R. v. Paroski, 2022 ONCJ 473

ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE CITATION: R. v. Paroski , 2022 ONCJ 473 DATE: 2022 10 14 COURT FILE No.: Toronto Region – College Park Court Information No. 18-75004636 BETWEEN: HIS MAJESTY THE KING — AND — MARC PAROSKI Before Justice M.

Wong Heard on April 25, 26; May 2, 5, 9, 10, 12, 13, 16, 17; June 7, 10, 24, 28; July 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14; Written Submissions (August 8, etc.) and Oral Argument August 30, 2022 Reasons for Judgment released Electronically on October 13, 2022, and filed in Court on October 14, 2022 Jennifer Stanton and Gabriel Ho................................................... counsel for the Crown Anik Morrow .......................................................... counsel for the accused Marc Paroski Contents Procedural History: 3 The Statutory Framework: 4 Position of the Parties: 5 Issue: 6 Evidence: 6

a) The Predicate or Index Offence: 6

b) Criminal Antecedents: 6

c) Institutional Record . 11

d) Mr. Paroski Currently . 15

i) Institutional Behaviour: 15 ii) SAFER Program .. 16 iii) Programs and Education .. 17

iv) Dr. Rajko Seat 18

v) Medication – Biphentin . 18 vi) Substance Abuse: 18 vii) Family . 19 viii) Mr. Paroski’s

Section 726 Code Statement 21

e) Expert Evidence: 21

i) General Role of Expert Witnesses in Dangerous Offender Applications: 21 ii) Diagnosis of Mr. Paroski 22 iii) Actuarial Tools . 24

a) PCL-R .. 24

b) VRAG .. 29

c) HCR-20 . 29

d) HCR-20 v.3 and SAPROF .. 30

e) Opinion on Future Risk . 30

f) Other Witnesses: 34

i) Karen Salo, Provincial SOLGEN .. 34 ii) Angela Pace . 35 iii) Brad Tamcsu .. 35 iv) Dr. Harinder Mrahar 37

a) Assessment (Intake) Unit at OCI 38

b) Treatment Unit at OCI 39

c) Anti-Social Personality Disordered Residents at OCI 39

d) Dangerous Offenders or Long-Term Offenders at OCI 39

e) Discharge Planning at OCI 40

v) Joseph Dixon .. 40

a) Community Correctional Centres (CCC’s) 41

b) Community Residential Facilities (CRF’s) 42

c) Long-Term Offenders in CCC or CRF .. 42 Analysis: 42

a) The Designation Stage . 44

i) Serious personal injury offence . 44 ii) Pattern of Repetitive Behaviour 44 iii) High Likelihood of Harmful Recidivism and Intractability . 46 High Likelihood of Harmful Recidivism .. 46 Intractability at the Designation Stage . 48

b) The Penalty Stage . 54 Conclusion: 58 Appendix A - Detailed Exhibits List 60

Wong, J.: [1] This is a ruling on a dangerous offender application brought by the Crown after the Court found Marc Paroski guilty ofaggravated assault, assault with a weapon, and two breaches of probation. Procedural History: [2] It has been four years since Marc Paroski’s arrest on August 17, 2018, and two and a half years since he was found guilty after atrial on May 17, 2019. On October 23, 2019, the Court ordered pursuant to s.752.1 of the Criminal Code, an assessment report by Dr.Elizabeth Coleman. Her report is dated March 9, 2020. On June 11, 2020, Mr.

Paroski’s original counsel brought an application to beremoved from the record. Ms. Morrow was subsequently retained and by July 2020, she was appearing for Mr. Paroski. There wasfurther delay because Ms. Morrow needed time to review the Crown’s materials and to retain experts. By January 2021, the first set ofdates for this sentencing hearing were set: 19 days were scheduled to commence on September 30, 2021. However, Mr.

Paroski broughtan application to adjourn those dates, and the second set of sentencing dates were set for April 2022. [3] Starting April 25, 2022, the Court has heard 21 days of evidence from ten witnesses, received substantial amounts ofdocumentary evidence, plus had both written and oral submissions.[1] [4] The Crown called Dr.

Coleman, Karen Salo (Area Manager for the Ministry of the Attorney-General); Angela Pace(Superintendent at the Thunder Bay Jail to discuss programming in provincial institutions); Joseph Dixon (Correctional Services ofCanada); and Brad Tamcsu (Manager overseeing the Mental Health and Addictions Program for SOLGEN). [5] The Defence called Dr. Harinder Mrahar (Chief Psychologist at the Ontario Correctional Institute); Dr. Derek Pallandi(psychiatrist); Dr.

Rajko Seat (psychologist at the Toronto South Detention Centre); Shannon Mason (Addictions Counsellor at theToronto East Detention Centre); and Shannon Paroski (Marc Paroski’s sister). The Statutory Framework: [6] The leading case is R. v. Boutilier 2017 SCC 64 , [2017] 2 S.C.R. 936 (SCC). The dangerous offender scheme isdesigned as a "two stage" process. [7] Section 753(1) of the Criminal Code lists the statutory requirements that must be met before a court can designate an offender asdangerous ("designation stage"): 753

(1) On application made under this Part after an assessment report is filed under subsection 752.1(2), the Court shall find theoffender to be a dangerous offender if it is satisfied: (

a) that the offence for which the offender has been convicted is a serious personal injury offence described in paragraph (

a) of thedefinition of that expressed in

section 752 and the offender constitutes a threat to the life, safety or physical or mental well-being of otherpersons on the basis of evidence establishing (

i) a pattern of repetitive behaviour by the offender, of which the offence for which he or she has been convicted forms a part,showing a failure to restrain his or her behaviour and a likelihood of causing death or injury to other persons, or inflicting severepsychological damage on other persons, through failure in the future to restrain his or her behaviour, (ii) a pattern of persistent aggressive behaviour by the offender, of which the offence for which he or she has been convicted forms a part,showing a substantial degree of indifference on the part of the offender respecting the reasonably foreseeable consequences to otherpersons of his or her behaviour, or (iii) any behaviour by the offender, associated with the offence for which he or she has been convicted, that is of such a brutal nature asto compel the conclusion that the offender's behaviour in the future is unlikely to be inhibited by normal standards of behaviouralrestraint…. [8] Subsections (4) and (4.1) of s. 753 of the Code relate to the sentencing of a dangerous offender ("penalty stage"):

s. 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. [ 9 ] The long-term offender regime applies in respect to certain offenders who, notwithstanding they meet the criteria of dangerousness, are not, in the end, designated as dangerous offenders, but instead designated as long-term offenders. To do so, however, the Court must be satisfied that there is a “reasonable possibility of eventual control of risk in the community” [2] : s. 753.1(1)(

c) of the Code . Position of the Parties: [ 10 ] The Crown submits Mr. Paroski meets the statutory criteria to be designated a dangerous offender. The Crown argues first, Mr. Paroski’s conviction for aggravated assault constitutes a serious personal injury offence. Second, that Mr. Paroski constitutes a threat to the life, safety, or physical or mental well-being of other persons, as evident from his pattern of repetitive behaviour or, alternatively, based on his pattern of persistent aggressive behaviour. Lastly, that Mr.

Paroski poses a high likelihood of harmful recidivism, and his violent conduct is intractable. [ 11 ] With respect to the penalty stage, the Crown submits Mr. Paroski should be sentenced to an indeterminate term. [ 12 ] The Defence argues the dangerous offender designation should not apply to Mr. Paroski. Counsel concedes that Mr. Paroski’s conviction for aggravated assault constitutes the first criteria, namely, the defendant has been found guilty of a “serious personal injury offence”. However, Defence counsel argues Mr. Paroski’s conviction for aggravated assault is not part of a broader “pattern” of violence.

Additionally, counsel submits the Court cannot be satisfied there is a “high” likelihood of harmful recidivism and that Mr. Paroski’s violent conduct is “intractable”. [ 13 ] The Defence argues in the alternative: first, that the Court could find that Mr. Paroski is neither a dangerous offender nor a long- term offender and sentence him to a determinate period of incarceration. In the alternative, if the Court finds that Mr.

Paroski fits the criteria of a long-term offender, then he asks for a sentence of imprisonment no more than two years less a day with a strong recommendation that he serve the sentence at the Ontario Correctional Institute (OCI), followed by a long-term supervision order (LTSO) in the range of 7 years up to a maximum of 10 years. Issue: [ 14 ] The question is whether the evidence supports Mr. Paroski’s treatability that can bring about sufficient risk reduction to ensure protection of the public should he eventually be released into the community.

