R. v. Dionne, 2023 NSSC 307

SUPREME COURT OF Nova Scotia Citation: R. v. Dionne , 2023 NSSC 307 Date: 20230922 Docket: 502899 Registry: Halifax Between: HIS MAJESTY THE KING v. JOHN FRANCIS DIONNE Judge: The Honourable Justice Darlene Jamieson Heard: May 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 23, 24, 25, 26, 2023 Final Written: June 23, July 25, 2023 Submissions: August 1, 2023 Counsel: Shauna MacDonald, KC and Mark Heerema, for the Crown Eugene Tan, for the Defence By the Court: Background [ 1 ] On September 14, 2012, Mr. Dionne was declared a dangerous offender by Alberta Provincial Court Judge A.A. Fradsham. Mr.

Dionne pled guilty to unlawfully kidnapping a 10-year-old girl and to impersonating a police officer. Judge Fradsham’s decision, reported at 2012 ABPC 261 , indicates that Mr.

Dionne and the Crown jointly agreed to the designation, and to the imposition of a Long Term Supervision Order (“LTSO”): 4 Subsequently, Crown and defence counsel notified me that there was further agreement between the offender and the Crown that the offender should be found to be a dangerous offender, and that the Court should impose sentences for the offences for which the offender has been convicted (by way of his guilty plea as accepted by the Court), and that the Court should order that the offender be subject to long-term supervision for a period of ten years.

Based on the evidence, and the submissions made to me, I agreed that the offender should be found to be a dangerous offender, and that the offender should be subject to long-term supervision for 10 years after he finishes serving his sentences of imprisonment. [ 2 ] Judge Fradsham sentenced Mr. Dionne to a determinate sentence of 9 years in total and, after taking into account his pre- sentence custody, he had 7 years and 5 months left to serve.

Judge Fradsham said the following in his conclusion on sentence: Sentences 54 I find that the appropriate sentences in respect of Counts 1 and 5 to be as follows: Count 1: A term of imprisonment of 9 years from which must be deducted the pre-sentence custody of one year, six months, and 20 days, leaving Mr. Dionne with 7 years, 5 months, and 11 days left to serve. 2. Count 5: A term of imprisonment of 5 months, to be served concurrently with Count 1.

3. As the offender has been in pre-sentence custody for a significant period of time, I do not impose victim surcharges in respect of either count. 4. Pursuant to

section 753 of the Criminal Code , and in relation to Count 1, I find Mr. Dionne to be a dangerous offender. 5. Pursuant to section 753(4) (

b) of the Criminal Code , I order that the offender be subject to long-term supervision for a period of 10 years. [ 3 ] Mr. Dionne served the entirety of this determinate sentence in federal custody. The Parole Board of Canada (“PBC”) ordered Mr. Dionne detained at the time of his statutorily mandated release date as they determined that, if released, Mr. Dionne would commit an offence causing death or serious bodily harm before the expiration of his sentence. The initial decision of the PBC to detain Mr.

Dionne was confirmed two years later. [ 4 ] On February 20, 2020, at the end of his Warrant Expiry Date (“WED”), Mr. Dionne was released. At his request, and with the approval of Correctional Services of Canada (“CSC”), he was released to the Jamieson Community Correctional Centre (“Jamieson CCC”), located in Burnside, Halifax Regional Municipality. Concurrent with his release, Mr. Dionne was subject to conditions imposed upon him by the PBC pursuant to his 10-year LTSO, as well as conditions imposed by the Provincial Court of New Brunswick pursuant to s. 810.2 of the Criminal Code . [ 5 ] On July 26, 2020, Mr.

Dionne was arrested by members of the Halifax Regional Police for violating various conditions of his LTSO and the s. 810.2 recognizance. On March 26, 2021, Mr. Dionne pled guilty to counts 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, and 12 of the Indictment. They can be summarized as follows: • possession of a razor blade (Count 3) - breach of condition of s. 810.2 Recognizance contrary to

Section 811 of the Criminal Code • possession of an internet enabled phone (Count 6) - breach of condition of s. 810.2 Recognizance contrary to

Section 811 • failure to notify a police officer without delay of his being subject to a s. 810.2 recognizance (Count 7) - breach of condition of s. 810.2 Recognizance contrary to

Section 811 • associating with a person he knew, or had reason to believe, was involved in criminal activity (Count 8) - breach of Long Term Supervision Order contrary to

Section 753.3(1) • possession of pornography (Count 9) - breach of Long Term Supervision Order contrary to

Section 753.3(1) • failure to report a relationship to his parole supervisor (Count 11) - breach of Long Term Supervision Order contrary to

Section 753.3(1), and • entering into a relationship with a person who has children under the age of 18, without identifying this relationship to a police agency (Count 12) - breach of condition of s. 810.2 Recognizance contrary to

Section 811 . [ 6 ] Mr. Dionne made various admissions pursuant to sections 655 and 724 of the Criminal Code . They were entered as Exhibit 1 when I accepted Mr. Dionne’s guilty pleas and include the following: 7. Dionne eventually provided the passcode to the cell phone to officers involved in his arrest and the arresting officers opened the phone and observed a photograph of a female with 2 young children. The phone was then turned off. 8. Arresting officers also located a receipt on Dionne’s person which had female names and numbers written on it. One of the names was “A.”, telephone #______. 9.

In a cautioned interview given shortly after his arrest Dionne admitted that he had a female friend and that he had not reported this relationship to his Parole Officer or the Halifax Regional Police. He said that he had met her two weeks ago and that he would pay her to drive him around. He indicated that he had taken ( sic ) for a walk “yesterday” and advised him ( sic ) of his criminal history. He refused to provide the police with the name of this female. 10.

Dionne admitted that the seized cell phone, which he knew was fully capable of accessing the Internet, was his but claimed that “anything that was downloaded on the phone was done by another offender”. A subsequent forensic search of the phone located evidence of it being connected to the internet at the Akerley Tim Hortons, including in the time just before Dionne’s arrest. 11. A “Better Tools” blade was found by booking officers located tucked down at the bottom of his wallet.

