LIKELIHOOD OF SERIOUS HARM TO OTHERS [ 48 ] I turn now to the issue of the high likelihood of serious harm to others. I must now assess the third element of the designation stage: Is it likely that her pattern of violent conduct will continue? In other words, is her violent conduct substantially intractable or unlikely to change? [ 49 ] To answer these questions I must assess Ms. Thurley's potential dangerousness in the future: Boutilier , at para. 26 , citing Lyons , at p. 338; Boutilier , at paras. 27 and 43 .

I note that, in the past, correctional and treatment professionals have been concerned about her conduct while she was under some form of community corrections supervision:

a) her two assaults on Riverview Hospital staff in June 1999 occurred while she was on probation for the 1998 assault with a weapon conviction;

b) Ms. Thurley received a conditional sentence for her November 2010 assault at the Surrey Memorial Hospital and May 2011 uttering threats at the Vancouver mental health clinic. Her conditional sentence was later terminated and she served the remainder of her sentence in custody;

c) from 2014 to the predicate offences in May 2016, Ms. Thurley was convicted of breach of probation as well as committed several other previously described offences while on various probation orders. [ 50 ] An essential component of my assessment is whether Ms. Thurley is likely or unlikely to change. Her treatment prospects were addressed by Dr. Todd Tomita, Trish Wetmore, the probation officer who tried to apply some form of dialectical behavioural therapy on Ms. Thurley; Kandace Goldstone, the regional program manager for federal Corrections; and, Joanie Reimer, a social worker trained but

not certified in dialectical behavioural therapy for female inmates in the federal Correctional Services. [ 51 ] During the penalty stage, later, I will discuss the evidence of the other Correctional Service personnel who testified about the available supports and supervision both in and out of custody for inmates with similarly complex mental health issues. Court Ordered Risk Assessment - Dr. Tomita [ 52 ] I turn now to the court-ordered risk assessment of Dr. Tomita. Dr.

Tomita was qualified as a forensic psychiatrist with expertise in the assessment, treatment and diagnoses of psychiatric disorders; other personality disorders; and other mental health disorders. Dr. Tomita prepared a report dated the 12th of July 2017 and testified about his risk assessment of Ms. Thurley. In making his risk assessment, Dr. Tomita interviewed Ms. Thurley for approximately five hours and reviewed over 10,000 pages of documents. [ 53 ] He also reviewed prior psychological and psychiatric reports on Ms. Thurley, most notably reports by Dr. Mark Riley, who treated Ms.

Thurley for 16 years. [ 54 ] Dr. Tomita's report covered Ms. Thurley's predicate offences, past violent offending, psychiatric diagnoses, community functioning, institutional functioning and treatment response. I note that Dr. Tomita prepared his report without some information that is before the court: the agreed statement of facts; the dialectical behavioural therapy efforts of Ms. Thurley's probation officer; and the currently developed federal Corrections programs for dialectical behavioural therapy at a local federal institution that is available for Ms. Thurley. Predicate Offences [ 55 ] Dr.

Tomita describes the predicate offences based on the content of various Reports to Crown Counsel and police reports. His opinion is partly based on the content of those reports. [ 56 ] The problem is that counsel agreed to a statement of facts which formed the factual basis accepted by the court for the predicate offences. It was my understanding that the statement of facts would be provided to Dr. Tomita in lieu of police reports about the predicate incident. Dr.

Tomita's list of materials does not list the statement of facts and he specifically states that he did not have the court's findings of facts with regard to the predicate offences. It is unclear to me why Dr. Tomita was not provided with the statement of facts. [ 57 ] Dr. Tomita's inability to review the statement of facts impacts my assessment of his evidence to a limited extent. I am aware that he interviewed Ms. Thurley about the predicate offences, as well.

However, I am cautious about any opinions expressed that appear to be based on information in the Crown and police reports beyond the information provided in court. [ 58 ] To be clear, I have considered only the statement of facts and the few uncontested additional statements made by Crown during her submissions on the predicate offences. I have also considered any information Ms. Thurley provided directly to Dr. Tomita. Past Violent Offending [ 59 ] Dr. Tomita testified that there were two factors driving Ms. Thurley's past violence:

a) Ms. Thurley's inappropriate and disproportionate anger triggered by some slight or trivial annoyance; and

b) Ms. Thurley's use of threats and violence to facilitate her incarceration and access to services in the women's correctional institute, Alouette River Correctional Centre for Women. In his view, the predicate offence was driven by both factors. His view is based on the information provided by Ms. Thurley during her interviews, as well as documents and records provided to him. Ms. Thurley specifically described her great frustration, her inability to go to hospital, her inability to reach her crisis and contact persons. Dr. Tomita found that the records disclosed a historic pattern where Ms.