Put another way, does the evidence lead the Court to the reasonable possibility of managing Mr. Paroski in the community despite his lengthy criminal history, his past refusal to undertake treatment, his poor institutional record, and his psychiatric diagnosis. Evidence:

a) The Predicate or Index Offence: [ 15 ] Mr. Paroski’s date of birth is February 15, 1986. He was 32 years old when he committed the offence of aggravated assault: [ 16 ] On August 9, 2018, Mr. Paroski without any provocation, slashed a stranger across the face with a knife. At 8:00 am., the victim Christopher Phillips, was smoking a cigarette outside of a men’s shelter, when a male and a female approached him. The male, who was later identified as Mr. Paroski, said his name was “Polo” although his speech was rambling and incoherent. Mr.

Paroski showed the victim a 4-inch “dagger”, but initially he put the knife away. Mr. Paroski began talking to an unknown third-party male, but then suddenly without any provocation, Mr. Paroski turned and slashed Mr. Phillips across the left side of his face. It took 42 stitches to close the wound. [ 17 ] All of this was captured on video. After slashing the victim, Mr. Paroski is seen walking quickly away followed by his female companion. The two went between and behind nearby apartment buildings. On video, the female is seen beckoning Mr. Paroski to a door leading to a stairwell of an underground parking lot.

The pair disappeared through the door and three minutes later, the couple re- surfaced. Mr. Paroski had changed some clothing and the two walked away. [ 18 ] When police later arrived on scene, they located a pair of brown cargo pants in the stairwell. Forensic testing revealed Mr.

Paroski’s DNA on the inside waistband. [ 19 ] Eight days later on August 17, 2018, Mr. Paroski and a female were arrested on a TTC bus. This, too, was captured on video. As police approached them, Mr. Paroski is seen looking down and reaching his right arm behind the female. Police located a collapsible buck knife beneath the seat where the pair had been sitting. The victim’s DNA was later located on the knife’s blade. [ 20 ] Mr. Paroski was arrested on August 17, 2018, and he has remained in custody ever since.

b) Criminal Antecedents: [ 21 ] To designate the offender under section 753(1)(a)(

i) of the Code , the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that: • the predicate offence is part of a pattern of repetitive behaviour; • this pattern of behaviour shows a failure by the offender to restrain this behaviour; and • this pattern shows a likelihood that the offender will cause death or injury or inflict severe psychological damage because of a failure in the future to restrain this behaviour. [ 22 ] The Crown relies on Mr. Paroski’s prior youth and criminal record, which they argue is part of a long pattern of violence that spans close to 20 years starting when he was 13 years old. Mr.

Paroski is now 36 years old. He has 35 convictions for violence including aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, assault peace officers, robbery, forcible confinement, and threatening offences. His longest term of imprisonment has been a four years, eight month sentence as a result of continuing to reoffend and receiving consecutive sentences. [ 23 ] Mr. Paroski’s first offence as a youth was in 1999, when he threw a rollerblade at his stepmother, and he grabbed a knife as he fled. He was found guilty or pleaded guilty and was given 15 months probation.

That same year while at Syl Apps Youth Centre, and while on probation, Mr. Paroski assaulted another resident, who was charged with sexual offences. He was placed in open custody for 7 days and received a 15-month probation term. His next entry was for a residential break and enter, assaulting someone at a public school, and breaching his bail. Mr. Paroski was given credit of 39 days spent in secure detention and placed on probation for 24 months. Still in 2000, Mr. Paroski was found guilty twice of assaulting, first, another youth in a group home and later of assaulting staff at Syl Apps.

In 2001, he was found guilty or pleaded guilty to robbery, wherein the victims ages 10 and 12, were leaving a variety store when Mr. Paroski along with others demanded money. He received credit of 3 months of pre-trial detention. In 2002, Mr. Paroski threatened someone at school and was given credit for 158 days of pre-trial detention and place on 18 months probation. In 2003, he pleaded guilty or was found guilty of assaulting another student at school. That same year, he was found guilty or pleaded guilty to assault resist arrest, assault, break and enter, and fail to comply with a disposition. Mr.

Paroski received pre-trial custody credit of 33 days, and he was given a 120-day custody and supervision order followed by 20 months of probation. [ 24 ] Mr. Paroski’s adult criminal record begins in 2004 with the first of three convictions for aggravated assault. [ 25 ] In the first aggravated assault, Mr. Paroski stabbed a 15-year-old victim, who was in a park with some friends around midnight. A dispute arose when Mr. Paroski spoke to the victim’s girlfriend. Mr. Paroski stabbed the victim in the chest. The victim also suffered injuries to the back of his head and his teeth were damaged.

In a second incident, Mr. Paroski also pleaded guilty to assaulting a court officer. The Court accepted a joint submission for the equivalent of 11 months of custody less time served of the equivalent of 4 months, plus 2 years of probation. [3] [ 26 ] The next year in 2005, Mr. Paroski pleaded guilty to assaulting his father, and breaching both a recognizance (a condition of house arrest) and probation order. Mr. Paroski and his father were arguing in the family’s kitchen about the defendant’s behaviour. Mr. Paroski spat in his father’s face and pushed him against the wall.

He followed his father into a hallway and punched and kicked him. Mr. Paroski received credit for the equivalent of 3 months less time served of 34 days. [4] [ 27 ] The next entry on his adult criminal record was on June 13, 2006, when at age 22, Mr. Paroski received his first penitentiary sentence of 28 months on a series of separate offences. According to the transcripts of the proceedings, [5] the first offence occurred on July 8, 2005, whereby Mr. Paroski was sitting in a car with some friends. He was asked to get out, and he reacted by pulling out a sharp object and threatening the victims.

He left and later kicked out a window at a Salvation Army. Mr. Paroski was released from custody with his father as surety. On February 6, 2006, Mr. Paroski admitted two domestic incidents involving his then-girlfriend, Sheila Hearn, with whom he had a 4-month-old child. The first occurred at a Walmart and the victim wanted to leave. Mr. Paroski grabbed her arm and yelled at her. Later that same day, the couple was walking with Ms. Hearn pushing the baby stroller. Mr. Paroski pushed the victim to the ground. The victim ran into the median to get help and call 911. Mr.

Paroski followed her grabbing the phone and striking Ms. Hearn on the left side of her head. Ms. Hearn also revealed to police that on October 5, 2005, as she was recovering in hospital after just having given birth to their daughter Adriana (now age 17), Mr. Paroski began arguing about the sleeping arrangements. Mr. Paroski wrapped his arm around Ms. Hearn’s neck and choked her until she passed out. Mr. Paroski consented to his detention. [ 28 ] While in custody Mr.

Paroski was found guilty or pleaded guilty to three separate incidents of assaulting court officers (March 17, March 27, and April 11, all in 2006). [ 29 ] Things did not go well for Mr. Paroski while serving his federal sentence. What began as a 28-month sentence ended up being 4 years, 8 months and 12-days following convictions for these offences:

(1) On June 22, 2007, Mr. Paroski was housed in the Segregation Unit at Millhaven Institution. He became upset because some mail he had received had been pushed under his cell door and had gotten wet. The floor was wet because the day before Mr. Paroski had damaged the sprinkler head in his cell. Mr. Paroski began yelling and screaming at the officer and spat on them. He received an additional 45 days consecutive to the time he was serving.

(2) On October 23, 2007, while still in Millhaven’s Segregation Unit, he threatened to throw urine and punch a guard. While speaking to the Correctional Manager, Mr. Paroski stood up from his chair and spat in the officer’s face and continued to kick at him. Once back in his cell, he again damaged the sprinkler.

(3) In March 2008, Mr. Paroski was released on statutory release to the Keele Community Correctional Centre (CCC). Two months later, a suspension warrant was issued after Mr. Paroski was found to have been calling Sheila Hearn, the victim on the previous domestic incidents, and leaving threatening messages because he wanted to see their child plus he was enraged that the victim was dating someone he knew. On August 20, 2008, Mr. Paroski was found guilty after a trial of two counts of threatening and sentenced to 12 months consecutive. [6]

(4) Lastly, while incarcerated at Millhaven, on February 3, 2009, Mr. Paroski stabbed another inmate and pleaded guilty to assault with a weapon. Mr. Paroski stabbed the victim three times in the neck and torso, while both men were in the Millhaven gym. He also admitted assaulting a peace officer on April 8, 2009 by spitting on him. Mr. Paroski received 12 months custody consecutive for the assault with a weapon, and six months concurrent for the assault peace officer. [7] [ 30 ] On June 2, 2009, the National Parole Board ordered Mr.

Paroski’s detention until the expiration of his sentence having been satisfied that, if released, he would likely commit an offence causing serious harm to another person before the expiration of his sentence. His release expiry date became February 24, 2011. The day before his release on February 23, 2011, Mr.

Paroski entered into a s. 810.2 recognizance, known colloquially as a “serious injury peace bond”, with certain conditions in particular that he report to the York Regional Police High Risk Offender Unit. [8] [ 31 ] Six months after his release on August 16, 2011, he committed his second aggravated assault. The victim had just received $90 that someone else owed him. Mr. Paroski began striking the victim in the face, breaking his orbital bone and palate. He also took $30. Mr. Paroski was sentenced to eight months of custody in addition to three months pre-trial detention. [9] (I note that Mr.