He acknowledges that this blade meets the definition of a weapon and that he was neither working nor in his residence at the time that he possessed it. 12. After interviewing Dionne, Detective Cst. Corner of the Halifax Regional Police called the number for “A” located on the seized receipt. He conducted a telephone interview with A.N. who told him that Dionne had approached her 2 weeks ago outside a No-Frills store on Wyse Road. She said that Dionne started complimenting her on her looks and asked for her phone number.

She declined, but Dionne approached her again on another day at the bus terminal and stated that he was sorry for the way that he had behaved towards her and again asked her for her phone number. She provided him with her phone number and then received a number of phone calls from him in which he asked her if they could meet up. He asked her if she would go out on a date with him but she advised that she just wanted to be friends. In the statement A.N. denied that they were in a romantic relationship, but she said that Dionne wanted to be.

She also stated that Dionne had advised her that he spent time in jail for getting into a fight with someone and biting their ear. She indicated that Dionne had not advised her of any other criminal convictions. Dionne acknowledges and admits he did not seek or receive permission to be in a relationship with A.N, nor did he report it to his parole officer or the police. 13. A judicially authorized forensic search of Dionne’s cell phone subsequently located 22 contacts, one was those was for a person

referred to as “M.”. This contact was later determined to be (MN). There were pictures on the cell phone of (MN) and Dionne together. 18 thumbnails were found on the phone. These thumbnails are the digital remnant of a picture that had previously been deleted from the phone. Dionne admits that the following pictures were on the phone he possessed. A review of the thumbnails revealed: a. A selfie photo of Dionne and (MN) showing (MN) laying her head on Dionne’s shoulder. (MN) is observed to be smiling and Dionne is making a kissing motion towards the camera. Train tracks were noted in the background. b.

A photo of (MN) and 2 of her children. c. Photo’s of an unidentified female. d. A number of photos of Dionne by himself. 14.The forensic search of the phone revealed 4 SMS messages sent to Dionne from (MN) on July 26, 2020. These stated: a. Where are you b. I love you c. How are you doing John d. I am my lunch break. 15. At the time of her interactions with Dionne, (MN) had 6 children living with her, 4 of whom are under the age of 16. She has 2 very young daughters: a. L., age 9 b. V., age 10 16. Dionne acknowledges that L. and V. are the children featured in the picture referenced in 13(b).

Dionne acknowledges and admits that (MN) has informed the police that at a time this picture was taken and when (MN) knew nothing of his criminal history. 17. Dionne acknowledges and admits not having sought or received any permission to be in any form of relationship with (MN), nor did he report this relationship to his parole officer or the police. Dionne acknowledges and admits that there were a series of telephone calls between he and (MN) in which he contacted her by phone from the Correctional Centre following his arrest.

He acknowledges and admits that the police seized recordings of some of these calls and that the seized recordings are accurate… [ 7 ] Mr. Dionne has been in custody since his arrest on July 26, 2020. As of the date of sentencing, he has spent approximately three years and two months in pre-sentence custody.

Application for an Indeterminate Sentence [ 8 ] The Attorney General has brought an application for the imposition of an indeterminate sentence pursuant to ss. 753.01(4) and (5) on the basis that there is no reasonable expectation that any other sentence will adequately protect the public. [ 9 ] On April 21, 2021, I issued an Order for a remand for assessment and preparation of a report for use in an application by the Attorney General pursuant to s. 753.01 of the Criminal Code . The report of Dr.

Grainne Neilson, forensic psychiatrist, was received by the court on July 13, 2021. [ 10 ] The sentencing hearing, originally scheduled for October 3, 2022, was delayed due to a change in Mr. Dionne’s legal counsel. Mr. Dionne’s subsequent counsel left the practice of law, further delaying the matter to May 2023. Evidence on the Application [ 11 ] The Crown called the following witnesses: Ms. Robyn Gay (parole officer at Jamieson CCC), Ms. Chantal Cormier (Manager of Programs with CSC), Ms. Sheri Beers (Acting Program Manager at Dorchester Penitentiary - Minimum), Mr.

Brad Ross (Deputy Superintendent at Central Nova Scotia Correctional Facility (“CNSCF” and also known as “Burnside”)), Mr. Anthony Thomas (former parole officer at Jamieson CCC), expert witnesses Marc DesRosiers (psychologist), and Dr. Grainne Neilson (forensic psychiatrist). [ 12 ] The Defence called the following witnesses: Mr. John Dionne, Ms. Carla Roy, Mr. Peter Cote, and Mr. Dennis Wickersham. [ 13 ] By consent, 13 volumes of documents were marked as exhibits and placed before the court. They contain the following: CSC records for Mr.

Dionne (casework, case management, psychology records, discipline, etc); Alberta Correctional Services files; statements and other information concerning the predicate offences; transcripts of prior trial/ sentencing proceedings; 4 binders of documents from the Alberta dangerous offender proceedings, etc. These latter materials include assessment reports prepared by Dr. Kenneth Hashman (forensic psychiatrist), Ms. Deena Nessman (psychologist), Ms. Daphne Buffett (social worker), Ms. Michelle Manuel (psychologist), and Mr. Marc DesRosiers (psychologist).

Other exhibits were entered including records from Burnside, such as Mr. Dionne’s Custody Incident Report, electronic files of telephone conversations, videos of incidents, etc. Parties’ Positions The Crown’s position

[ 14 ] The Attorney General submits that only an indeterminate sentence will adequately protect society from the risk that Mr. Dionne poses for further serious violence and sexual violence. The Attorney General says that Mr. Dionne must be incarcerated until this risk can be adequately moderated. [ 15 ] The Attorney General says that a reasonable expectation that a lesser measure will control the risk requires a confident belief that his risk can be managed by the limited, real-life resources available within a specified period. It says this level of assurance is not available for many reasons, including that Mr.

Dionne minimizes the risk he presents and has poor insight into his risk factors; he has been exposed to many forms of treatment and historically made minimal gains; there is an absence of evidence that he has a genuine motivation to change; he has a malignant personality profile; successful management of his risk will take years and he has yet to start down a meaningful path; he maintains a long-standing antagonistic stance toward CSC; the level of supervision provided at Jamieson CCC cannot be realistically increased; Mr. Dionne’s prosocial supports are not informed; and that Mr.