Thurley sometimes used threats to orchestrate a return to custody. Such motivation drove her conduct during the predicate offences. He noted that she went on a bus with a knife and brought zap straps from a store prior to her attendance at the probation office. She brought the tools with her beforehand. Psychiatric Diagnosis [ 60 ] Based on his interviews with Ms. Thurley and the available clinical, court, police and institutional information, Dr. Tomita found Ms. Thurley's primary diagnosis to be severe borderline personality disorder. He was unwilling to make any further diagnosis at this time.

He considered that past behaviour and hallucinations only reflected features of her borderline personality disorder. He did not attribute her conduct or mental health issues to other previously diagnosed mental disorders. [ 61 ] Dr. Tomita indicated that human personality is defined by longstanding patterns marked by experiences and relationships. Someone with borderline personality disorder has problems interacting with other people. This person experiences “affect” issues, (i.e. external mood display) and mood problems, (i.e. internal or subjective mood).

Someone with borderline personality disorder can have great difficulty managing his or her frustration, anger, relationships and impulsivity. [ 62 ] The disorder is marked by unstable identity, moods, affect and interpersonal relationships. An unstable identity causes that person to be unduly influenced and stressed by surrounding people. The person may exhibit self-harming as well as somewhat psychotic features, such as a level of paranoia and auditory hallucinations.

Borderline personality disorder tends to be a chronic condition. [ 63 ] Interpersonal relationships are impacted because borderline personality disorder compromises the person's ability to empathize or identify the needs of others. The person becomes hyper-sensitive and prone to feeling slighted. The person's reactions swing back and forth from the extremely negative to the extremely positive. Therefore, the person will experience unstable mood states. [ 64 ] Ms. Thurley displays most of the factors described above, except possibly disassociation under stress.

Her constellation of symptoms and patterns were consistent with borderline personality disorder. The records disclosed that her condition was longstanding. It was present across different situations and contexts.

[ 65 ] Ms. Thurley's borderline personality disorder is atypical in that her violent reactions and conduct have not subsided or reduced as she aged. Dr. Tomita believed that Ms. Thurley's conduct escalated in 2016 because she created the potential for more serious injury of an authority figure directly supervising her. He considered this escalation to be quite significant. [ 66 ] Another layer of her mental condition relates to Ms. Thurley's reported prior sexual abuse by her brother and a male peer at the Forensic Psychiatric Hospital.

Although these reports have not been independently corroborated or investigated, Dr. Riley noted that they formed a significant component of Ms. Thurley's life history. It appears to me that this layer requires therapeutic attention, as well. [ 67 ] Dr. Tomita applied a variety of statistical and structured professional judgment risk assessment tools. The PCL-R, which measures levels of psychopathy, places Ms. Thurley at a low level of psychopathic features. The HCR-20 V3 assesses risk for violent behaviour based on historical, clinical and risk management factors. Dr.

Riley performed a similar assessment in 2014. Dr. Tomita's assessment is similar to that of Dr. Riley's, except that Dr. Tomita found that Ms. Thurley's prognosis had worsened after the 2016 predicate offences. Dr. Tomita found that Ms. Thurley's psychiatric condition remains fragile with continued instability of mood, poor judgment and decisions, impulsivity and overreactions. The problem now is that Ms. Thurley's predicate offences demonstrate goal- oriented violence designed to allow her access to custody or hospital.

Her past institutionalization and lack of coping skills makes her dependent on professional services to cope and function. Community Functioning [ 68 ] Dr. Tomita described Ms. Thurley's prior community functioning as demonstrably poor. Although she received various support services at various times from the Surrey Outpatient Clinic, Delta Mental Health Services, Delta Police Department and Probation Services, Ms. Thurley continued to reoffend. While not under legal supervision Ms. Thurley has only had short periods of time living in the community. Early in her life she was able to function best in group homes.

However, Ms. Thurley never achieved a durable level of stability in the community and required frequent hospitalization. After her conduct became more problematic, particularly after age 31, group home type settings became unsafe for her and others. [ 69 ] Dr. Tomita observed that Ms. Thurley has never been on federal parole supervision. The federal system of supervision in the community has the ability to return a person immediately if that person's risk becomes elevated or unmanageable. Institutional Functioning [ 70 ] Dr. Tomita noted that Ms.