Paroski gave a different version of the events to Dr. Coleman, who at page 36 of her report, she noted that Mr. Paroski said he punched someone in the face after someone slammed a door too hard) [10] [ 32 ] On January 8, 2013, Mr. Paroski appeared before a Court and pleaded guilty to breaching the s 810.2 order on June 11, 2012, by possessing drugs and possess of a substance. The Court accepted the joint submission of time served in lieu of the 7 months of pre-trial detention. [11] [ 33 ] The next entry several entries on Mr. Paroski’s criminal record related to a different intimate partner, Ashley Flint:

(1) On September 7, 2013, Mr. Paroski killed Ms. Flint’s cat by throwing it over a 11 th floor balcony. Mr. Paroski grew jealous because Ms. Flint’s phone kept ringing and he accused her of cheating on him. The next day, he wanted to have sex, but she refused. Mr. Paroski was irate and began smashing some figurines. He then threw her cat off the balcony. Mr. Paroski blocked Ms. Flint as she tried to run outside to her cat. [12] He pleaded guilty and received enhanced credit for pre-trial detention of 142 day for the equivalent of 6 months of jail and 18 months probation.

(2) On June 2, 2014, Mr. Paroski has an entry of fail to comply with recognizance related to Ms. Flint, but no transcript was provided.

(3) On April 7, 2015 – Fail to comply with recognizance and probation – on same victim, which was referred to the December 2, 2016, transcript.

(4) On August 29, 2016 – Mr. Paroski was found guilty after a trial on not reporting to probation on September 14, 2015, because, as the judge noted in their reasons, Mr. Paroski had fled to Calgary knowing that he had charges pending in respect of Ashley Flint. He was given credit for the equivalent of 7 ½ months and was given a further 60 days in jail and 3 years probation. [13]

(5) On December 2, 2016, Mr. Paroski pleaded guilty to offences of assault and forcible confinement on Ashley Flint, with an offence date of November 17, 2016. On this date, Mr. Paroski admitted being intoxicated at 2:00 pm and going to the victim’s house. Later that evening, he was checking Ms. Flint’s Facebook account, and they began arguing. He punched her in the mouth several times with a closed fist. She tried to leave, but Mr. Paroski blocked her and pulled her back inside the apartment.

Counsel jointly recommended a 45-day sentence less pre-trial custody and 2 years probation. [14] [ 34 ] In 2017, while in custody at the Toronto South Detention Centre (TSDC), Mr. Paroski also pleaded guilty to the following:

(1) On May 25, 2017, Mr. Paroski admitted kicking and damaging a cell door window in the Special Handling Unit at the TSDC. He also pleaded guilty to Uttering Threats on March 14, 2017, when the correctional officer was slow to turn on the television set. Mr. Paroski received credit for 60 days of pre-trial detention, plus 1 day in jail. [15]

(2) On September 10, 2017, Mr. Paroski assaulted a TSDC correctional officer engaged in the execution of his duty. Officers wanted to search his cell and Mr. Paroski became assaultive, struggled with the officers, and bit one of them in the thigh area. On December 22, 2017, he received pre-trial detention credit of 66 days. [16] [ 35 ] Next, on June 13, 2018, Mr. Paroski received a $100 fine for fail to comply probation order and possession of crack cocaine (.3 gms.). [17] [ 36 ] On June 29, 2018, Mr.

Paroski was either found guilty or pleaded guilty to Fail to comply with probation and received time served the equivalent of 5 days. [ 37 ] On July 20, 2018, Mr. Paroski pleaded guilty to theft under (alcohol from the LCBO) and fail to comply probation (not keeping the peace and being of good behaviour). The Court imposed a one-day jail sentence having consider pre-trial custody credit of 5 days. [18]

[ 38 ] On August 9, 2018, 20 days later, Mr. Paroski committed the aggravated assault before this Court when he slashed Christopher Phillips across the face with a knife.

c) Institutional Record [ 39 ] While in custody as a youth, Mr. Paroski was difficult to manage. In a pre-disposition report (PDR) dated March 17, 2000, his prime worker noted that overall, his behaviour was very poor. He was often verbally abusive towards staff, physically assaultive and threatening towards peers. Often, Mr. Paroski needed to be restrained and placed in an isolation unit. [19] A year later in a report dated February 21, 2001, it noted that Mr.

Paroski had 50 incident reports where he had been involved in some form of physical or verbal confrontation with staff and other residents since June 2000. It noted that some of his disruptive behaviour was “attention seeking” and that Mr. Paroski wanted to portray himself as “tough”. A counsellor at Peel Children’s Centre wrote they believed that Mr. Paroski’s aggressive behaviour was a “defense mechanism to survive while in detention” and that it was important to him “not to be seen as weak in front of his peers”. At 15 years old, Mr.

Paroski had been at Syl Apps for over a year, and his probation officer was advocating for him to leave Syl Apps because his behaviour and mental health were deteriorating rapidly. [20] [ 40 ] The next youth pre-disposition report (PDR) is dated September 28, 2001. In February 2001 Mr. Paroski had returned to school where he received a half credit in civics. Unfortunately, he discontinued his counseling sessions at the Peel Children’s Centre and there were angry outbursts reported in the family home.

Upon returning to school in September, there was an incident on the second day, which resulted in a 20-day school suspension and a new charge. [21] [ 41 ] The Initial Plan of Care from Syl Apps which covered the period between September 17, 2001, to October 25, 2001, was relatively optimistic. It noted that Mr. Paroski was “able to keep up with the Unit program, meeting and often exceeding expectations”. It noted that he “always completes his required chores and constantly offers to complete extra chores”.

His relations with staff since his last stay at Syl Apps, was described as “greatly improved” and it was noted that he was able to interact on a “mature level”. His level had positively increased to Level 3, and it was expected that he would be soon moving to Level 4. [22] [ 42 ] However, four months later, in a PDR dated February 6, 2002, Mr. Paroski now 16 years old, had incurred 14 documented incidents involving aggressive behaviour, assaults, verbal aggression towards staff and peers, destruction of property, and inciting others to riot. [23] The report noted some improvement when Mr.

Paroski was moved to a different cottage, and that he was doing some schoolwork. [ 43 ] As Mr. Paroski graduated from youth courts to adult courts, he continued to re-offend and his motivation ebbed and flowed. In a stand-down presentence report (PSR) dated November 26, 2003, it was reported that in September 2003, Mr. Paroski was working full- time for a company called Body Care Manufacturer. He had also enrolled in at INDEC South Foundations program that was aimed for older students interested in obtaining school credit, but which had a long-waiting list. The probation officer arranged a special meeting for Mr.

Paroski with the Peel District School Board’s Superintendent, who agreed to allow the defendant back into their district school system. Unfortunately, by the end of October 2003, Mr. Paroski had quit both his job and he had stopped attending school. [24] [ 44 ] In a report prepared December 22, 2004, probation had designated Mr. Paroski now age 18, “Max Very High Supervision Overridden from Medium” [25] . [ 45 ] Mr. Paroski’s stepmother, Willa Aplyn hoped that with a proper diagnosis and medication, then her stepson might not be so quick to turn violent (at the time, Mr.

Paroski had been diagnosed with bi-polar disorder and was prescribed lithium. At other times, he was diagnosed with Rapid Cycling Mood Disorder with the possibly of Tourette’s Syndrome, Severe Personality Disorder, and “very strong anti-social traits”). [26] However, it was noted that Mr. Paroski, “did not participate in any counselling or activities” although he told his probation officer that he wanted “to stay out of custody”. [27] [ 46 ] Fast forward to Mr. Paroski receiving his first federal penitentiary sentence where, as noted, Mr.

Paroski’s original sentence of 28 months doubled in length because of his reoffending. However, on October 4, 2006, at his admission interview, his parole officer noted promisingly that Mr. Paroski identified anger as his main concern and that he made the connection because his reactiveness including physical aggression mirrored his father’s treatment of him as a child. It was noted that Mr. Paroski was “starting to feel more responsible for his own actions” and he was asking for help for “educational upgrading, programs, psychology, and any other interventions”. As well, Mr.

Paroski’s plan was to avoid institutional conflict, especially with correctional officers in hopes to reduce his level of security. Mr. Paroski was told he needed to complete family violence programming before they would support his request for private family visits. Also, his parole officer discussed substance abuse counselling as Mr. Paroski admitted to using and selling marijuana. Mr. Paroski reported that his main motivation for improvement was his newborn daughter, who was then one year old. [28] [ 47 ] Mr.