Dionne has continued to act violently while pending disposition on this matter. [ 16 ] The Attorney General submits that an indeterminate sentence is not throwing away the key on Mr. Dionne, but is simply recognition that, at present, there is no reasonable expectation that his risk can be safely managed. Mr. Dionne’s position [ 17 ] Mr. Dionne says he is prepared to pay the penalty for his actions in 2020, but asks the court to impose a determinate sentence in light of his lengthy time on remand awaiting this hearing. [ 18 ] He says the statistical tools employed by Dr.

Neilson in her psychological assessment are simply tools which, although better than nothing, must always be approached with some caution. Mr. Dionne urges the court to consider the historical facts and to refrain from placing too great an emphasis on the statistics alone. [ 19 ] Mr. Dionne says that, during his cross-examination on this application, he opened up more than he ever has in the past. He says he provided his insight, perhaps for the first time, into an uncomfortable situation for him – his kidnapping of a 10-year-old girl. Mr.

Dionne submits that one of the underlying questions the court must address in crafting an appropriate sentence is, “How much speculation is too much speculation?” Or, put another way, “How much uncertainty will a court permit in issuing an indeterminate sentence?” Mr. Dionne says the answer would be simple if he had committed a serious personal injury offence, but he did not. He committed breaches of conditions. Further, he was not found to have been so far into an offence cycle that the eventual outcome could be inferred with any reasonable amount of certainty. [ 20 ] Mr.

Dionne says the evidence suggests that he has struggled in institutional group settings, either because of ADHD, embarrassment, or possibly because he has been targeted as a sexual offender and a source of ADHD medication; that he appeared to have largely given up following certain events, such as when the PBC imposed detention beyond his statutory release date; that he is capable of, and did, make gains in the right setting, such as with Sheri Beers; that he appears demonstrably capable of doing better, according to Mr.

DesRosiers; that he was released during the height of the Covid pandemic and received his Maintenance Program over the telephone; that he pursued a relationship and pled guilty for failing to report that relationship; that there is no evidence that he pursued anything further; that he did not use drugs or alcohol; and that he did not commit any serious injury offence or any offence of a sexual or violent nature. [ 21 ] Mr. Dionne says it is speculation that he would have done something more than simply engage in an unreported relationship.

He submits that in order for the court to reach the inferences urged by the Crown, the court must be satisfied that Mr. Dionne is demonstrably a danger in the absence of drugs or alcohol; that Mr. Dionne has a paraphilia related to children; and that Mr. Dionne engaged in a relationship only for the purpose of gaining access to children. Mr. Dionne says the Crown has failed to establish any of these things. [ 22 ] Mr.

Dionne says the Crown’s case relies too heavily on catastrophic thinking, and that his actions do not demonstrate that he was entrenched in a pattern of behaviour that would lead, with any probability, to a deleterious criminal action. He argues that his level of risk remains as it was when he was first released in February 2020. [ 23 ] Mr. Dionne says he is doing better, and has reconnected with his family. His father has changed and their relationship is no longer a troubled one. Mr. Dionne says that those who know him have noticed that he has matured.

He says that he demonstrated his capacity for gains after Ms. Beers returned to Dorchester as his parole officer and began frequently meeting with him one-on-one. [ 24 ] Mr. Dionne’s position on sentencing is set out in his post-hearing written submissions as being time served on remand. However, during oral submissions, counsel took the position that a fit and proper sentence would be his current remand time, plus an additional 2 years of imprisonment at a federal institution.

Summary of Evidence [ 25 ] I have considered all of the testimony and the documentary evidence presented during this hearing, although I will not mention all of it. The following are the facts of this matter as I find them, unless stated to be otherwise. Criminal History [ 26 ] Mr. Dionne’s criminal record was summarized in Judge Fardsham’s decision at paragraph 10: DATE LOCATION CHARGE DISPOSITION 1985-12-02 Saint John, New Brunswick Assault s.245(

b) CC Suspended Sentence and Probation for 1 year

1989-01-23 Hampton, New Brunswick Drive while Ability is Impaired s.253(

a) CC $650, I-D 20 days & Probations 3 months, Prohibition Driving 3 months 1991-03-28 Saint John, New Brunswick Assault s.266(

b) CC Suspended Sentence & 1 Year Probation 1991-11-13 Grand Bay, New Brunswick

(1) Assault s.266(

b) CC

(2) Breach of Probation s. 740(1) CC 10 days jail & 1 year probation 1992-04-09 Saint John, New Brunswick

(1) Fail to Comply with a Probation Order s. 740(1) CC

(2) Assault s.266(

b) CC

(3) Fail to Comply with a Recognizance Order s.145(3) CC

(4) Possession of a Narcotic s. 3(1) NC Act

(5) Mischief Under $1000 s. 430(4)(b) (1) 10 days gaol (2-3) 20 days on each charge consecutive & consecutive (4) $250 I-D; 1 month consecutive & surcharge $37.50 I-D 3 days

(5) Suspended Sentence & Probation for 6 months 1993-03-16 Saint John, New Brunswick

(1) Assault Causing Bodily Harm s. 267(1)(

b) CC

(2) Assault s. 266(

b) CC (1) 9 months gaol & Probation for 2 years (2) 2 months concurrent 1994-03-29 Saint John, New Brunswick

(1) Fail to Comply with a Probation Order s.740(1) CC

(2) Mischief Under $1000 s.430(4)(

b) CC (1) 3 days (2) $500 I-D 30 days & Surcharge $75, I-D 3 days consecutive & Probation 6 months & Restitution $96.64 1996-01-24 Grand Bay, New Brunswick Fraud in Relation to Fares s.393(3) CC Probation 1 year and Suspended Sentence 1996-09-13 Grand Bay, New Brunswick

(1) Sexual Assault s.271(1)(

b) CC

(2) Fail to Comply with a Probation Order s. 740(1) CC

(3) Assault s. 266(b) (1) 6 months gaol & Probation 18 months (2) 1 month gaol consecutive (3) 1 month gaol concurrent 1996-10-15 Woodstock, New Brunswick

(1) Assault s.266(b)