Thurley's institutional conduct has been contained but not violence-free while in custody. However, the level of severity and potential for severe violence has been generally contained. His review of the material pertaining to her approximate 10 years of hospitalization at the Forensic Psychiatric Hospital revealed that it was not necessarily the physical containment that provided Ms. Thurley with stability. Rather it was the immediacy of support, including the ability to live in a hospital when she needed it or requested it. [ 71 ] Dr.

Tomita wrote in his report that, "This appears to be a key factor absent in the community in recent years, as Ms. Thurley reports being frustrated by having her access to long-term hospitalization effectively blocked." He agreed that Ms. Thurley's functioning at the Alouette Correctional Centre for Women, particularly since May 2016, has been more stable as compared to her community functioning. Treatment Response [ 72 ] Dr. Tomita reviewed Ms. Thurley's history at the Forensic Psychiatric Hospital over the nine to 10-year period. Dr. Tomita considered Ms. Thurley to be relatively stable during that period.

Her conduct worsened after her complete discharge from that hospital when she only had access to community hospital psychiatric units, emergency rooms or tertiary psychiatric units after the Riverview Hospital was dismantled. [ 73 ] Dr. Tomita concluded that Ms. Thurley requires long-term hospitalization to control or manage her violence and threat to public safety. However, in his view, long-term hospitalization in the community is no longer an option for Ms. Thurley. Borderline personality disorder is not considered a "major mental health disorder".

Hospitals in the community are unlikely to accept a long-term borderline personality disordered patient. She has been declined for admission at many local hospitals and clinics. At this time, the Forensic Psychiatric Hospital only admits patients on criminal remand from court or who have been found unfit or not criminally responsible due to mental disorder. In any event, the Forensic Psychiatric Hospital refused to admit Ms. Thurley from the Alouette Correctional Centre for Women in 2015, when she was certified under the Mental Health Act and the facility sought mental health care for her.

The Forensic Psychiatric Hospital declined to admit her due to her "clinical profile". [ 74 ] Ms. Thurley has received many different forms of treatment over the years, including electroconvulsive therapy. Dr. Tomita reviewed many clinical records by Dr. Mark Riley, who treated Ms. Thurley. Dr. Riley observed that Ms. Thurley was institutionalized and had not learned many necessary skills to live independently. Notwithstanding that comment, Dr. Riley reviewed her clinical history and noted that she had a period of relative stability (for her) in an independent living setting between 1992 and 1994. Dr.

Tomita also acknowledged a relative period of stability between 2007 and 2008. [ 75 ] Dr. Riley noted that, although Ms. Thurley does not have a psychotic disorder, she has been treated with different antipsychotic medications and mood-stabilizing medications for her severe borderline personality disorder. Without the medication, her mental condition and ability to cope is compromised. Dr. Tomita observed that these medications are a common treatment for the symptoms of borderline personality disorder. Many medications have been tried.

Many different forms, from pills to injectable medication, have also been tried. Dr. Tomita viewed these medications as helpful to a degree. Dr. Tomita noted that they were still not completely effective in preventing her recurring violent episodes. [ 76 ] Dr. Tomita testified that Ms. Thurley previously received good psychiatric care. Regular and routine crisis intervention management and psychiatric follow-up can sometimes compensate for a lack of more formal and resourced programs.

While previously dealing with the Forensic Psychiatric Hospital, the Forensic Outpatient Clinic and the Delta Police Department, Ms. Thurley was able to

access the community and receive crisis management intervention. However, I note that such supports were not able (eventually) to manage Ms. Thurley's violent conduct after a period of time in the community. [ 77 ] Dr. Tomita also referred to three other forms of therapy that might assist Ms. Thurley:

a) mentalized-based therapy

b) transference-based therapy; and

c) dialectical behavioural therapy. The former two therapies sought to address difficulties in empathy, understanding the intentions of others and disruptive interpersonal relationships. Dr. Tomita was not aware of these two therapies being available in British Columbia. He fairly conceded that he was not aware of the full Correctional Service of Canada resources across the country. [ 78 ] Dr. Tomita identified a recognized treatment with demonstrated effectiveness for borderline personality disorder called dialectical behavioural therapy.

This therapy is designed to treat individuals who are unable to control their emotions. The patient is taught skills around stress tolerance. The model for most dialectical behavioural therapy is primarily a group format with perhaps weekly individual sessions and 24-hours, seven-days-a-week follow-up support sessions. [ 79 ] The problem is that Ms. Thurley was and is unable to cope with other people in a group format. She demonstrated those difficulties during past attempts to apply dialectical behavioural therapy. She has never completed a dialectical behavioural therapy program to date. Dr.