Paroski was successfully transferred from Millhaven Institution to medium secure Joyceville Institution on March 14, 2007. He did reasonably well for a short time and initially he had no new institutional charges. [ 48 ] However, on July 3, 2007, Mr. Paroski was returned to Millhaven because he had been identified as an aggressor in an assault, he had damaged the sprinkler system in his cell, and had spat on a correctional officer. As noted, he was charged with assault peace officer in October 2007. [ 49 ] In January 2008, it was noted that Mr. Paroski threatened to stab a sex offender, but Mr.

Paroski explained that he was merely venting because he had had a bad day. [29] [ 50 ] On March 31, 2008, however, Mr. Paroski was released on parole from Millhaven, and he was ordered to reside at the Community Correctional Centre (CCC) located at Keele Street in Toronto. This was Mr. Paroski’s first attempt at community release while serving a federal sentence. He was deemed “high risk”, but his risk was considered manageable because of his plan of release which included work so he could support his infant daughter, programming including AA, programs for family violence, and substance abuse.

On April 24, 2008, the family court granted Mr. Paroski joint custody and for several months he enjoyed successful day passes where he went to his parents’ home and visited his daughter. However, on May 30, 2008, Mr. Paroski was charged with uttering a death threat to the child’s mother, convicted, and a received a consecutive jail sentence of 1 year for an aggregate sentence remaining of over

three and a half years. [30] [ 51 ] Mr. Paroski returned to Millhaven very angry and resentful towards the complainant, and he was eventually deemed unmanageable at maximum security Millhaven Institution and transferred to the Special Handling Unit in Quebec. The supervisors based this recommendation on Mr. Paroski’s institutional history including a whole list of infractions [31] , new charges while in custody including the 2009 stabbing of another inmate, and his refusal to complete any substantive programing. [32] [ 52 ] It is noted that on March 8, 2010, Mr.

Paroski completed the Motivationally Based Intervention Strategy (MBIS) with his parole officer described as a “therapeutic intervention …created to help offenders increase their motivation to participate in correctional programming [33] . Mr. Paroski’s participation was described as “active and genuine”. He made gains developing some insight into his problematic behaviour and how his attitude and behaviour have prevented him from attaining some of his goals. It was noted in part that Mr.

Paroski would try taking “time outs” when he felt disrespected or diminished, and that he would focus on his goals and possible consequences of his acting out. Mr. Paroski wanted to make changes in order not to get into more trouble and because he did not like to lose control of himself. [34] [ 53 ] However, soon after, Mr. Paroski stopped participating instead choosing “to abide by a stance adopted by the general population of inmates”. [35] Often in the various reports, Mr. Paroski was described as a “follower”, a “conformist”, and “very impulsive”. [36] [ 54 ] In 2011, Mr.

Paroski, as noted, was ultimately released on his parole expiry date, and signed a s. 810.2 preventative recognizance. [ 55 ] A report dated May 11, 2012, also concluded that Mr. Paroski remained a “high risk and a high needs offender”. Referring to a psychological/psychiatric assessment report written by Dr. Nathan Mandelzys, a contract psychologist at Kingston Penitentiary dated June 19, 2009, Mr. Paroski’s file indicated that he had “significant interpersonal conflict, distorted cognitions, problem solving deficits, and deficits in other areas of interpersonal functioning”.

The report cited his difficulties both in institutions and in the community. It noted that he “had not profited from his experience of federal incarcerations, and it appears that he continues to lack insight into his criminal behaviour”. [37] At the time of the report, it noted that the “longest stretch of time [Mr.] Paroski [had] been in general population was 10 days, due to [his] committing misconducts and being placed back in segregation”. He had completed programming for Anti-Criminal Thinking, but failed Substance Abuse and Anger Management programs due to his poor attendance.

It was also noted that he refused to meet with psychiatry even though he had been diagnosed a decade earlier with bi-polar disorder, and he refused to take any medication. [38] [ 56 ] Throughout this institutional records, Mr. Paroski has typically been classified as “high risk for re-offending”. The reports also refer to Mr. Paroski’s behavioural instability, lack of impulse control, and the need for anger management counselling. [ 57 ] In 2015, Dr. Angus MacDonald diagnosed Mr.

Paroski at the Brief Assessment Unit at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) with “severe antisocial personality disorder”. [39] [ 58 ] In a 2016 presentence report, it was noted in 2015, Mr. Paroski spent five months in custody at Maplehurst Correctional Centre but that he had not participated in any programming. However, Mr. Paroski told the probation officer that he would like the Court to give him “another opportunity” to be compliant in the community. [40] [ 59 ] On April 12, 2017, Mr.

Paroski was identified as a gang member and his case was transferred to the Toronto Anti-Guns and Gangs Unit. [ 60 ] In a January 2018, a probation and parole officer, who was supervising Mr. Paroski at the Toronto Anti-Guns and Gangs Unit in the Intense Supervision Stream scored him a 29 on the LSI-OR [41] describing Mr. Paroski as “very high risk to reoffend”. It noted that Mr. Paroski “minimized his behaviour” and blamed what he said was the “victim’s (Ashley Flint’s) …. mental health” issues. It noted Mr.

Paroski had failed to comply with probation orders and that he made “contradictory statements regarding his substance use” relating to alcohol and marijuana although no mention was made of harder drugs such as crystal methamphetamine. The report also described as “alarming” Mr. Paroski’s “apparent lack of remorse and [his] willingness to continuously defy court-ordered tasks” and his “fixation on the “victim” who he had “violently assaulted in the past” although it was unclear whether Mr. Paroski was under the influence of substances at the time. It was noted, “Unfortunately, due to vague responses by Mr.

Paroski, it is unknown how much of a concern [substance use} may be. Mr. Paroski’s mental health diagnoses would have an effect on his ability to control his emotions as well as resolve problems in an effective manner thus resulting in further criminal involvement”. The report stated that Mr. Paroski’s ASPD (anti- social personality disorder) had “no cure or treatment”. [42]

d) Mr. Paroski Currently [ 61 ] That report was prepared in January 2018, and Mr. Paroski was arrested on August 17, 2018, on the index offence of aggravated assault. He was ordered detained in custody, first at the Toronto South Detention Centre “Toronto South”) and then in August 2021 he was transferred, at his request to the Toronto East Detention Centre (“Toronto East”)

i) Institutional Behaviour: [ 62 ] Since August 17, 2018, Mr. Paroski has incurred nine misconducts while detained at the Toronto South Detention Centre on the index offence:

(1) October 12, 2018 – Threatens assault

(2) October 15, 2018 – Threatens assault

(3) January 9, 2019 – Threatens assault

(4) March 15, 2019 – Gross insult

(5) March 21, 2019 – Gross insult [ 63 ] On December 10, 2018, Mr. Paroski spent 15-30 days on the Behavioural Management Unit, where staff noted “very positive attitude, respectful to other officers, no issues”. His interaction with other inmates was described as “positive” and he kept his cell clean. [43] [ 64 ] However, even after the Crown served Notice in April 2019 that they were bringing the dangerous offender application, Mr. Paroski incurred four additional institutional misconducts on his file:

(1) June 7, 2019 – Threatens assault

(2) July 4, 2019 – Threatens assault

(3) September 12, 2019 – Threatens Assault

(4) July 21, 2020 – Willfully disobey order of officer [ 65 ] In August 2021, Mr. Paroski transferred to Toronto East Detention Centre, where he has not been found guilty of any misconducts. [44] Also, since arriving at Toronto East, Mr. Paroski has displayed considerable effort and has made significant gains in many areas of his life. ii) SAFER Program [ 66 ] At the Toronto East, Mr. Paroski’s level of security has steadily been reduced from maximum down to medium and as of July 13, 2022, from medium to now minimum security.

Toronto East uses what is called the SAFER (Security Assessment for Evaluation Risk) tool to assess an inmate’s risk of committing violent or frequent misconducts. The tool uses information from the Offender Tracking Information System (OTIS) and puts the data into an algorithm which then produces a score and a SAFER classification level: Minimum, Medium, or Maximum. Inmates are then housed according to their level of the same SAFER classification level. Inmates are encouraged to lower their score by not committing misconducts and participating in Ministry Core Programs.

Inmates housed on the maximum unit do not receive anything extra beyond what is required by the Ministry., i.e.. programs, yards, access to health care, social workers, and so on. Inmates housed on a medium unit receive some incentives beyond what is required to give them. Minimum units receive the great number of incentives, as they have the lowest score in the institution. [45] [ 67 ] Mr. Paroski was on the SAFER maximum unit from March 8, 2022, through to April 12, 2022. He was moved to a medium security level on April 11, 2022, because he had completed six Ministry Core Programs and had no misconducts.

On July 13, 2022, he was moved to a minimum security until, which is a dorm setting of which Toronto East only has one. [ 68 ] It is also noted that during the COVID pandemic which caused disruption in the jails for the past two years starting in March 2020, Mr. Paroski was at times tripled bunked, yet he remained compliant. [46] On three occasions Mr. Paroski was placed under a COVID droplet protocol, whereby inmates were let out of their cells for only a 30-minute period to access showers, telephone, and television. Mr.