(2) Assault s.266(b) (1-2) 30 days gaol consecutive 2000-04-07 Toronto, Ontario Theft under $5000 s.334(

b) CC 5 days

2000-04-17 Saint John, New Brunswick Fail to Comply with an Undertaking s.145(3) CC 2 months gaol 2001-04-17 Calgary, Alberta Theft under $5000 s.334(

b) CC $350 I-D 15 days 2001-06-01 Calgary, Alberta

(1) Theft under $5000 s.334(

b) CC

(2) Mischief s.430(1)(b) (1-2) $150 I-D 3 days on each charge 2001-10-18 Calgary, Alberta Theft under $5000 s.334(

b) CC $100 fine 2002-10-03 Wetaskiwin, Alberta Failure to Comply with an Undertaking x2 s.145(

c) x2 CC 30 days gaol concurrent 2003-03-24 Dryden, Ontario

(1) Obstruct Peace Officer s.129(

a) CC

(2) Driving while Ability Impaired s.253(

a) CC

(3) Fail to Comply with an Undertaking s.145(3) CC

(4) Possession of a Scheduled Substance for the Purpose of Trafficking s.5(2) CC (1) 149 days & (Time Served) (2) 149 days concurrent (3) 3 days consecutive (4) 1 day concurrent 2003-10-01 Wetaskiwin, Alta

(1) Sexual Assault s.271(1)(

a) CC

(2) Kidnapping s.279(1.1)(

b) CC (1-2) 4 years on each charge concurrent +14 months pre- trial custody & Mandatory Prohibition Order s.109 CC 2004-01-19 Drumheller, Alta Assault s.266(

b) CC 6 months consecutive to sentence serving 2006-09-28 Statutory Release 2007-02-15 Statutory Release Violator - Recommitted [ 27 ] Added to this

summary are the offences of kidnapping a 10-year-old girl and impersonating a police officer, plus the predicate offences. In short, Mr. Dionne’s criminal offending began at the age of 18. His criminal record spans four decades, and includes over 40 convictions. Background information and charges [ 28 ] I will elaborate on various historical offences that provide some context for the current application. In the 1990s, Mr. Dionne was convicted of four separate counts of assault against his ex-wife. The documentary records also indicate reports of violence against other partners. Mr.

Dionne sexually assaulted an intoxicated 16-year-old female when he was 29 years of age. Dr. Neilson’s report notes that Mr. Dionne admitted to touching the victim’s vagina, kissing her, and probably touching her breast before the victim’s boyfriend entered. [ 29 ] Mr. Dionne minimized the severity of this offence in discussions with Dr. Neilson. He placed responsibility on the victim, and

said the conviction was unfair. In court, he strongly insisted that Dr. Neilson was wrong in her report and that she had “twisted his words.” He said he “takes full responsibility” for this offence, as he “saw an opportunity and took advantage of it.” However, according to Dr. Kenneth Hashman’s report, Mr. Dionne made similar complaints about the unfairness of this conviction in 2011: Mr. Dionne did not feel that the sexual assault charge was fair as “she was all over him and running around with shorts on and pants down to her knees because she was sick.” [ 30 ] Mr.

Dionne was convicted of assaulting the 10-year-old daughter of a woman whom Mr. Dionne was “messing around with” in 2002. At his sentencing in 2004, Mr. Dionne agreed to the following facts: …On that evening, the complainant went into her bedroom to go to sleep and was awoken during the night. Mr Dionne was in her bedroom, and he applied force to her by touching her below the waist without her consent. In doing so, she alerted her brother by yelling for him. Mr. Dionne left her bedroom… [ 31 ] At his sentencing, Mr. Dionne offered an apology to the family and the child. At the present hearing, Mr.

Dionne disputed these agreed facts. He testified that he simply remembered “next to nil about that evening,” and that: …I mean, I don’t know what happened that particular night. I mean, I would like to think that it wasn’t me. I would like to think that my intentions weren’t bad. I mean, I can’t really recall the, you know, that happening because like I said the next, the next morning I woke up, I was alone, there in that, in that trailer… …Well I would like to think that I didn’t go in there and do that.

I mean like, I would like to think that, you know, like yeah I didn’t go in there and do that, I mean, if that crack cocaine impairs me that much that, you know, if I, you know, if I did go in there and do something and that I couldn’t figure out what was age appropriate and non-age appropriate, I think to myself, you know, like something, somethings got to stop. [ 32 ] In 2002, Mr. Dionne kidnapped a woman, who was a sex worker, took her to a remote location, and sexually assaulted her, before abandoning her.

In his various accounts of this offence over the years, he has justified it on the basis that he was “sick of getting ripped off by prostitutes.” At the hearing, he repeated this sentiment, saying: It was the control. I was out controlling, you know. I was out controlling and I’m trying to, you know, admit now what I was out doing. I was out controlling.

I was out controlling prostitutes, feeding them a line that, you know, oh look, I have money or I have crack, you know, let’s do our thing and then after that, you know, I’ll pay you because I’m tired of getting ripped off by the prostitutes, you know, you know, because when the money’s gone, when the crack’s gone, they’re gone and they don’t provide me with their services and that’s what I was doing for, sometimes I was tricking them into having sex with me. [ 33 ] In 2002, Mr.

Dionne was also charged, but acquitted at trial, with sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon, uttering threats, and forceable confinement. The CSC files describe the complainant as being 16 years old. The psychological report of Deena Nessman dated August 17, 2011, sets out the allegations and Mr. Dionne’s response as follows: … On June 30, 2000, a 911 phone call was received by the Dryden police service in Ontario. The female caller claimed that they had been kidnapped on June 27, 2002 in Winnipeg and transported to Ontario and sexually assaulted.

She reported that an unknown male approached her in Winnipeg seeking crack cocaine. They would do some crack together but the remaining events are unclear and involve being kept in a tent in the bush. The collar was able to produce a description of the vehicle and the license plate number. Later that day, OPP officers responded to single motor vehicle crash. The driver identified himself as Paul Pactrash and he was noted to have slurred speech. Search of the vehicle revealed two license plates, court documentation for John Dionne, Valium and a crack pipe. The police discovered that Mr.