Riley was concerned that informed or fulsome dialectical behavioural therapy might be too intense for Ms. Thurley and could destabilize her. If fellow group members were more stable, she might cope well. [ 80 ] Dr. Tomita noted that in 2002, Dr. Livesley recommended that Ms. Thurley receive years of dialectical behavioural therapy. However, she only received once weekly individual sessions with a psychologist in the late 1990s at Riverview Hospital (up to six months in duration), and later in 2004 to 2005 at the Forensic Psychiatric Hospital by Dr. Jack, (approximately five months in duration). Dr.

Tomita did not consider this limited, incomplete form of dialectical behavioural therapy to be sufficient. Dr. Tomita stated that Ms. Thurley required years of consistent and sustained therapy during long-term hospitalization. He observed that Ms. Thurley may learn the necessary skills, but then has difficulty applying those skills after the therapy sessions end. [ 81 ] He was only aware of two federal institutions that delivered fulsome or informed dialectical behavioural therapy, both out of province. He acknowledged that Ms. Thurley's community support and family are in the Lower Mainland area and that Ms.

Thurley's inability to have direct contact with her community support may impact her negatively, depending on how she reacts. I pause to note that I have no difficulty concluding that distancing Ms. Thurley from her community support group would have a significant negative impact on Ms. Thurley's psychological state, emotional instability, functioning and her severe borderline personality disorder. Dr. Tomita’s Opinion [ 82 ] Dr. Tomita's opinions are as follows. He concluded that Ms. Thurley currently posed a high risk of violence towards others.

In his view, this risk would continue for the foreseeable future and exceed a three to four-year fixed sentence followed by ten years of long- term supervision. He considered Ms. Thurley to be treatable but that it was unlikely that the treatment would substantially reduce her risk for violence. Any future violence would most likely be similar to past events. While a "worst case" scenario was possible, he viewed a "better case" scenario as unlikely. [ 83 ] Dr. Tomita testified that Ms. Thurley is likely motivated to enter treatment, but her ability to complete group-based therapy will be difficult.

He also noted that since she could not receive long-term hospitalization, finding an acceptable residence in the community would be difficult. He did not believe that "wraparound" clinical and supervising professional services in the community would ensure her stability. Neither could be sustained in the long-term, in his view. [ 84 ] I agree with Dr. Tomita's view that Ms. Thurley's situation is very unfortunate. More pointedly, I agree with his comment that: Ms. Turley's overall pattern suggests that the shift in the organization of mental health care over the decades may have inadvertently aggravated Ms.

Thurley's borderline personality disorder condition. Long-term hospitalization for people with borderline personality disorder is no longer available. [ 85 ] I also agree with Dr. Tomita's view that the best place for Ms. Thurley is at the Forensic Psychiatric Hospital. However, that resource is now unavailable to her. Additional Dialectical Behavioural Therapy Evidence [ 86 ] After Dr. Tomita prepared his report and testified, I received additional information from three Correctional Service of Canada program staff members.

Trish Wetmore - Probation Officer [ 87 ] Trish Wetmore, a probation officer who previously supervised Ms. Thurley in the community when she was on bail or probation from 2011 until early 2016, provided additional information to Dr. Tomita's evidence. She was present in the building during Ms. Thurley's predicate offences, but was no longer her probation supervisor at the time. She testified about her surprise when she learned about Ms. Thurley's conduct because she had not previously observed this type of behaviour in Ms. Thurley. [ 88 ] She noted that Ms.

Thurley was unable to receive programs from many community-based mental health facilities due to her previous problematic conduct. She was not referred to many programs. Ms. Wetmore provided a modified, partial and only very intermittent form of individual dialectical behavioural therapy for Ms. Thurley. Ms. Wetmore acknowledged that she was informally trained and self-taught in dialectical behavioural therapy. [ 89 ] However, Ms. Wetmore had a limited ability to apply the treatment because she needed to continuously manage Ms. Thurley's ongoing crises. Crisis management overrode treatment sessions as Ms.

Thurley continued to face housing and daily life stressors during Ms. Wetmore's supervision. Ms. Thurley continued to commit violent offences despite receiving this partial and intermittent treatment.

Kandace Goldstone - Programs Manager [90] Dr. Tomita also did not appear to be aware that federal Corrections offers a form of dialectical behavioural therapy at thewomen's institution near Abbotsford, Fraser Valley Institution. Kandace Goldstone, the regional program manager for the CorrectionalService of Canada, testified about the configuration and programs available for female inmates at the Fraser Valley Institute. Ms.Thurley would have access to social workers, psychologists and a behavioural counsellor.