Paroski also contracted COVID, and he was taken to hospital after collapsing on the unit. iii) Programs and Education [ 69 ] Defence counsel filed a long list of all the programs Mr. Paroski has completed while in custody since 2018. [47] Counsel describes Mr. Paroski’s achievements as “steady, “multi-pronged”, and that his programing and treatment efforts are “inter-related”. Here are some highlights of the programs and college course, he has undertaken:

(1) The multi-session John Howard Society Drug and Alcohol Awareness Program (DAAP) plus he has applied to St. Mike’s House, a long-term rehabilitation centre for substance abuse. In a letter dated May 13, 2019, John Howard will continue to support Mr. Paroski in the community.

(2) He completed numerous Life Skills programs approximately 60 minutes each as well as fourteen, 10-hour programs offered by Brighter Dayz on topics such as life skills, communication skills, anti-criminal thinking, stress management, and substance abuse as well as numerous workshops on self-accountability, self-esteem, cognitive skills, healthy relationship, and effective parenting. Counsel submitted a one-and-a-half page, single spaced list of all of Mr. Paroski’s programing starting with “Goal Setting” on December 6, 2018 and ending with Planning for Discharge on January 4, 2022. [48]

(3) Mr. Paroski registered in the General Arts and Science Certificate program offered by Northern College and supervised by Amadeusz, a charitable organization that supports incarcerated young people between the ages of 18 to 35 to make changes in their lives through education and community support. Mr. Paroski has completed four psychology courses attaining grade averages of 75%, 80% and two 83%. [49] In a letter dated April 19, 2022, the Education Manager at Amadeusz described Mr. Paroski as “dedicated, capable, and engaged”.

They commended him for attending the program regularly, completing assignments, taking initiative in his learning, and asking for help, when needed. [50] iv) Dr. Rajko Seat [ 70 ] Dr. Rajko Seat testified that, as a full-time staff psychologist at the Toronto South Detention Centre, he first met Mr. Paroski five times in 2017 until Mr. Paroski was released from jail. When Mr. Paroski returned after being arrested for the index offence, Dr. Seat again saw him 17 more times and gave him psychoeducational material until Mr. Paroski requested a transfer to the Toronto East Detention Centre.

Citing the academic work of Prochaska and DiClemente in the Transtheoretical Model of Change [51] , Dr. Seat opined that Mr. Paroski has moved from the “preparation and contemplative stage”, or the midpoint of the process, to now the “action stage”.

Dr. Seat credits himself with helping Mr. Paroski internalize the material and to become motivated and deeply engaged in taking concrete steps to make change.

v) Medication – Biphentin [ 71 ] In early 2022, the contract psychiatrist at Toronto East switched Mr. Paroski’s ADHD medication from Strattera, which gave him headaches, to Biphentin with startling results. Dr. Pallandi observed noticeable changes in Mr. Paroski when he was interviewing him for the risk assessment. Once, when Mr. Paroski was without his ADHD medication, Dr. Pallandi described Mr. Paroski’s thoughts were “scattered and disorganized” and he was more agitated. [ 72 ] Additionally, according to Dr.

Pallandi, ADHD shares symptoms with antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) thus treating ADHD may assist Mr. Paroski in attenuating some of the symptoms or traits of ASPD, for example, impulsivity. [52] Dr. Pallandi testified that drugs addicts with ADHD tend to like using crystal methamphetamine because it helps them with mental clarity, reduces their distractibility, and they are less hyper. He said at first, he was quite skeptical when his clients reported profound improvement with their ADHD symptoms while using crystal meth: “My brain is working perfectly”, they would report. Similarly, Mr. Paroski told Dr.

Pallandi that crystal meth made him feel “alert”, he stayed “focused” and was “able to concentrate”. [53] Dr. Pallandi explained that like Ritalin, which for years was the drug of choice for children with ADHD, crystal methamphetamine, at its core, is also a stimulant. The problem with using crystal meth is, as Dr. Pallandi pointed out, things spiral out of control extremely quickly and the loss of control over the substance leads to psychosis, aggressiveness, insomnia, medical complications, plus the social aspect of the drug which includes criminal behaviour, trafficking, and financial loss. Dr.

Pallandi described crystal meth as “one of the nastiest and problematic drugs” he had ever seen. vi) Substance Abuse: [ 73 ] While at Toronto East, Mr. Paroski initiated contact with Shannon Mason, their sole addiction counsellor where he admitted that he has had a long-standing addiction to substances, most recently and most acutely to crystal methamphetamine. [ 74 ] To Dr. Coleman, Mr. Paroski admitted drinking at age 12, while in group homes. Both his biological father and stepmother have problems with drinking. At age 11, Mr. Paroski reported that he started using cannabis.

At 13, he tried hallucinogenic mushrooms. In January 2018, Mr. Paroski reported that he and his then girlfriend began using crystal meth with, at times, heroin and/or cocaine. He noted that he increased his use of crystal meth over time starting with one “hit” a day, upwards for one to two grams per day. At first, Mr. Paroski said he smoked it, then snorted it and eventually used it intravenously. [54] He reported to Dr. Pallandi, that crystal meth made him feel “alert”, it helped him to stay focused, and he was able to concentrate. [55] Mr. Paroski told Dr.

Coleman that he would stay up for five to six days at a time while using. He would snort or inject Fentanyl or take Xanax to “come down” from his high from crystal meth. He noted that nine times he almost died from an overdose but was given Narcan. Twice he ended up in hospital. [ 75 ] To Dr. Pallandi, Mr. Paroski said he had been “binge-using” crystal meth and using Xanax, which is why he said he could not recall the index offence. [56] He also admitted using injectable substances and trafficked drugs to finance use. [ 76 ] While in custody at the Toronto South, Mr. Paroski admitted to Dr.

Coleman that he smoked marijuana. [57] [ 77 ] Moving forward, both Dr. Coleman and Dr. Pallandi strongly recommend abstinence as opposed to harm-reduction for Mr. Paroski. [ 78 ] Shannon Mason, the Addiction Counsellor at Toronto East, contacted residential facilities on Mr. Paroski’s behalf: three in Toronto and to one just outside of Hamilton. She also gave Mr. Paroski applications to residential facilities in Orillia, which is closest to where Mr. Paroski’s family lives, but that program does not accept applications until the person is released from custody. [ 79 ] As well, when Mr.

Paroski inquired about the AA program, Ms. Mason provided him with the materials, which he eagerly completed, and he valued her input. vii) Family [ 80 ] Mr. Paroski’s family history is well-documented in decades’ worth of assessment, court ordered reports including a 2016 Pre- Sentence Report [58] , as well as Drs. Coleman and Pallandi’s assessments. As well, Mr. Paroski’s family history has been discussed in numerous court proceedings for which the Crown has filed transcripts. [ 81 ] Marc Paroski was born in Toronto to Branislav Paroski (now 62) and Carol Jersak. His mother left when he was a baby. Ms.

Jersak reportedly had mental health and addiction issues. [ 82 ] Mr. Paroski was raised by his father and his stepmother, Willa Aplyn, who came into his life when he was five years old, as well by his paternal grandmother (Tereza Paroski). His father and stepmother still reside together in Orillia, where Mr. Paroski Sr., works full-time at the post office; a job he has held for about 15 years. Ms. Aplyn is a supervisor for a storage and U-Haul company. [ 83 ] His grandmother, now 87 years old., lives nearby in assisted living, and she has good health. [ 84 ] Mr.

Paroski has a younger half-sister, Shannon (age 29), who testified at this hearing. Shannon Paroski, who has no criminal record and who attended college, lives with her partner of two-and-a-half years, and the couple are expecting their first child in November 2022. Ms. Paroski lives about an eight-minute drive from their parents. [ 85 ] Sadly, Mr. Paroski grew up in a very abusive household. His father has been described in the past as a “violent alcoholic” [59] Peel Children’s Aid Society intervened in January 1999 and placed Mr. Paroski into care, when it was reported that Mr.

Paroski Sr., had punched and struck the child with a belt.

[86] As well, at age 5, Mr. Paroski reported having been sexually assaulted by an adult babysitter. [87] Mr. Paroski reported that he has not spoken to his father for several years. However, Mr. Paroski Sr. attended these proceedingsby Zoom on August 30, 2022, to hear the final submissions in this case. [88] Shannon Paroski described having a different relationship with their father, perhaps, in part because Mr. Paroski left the homewhen he was 16 years old, and she is almost a decade younger. Ms. Paroski described her life as “vanilla”. She spoke about thedifficulties between Mr.

Paroski and their father and the abuse that her brother received, but for which she was spared. Ms. Paroskiacknowledged her brother spiralling into drugs and alcohol while he was home and often on bail, which led to him being kicked out ofthe family home. Ms. Paroski said when her brother was 16 or 17 years old, he began to defend himself against their father. Morerecently, Ms. Paroski says their father has curbed his drinking and he has attended anger management. For her part, Ms.