Dionne had been released on a recognizance in Alberta for charges of sexual assault, robbery, kidnapping and forcible confinement… After being charged with sexual assault and kidnapping, Mr. Dionne was released on bail. He reports that he gathered up all of the money that he could and left town to go to his parents home. He reports that he stopped in Winnipeg and met a crack cocaine dealer. This individual took him to a “crack house” and they were smoking crack.

A “black girl” noticed him buying crack and he reports that he “couldn’t get rid of her.” He states that he tried to get out of the parking lot, but that she got into the car. He reports that he informed her that he was going East. Mr. Dionne reports that they consumed crack cocaine and had consensual sex over the next few days. He reports that when the crack cocaine was gone, she began to complain that she wanted to return home, but that he refused to drive her back.

He acknowledged that this individual was 16 years old, but that she “looked older.” (page 9) [ 34 ] In her 2016 report, Michelle Manuel, psychologist, described the anger Mr. Dionne harboured toward women: He previously harboured a lot of anger for women (especially his wife and prostitutes), as he felt mistreated and betrayed by them. He viewed women as “sex objects” who “deserved to be used. He admitted that sexual offending became a way for him to discharge his anger, exact revenge and dispel feelings of insecurity and victimization.” (page 4) [ 35 ] At the hearing, Mr.

Dionne denied ever making these statements to Ms. Manuel. [ 36 ] Within months of Mr. Dionne’s statutory release in late 2007, he was charged with taking a sex worker against her wishes and sexually assaulting her. The charges were stayed. [ 37 ] The records indicate that Mr. Dionne was admitted to Edmonton Remand Centre on June 3, 2008 for the above charges, which did not result in conviction. He was released from custody on August 28, 2008. He was admitted again on November 1, 2008, and held until September 10, 2010, on other charges which also did not result in convictions. [ 38 ] I note that Mr.

Dionne acknowledged that he has sexually assaulted sex workers but was not convicted for the offences. I will address this evidence below in my assessment of Mr. Dionne’s testimony.

[ 39 ] After his release from remand in 2010, Mr. Dionne moved to Linden, Alberta. Five months later, in February 2011, he re- offended. He kidnapped a 10-year-old girl and impersonated a police officer. The agreed statement of facts for these offences can be found at paragraph 6 of Judge Fradsham’s decision: 1. On February 24, 2011, the victim, 10 year old [J.C.] attended with her father at the Deerfoot Mall, located at 901 64th Avenue NE, Calgary, Alberta. [J.C.] was approximately 4 feet tall and weighed approximately 60 pounds at the time. They arrived at the mall at approximately 6:40 p.m.

While her father was trying on clothing at another store in the mall, [J.C.] went to the "Everything for a Dollar" store to look at stuffed animals. 2. At approximately 7:00 p.m., [J.C.] was approached by the Accused, John Francis Dionne (the Accused) while she was in the "Everything for a Dollar" store. The Accused asked [J.C.] whether she was the girl who was shoplifting, to which [J.C.] replied "no".

The Accused then told [J.C.] that he was a police officer, that he needed to ask her some questions at his office, and that she needed to come with him. [J.C.] replied that she had to tell her Dad because her Dad would be worried. The Accused stated no, that it would only take a second. [J.C.] again protested that she had to tell her Dad, but the Accused again replied that it would just take a second. [J.C.], believing the Accused was a police officer, followed him into the mall to a set of exit doors leading to outside the mall. 3.

Once at the exit doors, [J.C.] stated again that she needed to tell her Dad, and tried to go back inside the mall. The accused pulled her by the arm back outside. He started to walk towards his van which was parked in the parking lot, pulling [J.C.] by the arm as he did so. Prior to reaching the van [J.C.] tried to resist going further. The Accused then picked her up under her arms and carried her the rest of the way to his van. 4.

Once at the van, the Accused opened the front passenger side door and dropped [J.C.] into the seat and ordered her to put on her seatbelt. [J.C.] was terrified by this point, and did as she was told. The Accused then got into the drivers seat and locked the doors. [J.C.] again stated that she needed to tell her Dad where she was, to which the Accused again responded that it would only take a second. [J.C.] started to cry, and the Accused told her to be quiet. [J.C.] then took her cellular phone out of her pocket and saw that her father had texted her.

The Accused, seeing this, took the phone away from her, using a tissue to grasp the phone. He then took the battery out of the phone so that she could not use it, all the while still using the tissue to hold the phone and the battery. 5. The Accused then drove out of the parking lot and started driving north on Deerfoot Trail, continuing north on Highway 2, leaving the city limits.

During the drive, [J.C.] asked the Accused what his name was, and the Accused answered "Frank". [J.C.] also asked for proof that he was a police officer, and the Accused replied that he was driving, and that he would show her in his office. The Accused asked [J.C.] what her nationality was, and [J.C.] replied that she was Filipino. 6. The Accused continued north on Highway 2 to Airdrie, Alberta. [J.C.] saw the "Welcome to Airdrie" sign on the Highway and asked why they were in Airdrie. The Accused replied that that was where his office was located. 7.

On the north side of Airdrie, the Accused turned off Highway 2 and headed eastbound onto Highway 567. At 7:17 p.m., an RCMP officer pulled the accused over for speeding approximately 3 kilometers east of Airdrie. After the Accused pulled over, and prior to the RCMP officer approaching the Accused's vehicle, the Accused ordered [J.C.] not to say anything. He further told her that if asked, she was to tell the police officer that someone had left her on the side of the road and that he (the Accused) was just taking her back to the Deerfoot Mall in Calgary. 8.

The RCMP officer approached the Accused's vehicle on the driver's side and conversed with the Accused through the open window. The officer noted that the Accused would not make eye contact with him, and asked the Accused whether they were on their way home. After a brief silence, the Accused mumbled that they had been doing a bit of shopping. [J.C.] was too scared to say anything. The Accused produced his drivers licence upon request of the RCMP officer, and the officer returned to his police cruiser with the licence and started writing out a speeding ticket to the Accused. 9.