I note that if a female inmate requires longer-term hospitalization for a very serious or significant mental health issue, that inmate would require a formal transfer to the nearby PacificInstitution. Such mental health services are not available at the Fraser Valley Institute. [91] Ms. Goldstone described the different correctional programs for women that deal with intervention, engagement, self-management, pre-release transition and similar maintenance programs in the community. Based on her evidence, Ms. Thurley would beable to repeat programs.

There are federal programs directed to women who have caused a moderate to a high degree of harm, or with amoderate to high risk to reoffend. [92] Most importantly, Ms. Thurley could receive dialectical behavioural therapy. The program can be tailored to Ms. Thurley'slevel of needs and she would have frequent and (as needed) access to the social worker, psychologist and behavioural counsellor. Joanie Reimer - Dialectical Behavioural Therapy [93] Dr.

Tomita also did not have the evidence of Joanie Reimer, a clinical social worker working for the Correctional Service ofCanada, before he wrote his report or testified. Ms. Reimer is formally trained but not certified in dialectical behavioural therapy. As aclinician, she received more training akin to certification than a counsellor. [94] She described the dialectical behavioural therapy program in detail.

The dialectical behavioural therapy team involvesmultidisciplinary personnel: psychiatrist, psychiatric nurse, parole officer, behavioural counsellors, as well as a clinical social workerand/or occupational therapist (each with a Master's degree). [95] The first component involves individual therapy with a psychologist or the social worker or the occupational therapist. Themeetings would be once weekly but could be increased based on the inmate's needs. [96] The second component involves group training with counsellors three times per week, supervised by a mental healthprofessional.

If an inmate is unable to participate in group therapy, the program may be modified at staff discretion so that much of theprogram is delivered one-on-one. Ms. Reimer testified that there is a lot of creativity, flexibility and funding for inmates. Services canbe broken down into smaller sessions for an inmate if the current format is too intense or challenging. [97] The third component involves 24-hour coaching by counsellors and support staff. When in the community, this support is viatelephone.

Overall, the dialectical behavioural team at the Fraser Valley Institute have regular monthly consultations with the well-established dialectical behavioural therapy clinic in Toronto. The team tries to prioritize their program for those with higher risks. Theinmates can repeat aspects of the program a number of times. In fact, this is common. The treatment can continue one-on-one if theinmate is in segregation; access to behavioural counsellors and coaching would not change. [98] Ms. Reimer also testified about the mental health team available for offenders being supervised in the community.

The teamconsists of three psychologists and a clinical social worker. A psychiatrist is available once per month. This team also provides generaland psychiatric counselling, medications and the monitoring of high-needs and violent offenders in the community. The team couldassist Ms. Thurley in obtaining acceptable and approved residential facilities.

This supervision could continue on a weekly basis if Ms.Thurley was on a finite, long-term supervision in the community. [99] An inmate can only receive an informal dialectical behavioural therapy program in the community from federal Corrections dueto lack of funding. However, Ms. Thurley would be able to access a maintenance dialectical behavioural therapy group, clinicianstrained in dialectical behavioural therapy and a dialectical behavioural therapy-experienced psychologist. Ms. Thurley would also beable to receive individual dialectical behavioural therapy maintenance from a team member.

Community integration support can be dailyor multiple times a week. Particularly high-needs and complex offenders like Ms. Thurley can apply for additional funding foradditional staff to assist in structured community residential facilities, specialized assessments or provide other items of need. DESIGNATION FINDING [100] I turn now to my designation finding. I have already concluded that Ms. Thurley's predicate offences are serious personal injuryoffences and that she has demonstrated a pattern of violent, repetitive conduct illustrating a failure to restrain her behaviour.

The Crownargues that the evidence demonstrates that Ms. Thurley poses a high likelihood of reoffending at the same level of her past pattern ofviolent conduct. Ms. Harris argues that Ms. Thurley's violent behaviour is substantially intractable. Mr. Hutchison, for the defence, hasaccepted this position as part of the joint submission. [101] I must consider whether Ms. Thurley poses a high likelihood of harmful conduct in the future. Accordingly, I must considerwhether her past and current behaviour is very likely to continue.

In doing so, I must assess the quality and strength of the evidencerelating to her past and present circumstances, including the expert opinion: Lyons, at para. 94, citing R. v. Knight (1975), (ON SC), 27 C.C.C. (2d) 343 (ONHC) at p. 356. I must decide if Ms. Thurley will continue to pose a threat of serious harm or a"real and present danger to life or limb" in the future: Boutilier, at para. 35, citing Hatchwell v.