Paroski testifiedthat she has gone to counselling and that both she and her mother have learned to set boundaries with the father, which has improved theiroverall relationships. Ms. Paroski says that their father is open to attending family counseling. [89] Throughout the past four years while Mr. Paroski has been detained in custody, Ms. Paroski says she and her mother havemaintained contact through frequent phone calls and visits to the jail. She says that she sees and hears changes in her brother’s mannerand voice. She described his thoughts as “collected” and “no longer scattered”.

His voice is calm, and he listens. They have discussedhis education and his goals for the future. Ms. Paroski is committed to supporting her brother with any court order or direction from aparole officer. However, Ms. Paroski said her priority will be her newborn child, and she will not put up with any “drama or chaos”. [90] Defence counsel also went through with Ms. Paroski several Google Maps, outlining her physical proximity to Georgian College,where Mr.

Paroski could attend classes, to Hillcrest Lodge a mental health and addiction facility, and nearby Probation and Parole office.[60] [91] In her mind, her brother is not an angry or aggressive person despite his lengthy criminal record, which Shannon Paroski says sheis aware of. She feels that it was only because Mr. Paroski was on drugs that he could stab a stranger. Ms. Paroski believes that herbrother has never been given the tools to make any meaningful changes to his life. She stated, “the system” always “spat him out” and“put him back on the street. According to Ms.

Paroski, it was the court’s fault for never having put him into a rehabilitation centre. [92] Lastly, Mr. Paroski has a daughter, Adriana, who is now 17 years old and who continues to have contact with the Paroski’s. Inturn the Paroski’s also have contact with Adriana’s mother, Sheila Hearn, who in 2005 and 2006 was victimized by Mr. Paroski soonafter their daughter was born. viii) Mr. Paroski’s

Section 726 Code Statement [93] At the conclusion of the dangerous offender hearing, Mr. Paroski addressed the court. He described the DO hearing as a “real eyeopener”, a “wake-up call”. Mr. Paroski said he has repeatedly read Dr. Coleman’s report and that he wants to prove to her that he can dobetter. He outlined that has completed every program offered to him, some more than once, and he proudly noted his four college levelpsychology credits. Mr. Paroski said that in the past, he has not taken his sentences seriously. At 36 years of age, Mr.

Paroski said hedoes not want to spend the rest of his life in jail and lose the support of his family especially his sister, Shannon. Mr. Paroski thankedeveryone including his counsel. He apologized to everyone, and he asked the Court to give him “a final chance”.

e) Expert Evidence:

i) General Role of Expert Witnesses in Dangerous Offender Applications: [94] Dangerous offender applications will necessarily involve evidence from an expert witness given the requirements of s. 752.1 ofthe Criminal Code. As in other contexts, the court is not bound by the opinion expressed by an expert witness. [95] The role expert witnesses play in dangerous offender applications was expressly considered by the Supreme Court of Canada inR. v. Lyons, (SCC), [1987] 2 S.C.R. 309, at p. 366.

The court held that in determining the likelihood of risk of reoffenceand the possibility of controlling that risk in the community, expert opinion evidence of psychiatrists is "clearly relevant to the issuewhether a person is likely to behave in a certain way". As noted by the court in R. v. R.M., [2005] O.J.

No. 4977 (S.C.), at para 70, aff'd2007 ONCA 872, 228 C.C.C. (3d) 148, leave to appeal refused, [2008] SCCA No. 91: That is not to say that the trial judge is bound to accept the opinion of one psychiatrist or the other, but rather that the expert evidence isrelevant to the judge's inquiry, with determinations as to the weight and reliability of that evidence left to the judge: R. v. Currie, (SCC), [1997] 2 S.C.R. 260. In this regard, the Supreme Court in R. v.

Lyons referred with approval ... to the following"common sense observations" of Ewaschuk J. in Re Moore (1984), (ON SC), 10 C.C.C. (3d) 306 (Ont.H.C.) at 310-311: I accept the submission that the evidence of a psychiatrist, psychologist or criminologist is at times highly speculative and in certaininstances a lay person is in as good a position to make a prediction as to future dangerousness. In the final say, the court, however, mustbe so satisfied and not the expert witnesses.

That is not to say that the experts may not assist the court, especially as to whether theoffender currently suffers from a psychological disorder, e.g. psychopathy, which may be relevant to the likelihood of future dangerousconduct.[61] ii) Diagnosis of Mr. Paroski [96] The Court heard from two forensic psychiatrists: Dr. Elizabeth Coleman prepared the s. 752.1 assessment, and she testified onbehalf of the Crown[62], and Dr. Derek Pallandi, who also prepared a report and who testified on behalf of the defendant[63]. [97] Dr.

Coleman is currently the Medical Director of the Forensic Program at Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences inWhitby, Ontario. She is also Executive Medical Director for Quality Standards at the same location. Since 2011, Dr. Coleman has been

a consultant forensic psychiatrist preparing assessment reports for the Ontario Review Board (ORB) and the Capacity and Consent Board (CCB). Since 2012, Dr. Coleman has also run a private practise in Ontario for both civil and criminal cases. Mr. Paroski’s is the seventh out of a total of 10 DO/LTO assessments. Prior to her career in Canada, Dr. Coleman practised in the United Kingdom. [64] [ 98 ] Dr.

Pallandi has spent much of his 22-year career assessing risk in his various roles as consultant psychiatrist at the Ontario Correctional Institute (7 years) and The Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) (22 years); staff psychiatrist at same Ontario Shores Centre where Dr. Coleman is the Medical Director (8 years); a contract psychiatrist at a Probation and Parole office in downtown Toronto and two offices in York Region, plus he has a private practise. Dr.

Pallandi is well-known in the criminal courts having lectured for decades at various education conferences for lawyers and judges, and police agencies. [65] [ 99 ] Additionally, Dr. Pallandi is familiar with Keele Centre having provided intermittent psychiatric care for residents when the regular psychiatrist was away. Dr. Pallandi has been retained by both the Crown and the Defence for between 80 to 100 DO/LTO applications. [ 100 ] Both experts agree on the following diagnoses for Mr. Paroski:

(1) First, they agree that Mr. Paroski was properly diagnosed as a youth with Conduct Disorder; [66]

(2) Second, there is agreement that Mr. Paroski developed Anti-Social Personality Disorder (ASPD) in adult life; [67]

(3) Third, they concur that Mr. Paroski also meets the diagnostic criteria for Substance Use Disorder; [68]

(4) They also agree Mr. Paroski suffers from Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. [69]

(5) Lastly, they agree that Mr. Paroski does not have any major mental illness diagnosis. [ 101 ] Most alarming is #2 –ASPD (anti-social personality disorder). In her report starting at page 151, Dr. Coleman instructs that personality disorders tend to become evident by late adolescences or early adulthood and continue throughout a person’s life although some of the more dramatic personality traits may attenuate with age. The symptoms of a personality disorder may worsen with psychosocial stress for example, homelessness, substance abuse, and failure to follow-up with psychiatric or psychological treatment.

Typically, treatment of persons with personality disorders tends to be psychological as opposed to pharmacological. [ 102 ] Dr. Coleman describes ASPD is characterized as a pervasive pattern of disregard for, and violation of the rights of others, as indicated by three or more of the following:

(1) Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviours.

(2) Deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others.

(3) Impulsivity or a failure to plan ahead.

(4) Irritability and aggressiveness.

(5) Reckless disregard for the safety of self or others.

(6) Consistent irresponsibility as indicated by a repeated failure to sustain consistent work behaviour or honour financial obligations.

(7) Lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another. [70] [ 103 ] Dr. Coleman notes that the likelihood of developing ASPD in adult life is increased if the individual experienced conduct disorder as a child or as an adolescent with accompanying ADHD.

She also notes that child abuse or neglect, unstable or erratic parenting, or inconsistent parental discipline may increase the likelihood that conduct disorder will evolve into ASPD. [ 104 ] Anti-social personality disorder is chronic but may become less evident or remit as the individual grows older. [71] [ 105 ] Dr. Coleman opined that Mr. Paroski has a severe antisocial personality disorder, which is complicated by residua of trauma, and severe substance abuse problems. Dr. Pallandi agrees Mr. Paroski suffers also from post-traumatic symptomology although Dr. Pallandi found that Mr.

Paroski’s symptoms fell short of the threshold for a formal diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder. [72] iii) Actuarial Tools [ 106 ] In preparing their reports, both Drs. Coleman and Pallandi employed well recognized actuarial risk management tools that are used to predict future violence.