While the RCMP officer was back in his vehicle writing the ticket, the Accused again told [J.C.] not to say anything to the police officer. [J.C.] was too frightened to disobey, so she stayed silent when the RCMP officer returned and gave the Accused his speeding ticket. 10. After receiving the ticket, the Accused resumed driving. He then promised [J.C.] that he was going to drop her off, and turned around and drove back into Airdrie. The Accused then asked [J.C.] whether she had any money. [J.C.] replied that she had $210, as she had been saving up since her birthday.

The Accused asked her if he could have some. [J.C.] replied okay, and asked how much he wanted. The Accused stated $100. [J.C.] mistakenly gave him $110, leaving her with $100 still in her possession 11. The Accused drove to a Petro Canada gas station located in Airdrie and purchased gas at 7:35 p.m. [J.C.], still frightened, stayed in the van while the Accused pumped the gas and went into the store to pay for it. 12. After paying for the gas, the Accused then drove to a nearby McDonald's restaurant in Airdrie and parked in the parking lot.

The Accused told [J.C.] that he wasn't a bad guy and that she shouldn't go with people she didn't know. He gave her back her cell phone and battery. He then kissed her on the left side of her mouth. [J.C.] then unlocked the door, opened it and ran into the McDonald's restaurant. 13. Once in the restaurant, [J.C.] approached two employees, and with tears in her eyes, told them what had happened to her. The employees allowed her to call her father, and then they called 911 at 7:45 p.m. 14. As a result of the ensuing police investigation, a Canada wide warrant was issued for the arrest of the Accused.

The Accused was ultimately arrested at approximately 6:10 p.m. on February 25, 2011, at the chicken farm were ( sic ) he was employed near Lindon, Alberta. Upon his arrest, the accused had on his person over $800 in cash. The accused later confessed to his employer that he had stolen that money from his employer's desk prior to his arrest on February 25, 2011, because he thought he might be "on the run" from the police and would need some money. [ 40 ] The judge said the following with regard to Mr. Dionne’s motive for kidnapping the girl:

52 It is important that Mr. Dionne be sentenced for what he did, and not for what he might have done. For whatever reason, Mr. Dionne released the young girl, and did not physically harm her. His conduct in kidnapping a child was egregious enough without speculating about what might have occurred. [ 41 ] Historically, Mr. Dionne denied that these offences were sexually motivated. He said on many occasions that they were a means to obtain money to fund his crack cocaine habit. Mr. Dionne’s explanation was questioned by many, including Mr.

DesRosiers, who said: In my 21 years working as a Forensic Psychologist, I have never seen a robbery committed this way. [ 42 ] As noted below, Dr. Neilson’s opinion is that the kidnapping was sexually motivated. Psychological and Psychiatric Assessments [ 43 ] The 2011 report of Dr. Kenneth Hashman, forensic psychiatrist, was prepared for the dangerous offender hearing in Alberta, pursuant to a Warrant of Remand under

section 752.1 of the Criminal Code . The report was entered as evidence at this hearing, with Mr. Dionne’s consent. It is important to emphasize that this report is a dated one, having been prepared 12 years ago. Dr. Hashman was not called as a witness to speak to his conclusions from 2011. In the conclusions and recommendations

section of his report, Dr. Hashman stated: Mr. Dionne presents with a diagnosis of sexual sadism . This is a sexual deviancy in which an individual presents with recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges or behaviours involving acts in which the psychological or physical suffering of the victim is sexually exciting to the person. Further the person has acted on these sexual urges with a non-consenting person or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty… …Further, a diagnosis of pedophilia cannot be ruled out given Mr.

Dionne's lack of full disclosure of his deviant arousal patterns, his prior history of an assault conviction in 2004 for entering a 10-year-old girl's bedroom and touching her below the waist without her consent and the lack of certainty in Mr. Dionne's intentions by kidnapping a 10-year-old girl and taking her to the countryside in the current offense before the court. Mr. Dionne presents with a chronic maladaptive pattern of functioning identified as a personality disorder, not otherwise specified (mixed personality with antisocial, paranoid and narcissistic features) .

That is to say, he presents with a long-standing pattern of a failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviour, deceitfulness, impulsivity and aggressiveness, a reckless disregard for safety of self or others, irresponsibility, a lack of remorse, pervasive distrust and suspiciousness of others, a grandiose sense of self importance, a sense of entitlement, interpersonal exploitation, lack of empathy and arrogant haughty behaviours or attitudes. Further, Mr.

Dionne exceeds the recommended cut off for a diagnosis of psychopathy with characteristics including high egocentricity, interpersonal manipulation, deceitful action, lack of empathy, lack of guilt and/or remorse and recurring socially deviant lifestyle and behaviour. Mr. Dionne presents with a borderline intellectual level of functioning which in combination with a lack of motivation has previously and will continue to serve as a significant impediment in his response to treatment interventions.

The above-noted multiplicity of concerns reveals an individual with significant characterological deficits, sexual deviation and limited cognitive functioning combined with the disinhibiting effects of crack cocaine resulting in impulsive, reckless and dangerous behaviour. Mr. Dionne's risk for sexual recidivism utilizing the Static-99R and SVR-20 reveals that he is at high risk of sexual recidivism subject to elevation if additional victims present in the future… …Since the late 1990s Mr.

Dionne's use of crack cocaine appears to have had a significant effect upon his social and occupational functioning and has been associated with recurrent conflict with the law. Mr. Dionne presents with a reported history of recurrent relationship dysfunction inclusive of domestic violence, threatening and harassing behaviour and manipulation for personal gain. His employment has been punctuated due to his long-standing substance abuse and repeated incarcerations due to conflict with the law.

Despite treatment received, he presents with minimal insight with respect to his substance dependence, sexual deviance and characterological deficits. His prognosis appears extremely guarded given the multiplicity of concerns, lack of response to multiple treatment efforts, limited ability to benefit from treatment given cognitive limitations, a lack of motivation and a history of prior supervision failure in the community. Mr.

Dionne presents with minimal insight and views his drug use as uncontrollable and unforeseeable which as previously noted has been associated with impulsive, reckless and dangerous behaviour. It is also significant to note that Mr. Dionne's offending behaviour has been predatory in nature in which he actively seeks out vulnerable victims and transports them to remote locations. …In considering my above-noted opinions, Mr. Dionne presents with a high risk for sexual recidivism regardless of further treatment interventions.