The Queen, (SCC),[1976] 1 S.C.R. 39 at p. 43. [102] The notion of “substantially intractable” conduct has been variously described as conduct that is: a) "very likely to continue":Boutilier, at para. 26; b) "substantially or pathologically intractable": Boutilier, at paras. 26-27, citing Lyons p. 338; or

c) violent conductthat an offender is unable to surmount or overcome: Boutilier, at para. 43. [103] The information before me demonstrates the following:

a) She has sustained periods where her behaviour appears more controlled. This occurred on two shorter sustained periods in the community. However, these controlled periods usually occur in custody. I note that her current functioning is improving in a custodial setting. Since 2015, she has also demonstrated the willingness and ability to continue her education and take various programming. She was not always able to complete some programs, but I note that such difficulties arose during the course of these court proceedings, which I accept was very stressful for Ms. Thurley.

She has demonstrated industriousness in her willingness to work and keep occupied. She has expressed appropriate empathy and understanding for the feelings of others. She has learned to recognize her triggers and seeks to deal with them early.

b) She has fluctuating insight, problem-solving abilities and anger/frustration management skills.

c) I note that Ms. Thurley's actual physical bodily harm of others appears to have reduced over time. However, the predicate offences resonate more ominously because of her deliberate purchase of the zap straps to confine her probation officer, as well as her transport of the knife to the office. These actions do not reflect hair-triggered, impulsive or momentary overreactions. Overall, Ms. Thurley displayed a determination in exerting psychological and physical intimidation to achieve her own ends, i.e., to access the support services at the Alouette Correctional Centre for Women. In this way, the severity of her actions appears to have escalated by becoming more calculated.

d) More recently, she does reach out to persons in authority or therapeutic personnel in times of crisis. However, she subsequently acts out by carrying knives or making explicit and detailed threats of violence against others. I agree with the sentencing judge for the 2014 uttering threats conviction and Dr. Tomita that, "Ms.

Thurley did things that were likely to attract the attention of law enforcement when she was feeling unsafe in the community and, in some respects, might be said to use the criminal justice system as a means of re- entry into the mental health system." [ 104 ] I acknowledge that her actions over the past five to six years might be characterized as a call for help or as a means to be re- incarcerated in order to access mental health assistance.

This reflects some insight into her conduct and the risks her behaviour may pose to others. [ 105 ] The evidence that I have received from the Correctional Service of Canada programming and supervisory staff impacts my view of Dr. Tomita's opinion. His thorough and thoughtful assessment of Ms. Thurley, including his subsequent conclusions, are impacted somewhat by that new information. While the Crown noted that Dr. Tomita's view of Ms.

Thurley's treatability lacks the additional Correctional Service of Canada information, that additional information is not canvassed in the Crown's argument at the designation stage. The challenge for me in this case was determining how to integrate the new information into the substantial evidence of intractable past conduct at the designation stage. [ 106 ] In his report, Dr. Tomita wrote: While Ms. Thurley remains treatable, I do not expect that further treatment, including dialectical behavioural therapy, is likely to reduce her violence risk substantially. Ms.

Thurley has engaged in several courses of modified dialectical behavioural therapy and demonstrated escalating difficulties with violence. While Ms. Thurley may benefit from future treatment with dialectical behavioural therapy, I do not expect the treatment benefit will be of sufficient magnitude to reduce her risk substantially. Treatment effect alone is unlikely to overcome her lack of coping skills and the high degree of institutionalization. [ 107 ] I am extremely cautious about the risk of punishing a person because he or she has a mental disorder and resulting behavioural problems.

When I consider all of the evidence, including the additional dialectical behavioural therapy evidence, I find that Ms. Thurley's conduct has remained substantially intractable over the past 20-plus years. The symptoms of her severe borderline personality disorder have fluctuated, as has her ability to control her violent conduct. As with many mental health patients, several treatments were tried and failed in assisting her to control her behaviour, including various forms of informed dialectical behavioural therapy. Her last exposure to dialectical behavioural therapy was informal, intermittent and irregular.

I emphasize that the evidence is absolutely clear that the current dialectical behavioural therapy programs at the Fraser Valley Institute are an important, essential and imperative aspect of her future treatment. [ 108 ] I accept that Ms. Thurley will try her best to learn the necessary skills. My concern centres on her ability to sustain and use those skills appropriately after future release into the community. I accept that the Correctional Service of Canada mental health team in the community will provide maintenance therapy and support services.

However, the atypical features of her severe borderline personality disorder, her past difficulties after receiving treatment and the increasingly calculated nature of her most recent offences lead me to conclude that her future risk is still elevated for the purposes of determining whether she should be designated a dangerous offender. If Ms. Thurley remains untreated, she poses a high risk of reoffending violently. [ 109 ] On all the evidence, I do not consider Ms.