These tools such as the PCL-R, VRAG, HCR-20, and others are violence and criminal recidivism risk assessment tools often used by professionals to measure and predict empirically or mathematically the potential of a person who will present a danger to other people They are not designed to develop risk management strategies, rather they are designed to predict risk.

a) PCL-R [ 107 ] Dr. Coleman and Dr. Pallandi each used the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R), which is a checklist to get a score on a construct of psychopathy. Dr. Coleman scored Mr. Paroski 33 out of a possible 40 points. She testified that “33” is a “very high score” and places Mr. Paroski on the 94% percentile of North American male offenders, meaning that he scored higher than 94% of that reference sample. She noted that a score of 33 falls within that required for a diagnosis of psychopathy (generally considered to be a score of 30 or higher on the PCL-R). Dr. Coleman concluded that Mr.

Paroski’s score suggests that his antisocial and psychopathic personality traits are “significant” and this would typically be considered a “negative prognostic indicator” because those individuals

who score high on the PCL-R tend to fail faster on community release than individuals with lower score and as they get older, their ability to remain crime free decreases. [73] [ 108 ] On the PCL-R, Dr. Pallandi yielded Mr. Paroski a score of “26” out of the possible 40. Dr. Pallandi noted that “while this score is elevated and somewhat higher than average scores in federally detained inmates (24/40), Mr.

Paroski falls below the margin to make a formal diagnosis of psychopathy”. [74] [ 109 ] The PCL-R measures two sets of factors: Factor 1 items measure personality or traits dealing with interpersonal traits related to psychopathy (for example glibness/superficial charm, pathological lying, shallow affect, manipulativeness, callousness/lack of empathy), whereas Factor 2 items deal with symptoms related to antisocial behaviour (impulsiveness, irresponsibility, poor behaviour controls, youth misconduct, lack of realistic long-term goals). [ 110 ] Factor 2 items are potentially more responsive to treatment than are Factor 1 items. [ 111 ] The PCL-R response format is based on a 3-point scale: a person receives a score of 0 where the item does not apply; 1 where the items apply “somewhat”; 2 where the item applied “definitely”. [ 112 ] Dr.

Coleman and Dr. Pallandi scored Mr. Paroski the same on most categories, but they differed on the following:

(1) Pathological Lying (Factor 1 item)– Dr. Coleman scored Mr. Paroski a 1; Dr. Pallandi scored him a 0.

(2) Conning/Manipulative (Factor 1 item) – Dr. Coleman scored Mr. Paroski a 2; Dr. Pallandi scored him a 1;

(3) Lack of Remorse or Guilt (Factor 1 Item)– Dr. Coleman scored Mr. Paroski a 2; Dr. Pallandi scored him a 1;

(4) Callousness/Lack of Empathy (Factor 1 item) – Dr. Coleman scored Mr. Paroski a 2; Dr. Pallandi scored him a 1

(5) Lack of Realistic Long-Term Goals (Factor 2 item)– Dr. Coleman scored Paroski a 2; Dr. Pallandi scored him a 1. [ 113 ] Under Pathological Lying, Dr. Pallandi’s score of 0 meant that he found “no” evidence of pathological lying. Yet when challenged by the Crown, Dr. Pallandi agreed there is evidence that Mr.

Paroski has repeatedly promised Courts at his sentencing hearings that he would take treatment and counselling to address his anger and substance use issues, yet consistently he has refused to follow through and engage in any programs. [ 114 ] The Crown provided several examples of this by way of transcripts where Mr. Paroski has promised sentencing judges and Justices of the Peace, that he will change, but hindsight proves that he did not follow through:

(1) On June 16, 2004, before Justice Kastner on the aggravated assault finding of guilty after stabbing the 15-year-old victim in the chest, Mr. Paroski told the court at page 42 – “Yes, I want to make an apology to the victim and the victim’s family, and I want to apologize to the Court too. I just hope everyone can forgive me. I want to apologize to the court officer as well. Even though I felt pressure, I still shouldn’t have reacted that way, and I want to be on the road so I can take care of my grandmother because my grandmother’s sick and she doesn’t have anyone else in the family to look after her.

I’m the only one that looks after her and I just hope that everyone can forgive me”. [75]

(2) On July 12, 2005, at a bail hearing before Justice of the Peace Hudson on the charges from 2005 that lead to his first penitentiary sentence, Mr. Paroski Sr. and the defendant both testified. At page of 19 of the transcript, Mr. Paroski told the Court that his plans were to support his girlfriend and [eventually] his daughter, attend Alcoholics Anonymous daily, if required, and attend anger management. The Court released Mr. Paroski on a $10,000 recognizance with his father as surety. However, by April 19, 2006, Mr. Paroski was before the same Justice of the Peace with new allegations of domestic violence against his girlfriend, and he consented to his detention. [76]

(3) On June 16, 2006, after pleading guilty to assaulting his father and failing to comply with a release order and a probation order, Mr. Paroski submitted a letter through his counsel to Justice Hawke where he asked the court to impose conditions to take “anger management and counselling”. [77]

(4) On January 8, 2013, before Justice Clement, Mr. Paroski stated, “Sir, I’d just like to say that I’m going to take my conditions very serious and there’s a lot of changes I want to make in my life so I’m…..no more…where I’m going to be causing trouble, sir. I’d like to apologize to the courts too”. [78]

(5) On June 13, 2018 after pleading guilty to possession of crack cocaine and breaking probation before Justice Khawly, Mr. Paroski stated: “I’d like to apologize for taking up the court’s time and, and I realize that when I get out on the street…I have to, you know, I have to keep myself more busy and …work every day, not just a couple of times a week, I got to work every day. I got to look for…you know, a job, right, so…..The system’s not helping me, sir, it’s just putting me in…an environment with more violent people and it’s….not helping me being inside jail”. [79] [ 115 ] Dr.

Pallandi tried to draw a distinction between a person who tries yet fails in treatment and Mr. Paroski’s pattern of non- participation. He added that we don’t know “what was going on in [Mr. Paroski’s] head” at the time. However, Dr. Pallandi agreed that he never asked Mr. Paroski, but said that even if he had, Mr. Paroski’s answers would not have assisted him in determining whether he deliberately lied to Courts. Dr. Pallandi described these false promises to the Courts as “duplicitous behaviour”. Dr.

Pallandi said in order for deceitfulness to qualify as “pathological lying” it needed to have “inherent value” which gave the individual “pride in the ability to deceive for personal pleasure or profit or gain”. [80] [ 116 ] Under Conning and Manipulative, Dr. Pallandi similarly scored Mr. Paroski with a “1”. Dr. Pallandi agreed that the Children’s Aid Society (CAS) and authors at various institutions have often described Mr. Paroski as “manipulative” and that he “will lie to get

what he wants”. However, Dr. Pallandi countered that rather than being manipulative, Mr. Paroski is the opposite describing him as “emotionally reactive” where his response to circumstances is “quite overt, not with subtlety or manipulation”. Dr. Pallandi noted that Mr. Paroski threatens and fights with people, whereas manipulation is a skill or a psychological tactic that saves the need to resort direct confrontation. [ 117 ] Next, Lack of Remorse: here, Dr. Pallandi agreed with the Crown that Mr.

Paroski’s behaviours “matched in most respects” the criteria for Lack of Remorse, yet because the examples were not “prototypical”, he scored Mr. Paroski a “1”. Dr. Pallandi agreed with the Crown that Mr. Paroski has, in the past, blamed the victims including his former domestic partners, society and the courts for not helping him. [81] [ 118 ] Also, under “Callousness/Lack of Empathy”, Dr. Pallandi did not feel the “cat incident” was “gratuitous violence” because it was not for personal pleasure which is why he scored Mr. Paroski a “1”. Dr.

Pallandi stated that throwing the cat to its death was yes, “unpleasant and unnecessary”, but unless there was other evidence he engaged in other forms of animal cruelty, he considered it was a one-off incident that has never been repeated. The fact that the animal killing was in the context of a domestic incident did not change Dr. Pallandi’s opinion. [82] [ 119 ] When asked about whether Mr. Paroski demonstrated gratuitous violence in the incident, when as a young person, he stabbed the victim in the chest, cut his head with a bottle, and damaged his teeth, Dr.

Pallandi preferred to characterize it as a “two adolescents fighting” “sort of school related”. When challenged further, Dr. Pallandi capitulated only to the extent that Mr. Paroski “assaulted people without mutuality in the engagement”. [83] [ 120 ] Dr. Pallandi also did not agree that the predicate or index offence was an example of “gratuitous violence”. Dr. Pallandi accepted Mr. Paroski’s position that he was extremely intoxicated and, as such, he concluded that there was other “dynamic variables that would have influenced [Mr.

Paroski’s} behaviour in part due to intoxication, impulsivity, disinhibition, and poor judgment related to intoxicants”. [84] Dr. Pallandi opined that Mr. Paroski likely would not have slashed the victim had he not been using drugs so heavily. [85] [ 121 ] Yet the Crown pointed out to Dr. Pallandi that the majority of Mr. Paroski’s violent offences occurred without drugs or alcohol being involved. [86] Dr. Pallandi could not dispute the Crown’s suggestion that despite the length of his criminal record, only twice before had Mr.