Given the multitude of concerns identified above in conjunction with issues related to institutionalization, limited insight, lack of motivation and prior supervision failures Mr. Dionne presents with formidable barriers to a successful reintegration to the community. I therefore have serious concerns that Mr.

Dionne's behaviour can be safely managed in the community without posing undue risk to the public, from a clinical perspective… [Emphasis in original] [ 44 ] There was also a report prepared by Deena Nessman, psychologist, dated August 17, 2011, and a psychosocial assessment prepared by Daphne Buffett, social worker, dated August 2, 2011. Ms. Nessman indicated that the results of the risk assessment instruments suggested that Mr. Dionne was at high risk for sexual recidivism. She further concluded that, “At this point this writer has serious concerns that Mr.

Dionne’s behaviour can be safely managed in the community without posing undue risk to the public, from a clinical perspective.” Ms. Buffett noted in her assessment that, given the uncertainty of Mr. Dionne’s sentencing (in 2011), her recommendations were intended to address his needs in either a custodial or community based setting, and included therapeutic intervention in a number of areas, substance abuse counselling, anger management, and zone restrictions regarding areas where children

are present, etc. She concluded by stating, “Given John’s documented challenges in abiding by court orders, it is further recommended that he be intensely monitored in the community if he is returned to same.” [ 45 ] Two reports of Michelle Manuel, psychologist, were put in evidence. Both reports were prepared when Mr. Dionne was incarcerated in Dorchester Penitentiary. The first report, dated November 26, 2014, indicates that it was prepared for Mr. Dionne’s “upcoming parole hearing.” While I have reviewed the entirety of the report, I will simply note the testing done and conclusions reported. Ms.

Manuel indicated in her report that the following risk assessment measures were “scored or re-scored”: Hare Psychological Checklist Revised (PCL-R, 2 nd ed.); Violent Risk Assessment Guide (VRAG); Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (LS/ CMI); Spousal Assault Risk Assessment Guide (SARA); Static-99R, and Stable-2007. [ 46 ] Ms. Manuel concluded that the PCL-R current results suggested that Mr. Dionne did not meet the criteria for psychopathy.

She stated, “Though his results reveal that he shares several of the interpersonal, affective, behavioural and lifestyle traits associated with psychopathy, his score fell below the diagnostic cut-off.” She noted that his score at the 67 th percentile was associated with a risk level for recidivism in the low end of the high range. She noted that her variation in score from Dr. Hashman may be a “reflection of differences in interview impressions, improvements in self management, and/ or in professional opinions.” Ms.

Manuel set out the results of the other testing and then stated: Mr Dionne’s combined (static and dynamic) risk for sexual recidivism currently falls into the VERY HIGH range, following release to the community. Of note, this is not an absolute risk category, but rather a comparative result. In other words, Mr. Dionne is considered to be a very high risk sex offender in comparison to other sex offenders. Evidently, this represents a change in his risk category in comparison to prior assessments that concluded that his risk for sexual recidivism was in the high range.

This change in risk category is not reflective of a change on the part of the offender or an elevation in risk assessment scoring. Instead, this change is due to modifications of the

interpretation guidelines of the Static-99 and Stable-2007 that currently suggest that offenders who score high on both static and dynamic risk shall be assigned an overall risk rating in the very high category. .. Conclusions and Recommendations Mr. Dionne appears to be taking steps toward rehabilitation. He is adhering to his correctional plan, participating in SOP programming and attending school as required. He seems to be generally using appropriate self-management skills in his day to day routine in a structured, controlled environment.

Overall he seems to be displaying positive attitudes and behaviours in the institution. He has not been showing signs of acute distress in a structured environment and it appears that substance abuse is under control. However, Mr. Dionne remains in the early stages of rehabilitation and skill development. He has yet to complete correctional programming and needs to work on increasing insight and self-management skills. More interventional work is still required at the cognitive and behavioural levels.

Though he is performing well institutionally, there is insufficient evidence to date to suggest that he will be able to manage his risk in the community more effectively than in the past. He will likely continue to face many struggles in forming and maintaining a prosocial, healthy lifestyle, as his history strongly suggests. The prognosis for successful reintegration is poor at this time. Prior to release, Mr.

Dionne will need to make notable treatment gains through programming and demonstrate effective self-management and appropriate behaviours over an extended period of time and across situations, namely in his key areas (i.e., emotions management, stress tolerance, interpersonal skills and sexual self-regulation). … Intimate /casual relationships with women should be avoided in the short and intermediate term until he is fully stable in the community after significant period of time. If he decides to enter into a relationship, he should proceed with great caution.

His CMT should be made fully aware of his relationships in order to assess and monitor their appropriateness in terms of risk management. Mr. Dionne should not have contact with children, especially females, without appropriate/approved supervision. [ 47 ] Ms. Manuel’s second report, dated September 7, 2016, notes that Mr. Dionne’s referral is for an assessment update for the purposes of his upcoming parole and detention hearings with the PBC. The report purports to be an update to the November 2014 report. With regard to the risk assessment measures, Ms.

Manuel noted there were no significant changes in the case which would alter the 2014 results, and that she considered those results current for the purpose of the assessment. She further noted that, despite some treatment gains in programming and some improvements in interview presentation, Mr. Dionne’s risk had not been significantly reduced. She attributed this largely to the heavy weight given to the historical information on the risk assessment measures. She indicated that a reduction in risk was unforeseeable in the short or intermediate term while Mr. Dionne is observed in a controlled environment.

In her conclusions and recommendations, she noted as follows: Mr. Dionne appears to be taking some initial steps toward rehabilitation. He has completed SOP programming and appears to have made some treatment gains with regards to insight and skill acquisition. His substance abuse issues appear to be under control and he seems to be functioning relatively well in an institutional setting. Improvements in his behaviours in an institutional setting are certainly encouraging. However, without discounting these recent improvements, progress has been fairly limited and his application of skills has been inconsistent.

He seems to be at an early juncture of skill development and will require additional intervention and considerable more practice to self monitor emotions and thoughts, and use effective self-management strategies, prior to his return to the community. Mr. Dionne remains prone to negative thinking patterns and to mismanage his emotions, which could prompt him to make poor decisions under conditions of acute stress, intoxication or when feeling challenged or offended.