Thurley's treatment prospects to be so compelling that they prevent me from finding, beyond a reasonable doubt, that she poses a high likelihood of harmful recidivism and that her conduct is very likely to continue: Boutilier , at para. 45 . Accordingly, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Thurley actually constitutes a future threat to safety in light of all the relevant evidence: Malakpour , at para. 41 , citing Boutilier , at para. 41 . PENALTY STAGE [ 110 ] I turn now to consider whether the proposed sentence of eight years in custody and 10 years long-term supervision is appropriate.

Given the joint submission on the fixed sentence and long-term supervision, it is not necessary for me to consider the other types of sentences for a person who is designated a dangerous offender. [ 111 ] Although I have found that Ms. Thurley's conduct will very likely continue or remain substantially intractable, the law is clear that I must now impose "the least intrusive sentence" required to achieve the primary purpose of public protection: Boutilier , at paras. 33, 60 . Now that I have designated Ms.

Thurley as a dangerous offender, I must assess whether the risk arising from her behaviour can be adequately managed outside of the more severe indeterminate sentence: Boutilier , at para. 31 . The sentence must be tailored to Ms. Thurley and consistent with the principles of sentencing. I must consider all of the evidence heard during this hearing, again, at this

penalty stage. [ 112 ] However, once a person is designated a dangerous offender, the protection of the public becomes an enhanced sentencing objective amongst the other principles that must be also considered: Boutilier , at para. 34 . [ 113 ] It is clear to me that a conventional or regular sentence in custody alone would not sufficiently protect the public from Ms. Thurley. Without the intensive supervision of a long-term supervision order, Ms. Thurley will not be adequately supported or supervised.

Her personal circumstances and history clearly demonstrate that her greatest point of vulnerability, and thus the public's, is when she is left unsupported and unsupervised. [ 114 ] I am satisfied that a conventional sentence greater than two years in custody, followed by a long-term supervision order, will adequately protect the public against significantly harmful offences such as murder or a serious personal injury offence. [ 115 ] The proposed sentence of eight years in custody plus 10 years of long-term supervision, even after credit for time served of 40.5 months has been deducted, leaves a remaining term in custody of four years and seven-and-a-half months.

Ms. Thurley has been separated from society since May 2016. She will continue to be separated from society for an additional four years and seven-and-a-half months. The decision about whether she can be released earlier on statutory release will remain with the Correctional Service, who can more closely monitor her risks and progress at the relevant times. [ 116 ] Although I found that Ms.

Thurley's treatment prospects were not sufficiently compelling to affect my decision on dangerousness, her treatment prospects remain a relevant and, I will add, an important consideration in choosing the sentence required to adequately protect the public: Boutilier , at para. 45 . Again, I must consider the extent to which Ms. Thurley can accept, receive and benefit from treatment so that her level of risk can be lowered to an acceptable level: Boutilier , at para. 31 . [ 117 ] Based on the evidence, I have a reasonable expectation that Ms. Thurley will be willing to take and receive treatment.

I have a reasonable expectation that she will be able to benefit from treatment to an adequate level, given the surrounding dialectical behavioural therapy team and mental health team supports in custody and in the community for the duration of the remaining four year, seven-and-a- half months and subsequent 10 years long-term supervision in the community. [ 118 ] Both Dr. Tomita now and Dr. Livesley in 2002 stated that Ms. Thurley requires this therapy over a period of years. It needs to be sustained and stable. The proposed sentence provides that opportunity. [ 119 ] The evidence of Patricia Shea, Ms.

Goldstone and Ms. Reimer, all employees of the Correctional Service of Canada, has established the availability of the necessary degree and type of supervision. I find that the available support and supervision are both necessary and reasonable. The programs at Fraser Valley Institute, particularly the dialectical behavioural therapy and the accompanying flexibility provided by staff, are essential to directly addressing the severe features of Ms. Thurley's borderline personality disorder and her violent conduct. [ 120 ] This is Ms. Thurley's first federal sentence.

I reasonably expect, based on the evidence, that the level of support and supervision in custody and in the community will be different than her previous experiences, and more fulsome. I note that Ms. Thurley has had some periods of stability in the community. The degree of mental health and therapeutic support that Ms. Thurley received was directly related to her ability to remain stable in the community. [ 121 ] The fixed sentence is lengthy and appropriately reflects the seriousness and circumstances of the predicate offences.