Paroski claimed he had been intoxicated: the youth conviction for aggravated assault (offence date June 16, 2004) and the convictions for domestic assault and forcible confinement (offence date December 2, 2016) [87] [ 122 ] Dr. Pallandi said he asked Mr. Paroski about how he felt about slashing the victim, a complete stranger, across the face with a knife, and that Mr. Paroski expressed “embarrassment and stupidity”. Dr. Pallandi testified that Mr. Paroski “felt quite badly about what he had done or potentially done to the victim as a consequence”. [88] [ 123 ] Dr. Pallandi agreed that he did not challenge Mr.

Paroski on his past criminal conduct including his history of domestic abuse [89] . Dr. Pallandi claims to have reviewed the Crown’s materials including details of Mr. Paroski’s past convictions as carefully as Dr. Coleman. However, Dr. Pallandi was unable to point any place in his report where he wrote Mr. Paroski’s response to any inquiry about his criminal record. Instead, Dr. Pallandi said that he tried to integrate the information available to him in coming to his conclusions. [90] [ 124 ] Dr. Pallandi reluctantly agreed with the Crown that had he challenged Mr.

Paroski’s responses to his past behaviour that his answers may have shed light on how he viewed his offences, which in turn may have been significant in scoring the PCL-R in particular the traits of manipulation and remorse. [91] [ 125 ] Dr. Pallandi rejected the Crown’s suggestion that when scoring the PCL-R, he focused on the last twelve months when Mr. Paroski has made gains while at the Toronto East Detention. Dr. Pallandi insisted that he had taken a “balanced” view of both Mr. Paroski’s past and present behaviour. [92] [ 126 ] It was obvious that Dr. Pallandi was very impressed with Mr.

Paroski’s recent accomplishments. Dr. Pallandi reviewed some of Mr. Paroski’s AA workbooks and was amazed at the quality of its content: “not just filling in pages”, but instead “thoughtful, articulate, and on point”. He described Mr. Paroski’s effort as “quite striking and self directed”. He also pointed out that unlike some other clients, Mr. Paroski is intelligent and capable of learning. [ 127 ] On the last item on the PCL-R, Lack of Realistic Long-Term Goals, Drs. Coleman scored Mr. Paroski a “2” but she acknowledged she submitted her assessment over a year before Mr.

Paroski was transferred to Toronto East, and months before he began completing most programs and all his college credits.

b) VRAG [ 128 ] Drs. Coleman and Pallandi both also scored Mr. Paroski on the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG). On this instrument, Dr. Coleman scored Mr. Paroski a +23. Dr. Coleman testified that this scored placed Mr. Paroski in the 96% percentile with respect to the reference or standardization sample. She testified that similar scoring individuals recidivate violently at a rate of 82% over 10 years opportunity in the community. [93] [ 129 ] Dr. Pallandi scored Mr. Paroski a +20. A score of +20 was associated with recidivism rates of 55% and 64% over 7 and 10 years of opportunity in the community. [94]

c) HCR-20 [ 130 ] Both experts employed the Historical Clinical and Risk Management-20 (HCR-20) although Dr. Coleman and Dr. Pallandi used different versions of it. The HCR-20 was described as a “structured professional judgment (SPJ) risk assessment tool generally employed to assess the risk of future violent behaviour in criminal and psychiatric populations”. As its name suggests HCR-20 stands for historical (H), clinical (C), and risk management (R).

[ 131 ] The HCR-20 includes variables which capture relevant past, present, and future considerations, some of which are dynamic variables (that is, variables that are thought to be modifiable). The HCR-20 helps to identify those areas that need intervention. [95] [ 132 ] Dr. Coleman used the HCR-20 and Dr. Pallandi used the HCR-20 v.3. Dr. Coleman explained that she did not used the HCR-20 v.3 because it is a more recent version which, in her view, did not have the same extensive review and validation as the HCR-20. She said the HCR-20 v.3 has its place in “developing risk management plans in a clinical setting”, but that was not her task in preparing the

section 751 of the Code assessment. [96] [ 133 ] On the HCR-20, Dr. Coleman scored Mr. Paroski 32 out of a possible 40 points, assuming “near immediate release” from custody [97] . Dr. Coleman explained that she chose that context, i.e.., “near immediate release” because she felt that it was meaningful in comparison to the other risk assessment tools she used. [98] [ 134 ] Dr. Coleman describe Mr. Paroski’s score of 32 out of 40 as a “fairly high score” that suggested “a high risk of future violent behaviour, absent significant interventions”. [99] Dr.

Coleman also added that both the C and R-factors, i.e. clinical factors and factors in the risk scale can change, which is why optimally, higher-risk risk individuals need to be monitored for change more closely. [ 135 ] Dr. Coleman agreed that her HCR-20 score is “dated”, i.e., a “snapshot in time”, because she interviewed Mr. Paroski in November 2019 (November 15 and 19) and on December 15, 2019, for her report dated March 9, 2020. At the time of her assessment, Dr. Coleman said it was impossible to know what interventions would be available to him. She agreed that when she met with Mr.

Paroski, he “had not done a lot of those things where I can say, even if they were in place, that they would be effective, because you have to know that they’re going to be effective in order to reduce the risk management score here”. [100] [ 136 ] As well, Dr. Coleman agreed she noted Mr. Paroski’s “lack of personal support”, but that she did not speak to his sister, Shannon, but only to the stepmother Willa Aplyn. [101] Dr. Pallandi, on the other hand, spoke to all of Mr. Paroski’s family members and professionals such as Dr. Seat, the psychologist at the Toronto South. [ 137 ] However, Dr.

Coleman maintained that even after hearing from Defence counsel the current update of Mr. Paroski’s progress and treatment plans, given the degree of Mr. Paroski’s psychopathy and severe ASPD, she still held “little optimism” of his risk being managed in the community. [102]

d) HCR-20 v.3 and SAPROF [ 138 ] Dr. Pallandi noted the HCR-20 v.3 is used both to assess risk for violence and to guide treatment planning. No formal score is calculated. Dr. Pallandi used the HCR-20 v.3 together with the Structure Assessment of Protective Factors of Violence Risk (SAPROF), which Dr. Pallandi said better balances risk assessments, providing guidance for intervention and in motivating change. [ 139 ] On the HCR-20 v.3, Dr. Pallandi concluded Mr. Paroski’s risk of causing serious physical harm was “moderate” and that the risk of imminent violence was in the “low range” citing Mr.

Paroski’s recent successes in the detention centre. On the SAPROF coding when combining the results on the HCR-20 v.3, Dr. Pallandi concluded Mr. Paroski’s risk to act violently was “moderate-high” but emphasized the protective factors, noting again, the gains Mr. Paroski has made over the last two years. [103] [ 140 ] Dr. Coleman agreed in cross examination that the SAPROF tool identifies protective factors in order that a person can develop or inherently has. However, Dr. Coleman again explained that she did not use the SAPROF tool because she was tasked to assess “risk”.

e) Opinion on Future Risk

i) Dr. Coleman [ 141 ] Dr. Coleman concluded that there were “few reasons for optimism that [Mr. Paroski] will be manageable in the community upon expiry of an LTSO (long-term supervision order) given his escalating criminal history, his significant substance abuse disorder, and the presence of antisocial personality disorder”. [104] Dr. Coleman highlighted Mr. Paroski having to be moved from Millhaven Institution to the SHU – a specialized unit to protect maximum security inmates. As she put it, if Mr.

Paroski cannot be adequately controlled in Millhaven with professional supervisors, then this reflects very poorly on his prospects of being controlled in the community. She added that his continuing to engage in violence also speaks to the severity of his antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) and high psychopathy score. [ 142 ] Dr. Coleman stated that “one of the best predictors of future is past behaviour or past offending and with regards to violence, one of the best predictors of future violence is historical violence”. [105] For Mr. Paroski, Dr. Coleman said that “one of the predictors for [Mr.

Paroski] is his long criminal record”. [106] [ 143 ] Dr. Coleman noted that actuarial tools are the best tools to predict future violence. They are not designed to develop risk management strategies, rather they are designed to predict risk. [ 144 ] Based on Mr. Paroski’s actuarial risk assessment Dr. Coleman noted that “similar scoring individuals recidivate violently at a rate of 82% over 10 years’ opportunity in the community”. The actuarial risk considers that “dynamic variables do fluctuate”. Dr.

Coleman agreed with Defence counsel who suggested that the tool does not tell us when within those 10 years, most individuals reoffend whether, for example, at the 3-year or 7-year mark, nor does it assist with measuring the severity of the re-offending. Nor does the data show whether those individuals who did reoffend were receiving

[…]