It also reflects the community's condemnation of her conduct and is sufficiently high to deter others from similar conduct. [ 122 ] The impact of Ms. Thurley's violent conduct on the community is great. Probation officers are regularly required to deal with individuals involved in the criminal justice system. Their role is to protect society while assisting in managing individuals with various levels of dangerousness. An attack on probation officers resonates with the community, as those officers are on the front line. [ 123 ] While the seriousness of the offence is on the higher end, Ms.

Thurley's moral culpability is attenuated given her severe borderline personality disorder and given that she was seeking a way to access mental health services. However, I have already noted the more calculating aspects of the offences. Ms. Thurley's specific deterrence is directly linked to her rehabilitation. Her rehabilitation is centred on managing her mental health so that her risk is reduced to an adequate level. The evidence establishes an existing basis to conclude that the proposed sentence will enable Ms. Thurley to receive the necessary treatment and support both in and out of custody.

It is that support and supervision that will best protect the public. CONCLUSIONS [ 124 ] I turn now to my orders and conclusion. [ 125 ] Further to s. 753(1) (a)(i), I designate Ms. Thurley as a dangerous offender. [ 126 ] Further to s. 753(4), I sentence her to a fixed sentence of eight years in custody less time served of 40.5 months, for a remaining four years, seven-and-a-half months in custody. [ 127 ] Further to s. 753(4)(

b) the fixed sentence will be followed by 10 years of long-term supervision. [ 128 ] Further to ss. 109(1)(

a) and (3), Ms. Thurley is prohibited from possessing any firearms, crossbow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, ammunition, prohibited device and explosive substance for life. [ 129 ] Further to s. 487.051, a DNA sample will be taken from Ms. Thurley relating to all counts on the indictment, given the seriousness of the offences, the dangerous offender designation and the sentence imposed.

[ 130 ] Further to s. 743.21(1), Ms. Thurley is not to have any contact or communication directly or indirectly with Tara Evans and Adrian Kuznick. [ 131 ] I am imposing the victim fine surcharge with regards to all three counts. I am making them payable immediately, forthwith. I find Ms. Thurley in default. She is accordingly sentenced to one day in custody per count concurrent to each other and concurrent to all other sentences. [ 132 ] I am now going to deal with s. 760 of the Criminal Code , which requires that certain documents be copied and provided to the Correctional Service of Canada.

I am going to indicate what I would like to do and then I require some input from counsel. The following documents will be copied from the court file and provided to the Correctional Service of Canada:

a) the admissions of fact,

b) a copy of the Crown's submissions,

c) a copy of Dr. Tomita's report, as well as the reports/notes of Dr. Riley, Dr. Jack, Dr. Livesley and Dr. Shaini, all of which are contained in the binders filed as exhibits in these proceedings. [ 133 ] I am contemplating asking the Crown to assist Madam Registrar in identifying the documents so that they can be properly copied.

I have asked Madam Registrar to bring the exhibits into the courtroom for my decision so that the Crown might be able to assist. [ 134 ] In addition, my Reasons for Judgment in this dangerous offender proceeding need to be attached to the Crown's submissions and provided to the Correctional Service of Canada.

Also, in addition, a transcript of the evidence of Kandace Goldstone and Joanie Reimer shall be prepared and copied to the Correctional Service of Canada. [PROCEEDINGS] [ 135 ] I am making an order now that the Crown and the defence are permitted to have access to the exhibits filed in this matter for the purposes of complying with s. 760 of the Criminal Code and my order, and I am doing so because that will assist the registry.

Otherwise, the registry's task will be rendered much more difficult. [PROCEEDINGS] [ 136 ] Again, I stress that it is extremely important on dangerous offender matters that the documents relied upon for the decision and related to the evidence that was relevant to these proceedings, be provided to the Correctional Services because there can be a disconnect in what the Correctional Services decide to do that is at odds with all of the evidence provided to this court. (REASONS FOR SENTENCE CONCLUDED) CORRIGENDUM – Released August 28, 2018 [1] This corrigendum to my Oral Reasons for Sentence provided on August 2, 2018, is to correct paragraphs 34 and 35 of those Reasons. [2] Paragraphs 34 and 35 should read as follows: [34] In May 2001, she committed mischief and possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose.

On that occasion, she used a hammer to smash a door and produced a knife at a mall after failing to return to the Forensic Psychiatric Hospital while on a day pass. [35] Between approximately 2002 and 2009, Ms. Thurley was not convicted of any criminal offences. She was largely under the care of the psychiatric professionals connected to the Forensic Psychiatric Hospital during this period of time. _________________________________________ The Honourable Judge D. Gaffar Provincial Court of British Columbia