He will likely continue to face many struggles in his reintegration efforts and in resisting temptations to use drugs as a way of coping with negative emotions. Overall, there is limited evidence at this point that he will be able to manage his risk in the community more effectively than in the past. His risk prognosis in the community is not favourable at this time.

Additional interventional work is therefore recommended for Mr. Dionne at the cognitive, attitudinal and behavioural levels. He should especially work on increasing distress tolerance, avoid conflicts, problem-solving, controlling emotional impulses, relationship deficits and build in his self-esteem. Mr. Dionne will need to demonstrate effective self-management and appropriate behaviours over an extended period of time and across situations. Mr.

Dionne may therefore benefit from additional SOP maintenance sessions in the institution. [ 48 ] The report of Marc DesRosiers, dated December 6, 2018, was in evidence before the court. Since 2002, Mr. DesRosiers has worked for CSC as a psychologist providing psychological services within the prison system, including psychological assessment and risk management, crisis intervention therapeutic intervention, and evaluation and measurement of treatment outcome. He has worked with nurses, CSC staff, and psychiatrists within a multidisciplinary team. Mr.

DesRosiers prepares more than 40 risk assessments per year of violent and/or sexual offenders. Mr. DesRosiers was qualified, without objection by the defence, to provide opinion evidence in the area of psychology, including, but not limited to, the practice of psychology; the diagnosis, assessment, and treatment of mental disorders; the diagnosis and classification of violent sexual offenders; the assessment of risk for future violence or recidivism for violent and sexual offenders; and the treatment of violent and sexual offenders. [ 49 ] In his 2018 report, Mr. DesRosiers noted that Mr.

Dionne refused to participate in the psychological risk assessment: Prior to the beginning of the updated assessment on 2018-12-03, Mr. John F. Dionne, was advised of the purpose of the assessment, the evaluation process, the limits of confidentiality and the potential use of the report with regard to his case planning. Mr. Dionne indicated that he understood. He asked questions regarding the assessment and explained that he has no support from his case management team (CMT) for release. He was also informed that the risk for sexual and violence will remain unchanged from the last psychological risk assessment.

Mr. Dionne stated that he is not interested in participating in the psychological risk assessment; he does not see the point. He signed the consent form indicating that he refused to take

part in the updated psychological risk assessment and to refuse the service. He also indicated verbally that he doesn’t want to read or receive a copy of the assessment… (page 1) [ 50 ] Mr. DesRosiers stated that his report was based on information available in Mr. Dionne’s files. In relation to prior testing, he said: The writer reviewed the testing and instruments used to assess Mr. Dionne’s risk over the years. Due to the fact, I could not interview Mr.

Dionne and my colleagues had the opportunity to ask questions to score the items used to assess the risk for violence and sexual violence; I am of the opinion that the former psychological risk assessments, opinions and conclusions are still valid today. Psychological risk for violence and sexual violence are assessed for when the offender is released in the community independent of the time he spent in the institution. The dynamic factors like age at release, physical health, and mental health, does not change the final score significantly over the years.

It is at the psychologists discretion, when life circumstances occur (physical and/or mental disabilities/impairments), to reduce the risk or not. I reviewed Mr. Dionne’s file and saw that he assaulted another offender and used THC just before or after he completed the 2016 psychological risk assessment. I saw no changes in his case that would change any of the results on our instruments. I would say that the new information would raise the risk for violence, sexual violence and not to reduce the risk. I agree with Dr.

Kenneth Hashman, psychiatrist, that interventions and treatment doesn’t appear to reduce the risk of violence. He has completed numerous programs and maintenance programs over the years (see the national maintenance sex offender program dated 2008-03-25). Last year, in 2017, he assaulted another offender that required medical treatment for his injuries… Statistically, the risk of violence and sexual violence remains unchanged. Note the recidivism estimates provided are group estimates based upon re-convictions and were derived from groups of individuals with these characteristics.

As such, these estimates do not directly correspond to the recidivism risk of an individual offender. The offender’s risk may be higher or lower than the probabilities estimated depending on other risk factors not measured by the instruments… (pages 4 and 5) [ 51 ] Mr. DesRosiers also commented on Mr. Dionne’s responsiveness to treatment and programs : At the present time, Mr. Dionne did not present to the writer any plans for gradual release. He stated that he will be released on his Warrant Expiry Date (WED) on 2020-02-24. He doesn’t plan to be released earlier.

I cannot formulate any recommendations to the Parole Board of Canada (PBC) for possible release into the community if Mr. Dionne doesn’t have any plan and doesn’t want to be interviewed. I’m of the opinion that Mr. Dionne is and will remain unresponsive to treatment and programs. His file history speaks for itself. (page 6) [ 52 ] Mr. DesRosiers testified that, due to Mr. Dionne’s decision not to participate, his assessment was based on prior reports and file materials. He had access to all of Mr.

Dionne’s files except his SIO file, which consists of information provided by other offenders and is therefore not useful to the assessment. He said he relied on the prior diagnosis because he would not diagnose without an interview. He said Mr. Dionne falls into the category of offenders who are both violent and sexually violent. He noted that his report contains a typographical error at page six of seven, and should say that his opinion is that Mr. Dionne cannot be safely managed in the community. He indicated that it was his view that Mr. Dionne could not be controlled without conditions.

His opinion was that the only way to control him in the community would be to attach a police officer to him to provide 24/7 supervision. [ 53 ] Mr. DesRosiers expressed concern about breach of conditions in 2020, saying that it was clear that Mr. Dionne was in a relationship with someone who had children. He indicated that in the transcript of the telephone discussions from CNSCF between Mr. Dionne and this woman, Mr. Dionne appeared to demand loyalty, that she not cheat on him, and that she visit his parents, etc. Mr. DesRosiers said these behaviours were demanding and controlling, and played into Mr.

Dionne’s risk. He was also concerned about Mr. Dionne assaulting two individuals in prison. He indicated that, based on the information he has reviewed related to Mr. Dionne’s conduct since 2018, he sees no change in his previous conclusion that the risk presented by Mr. Dionne is high.

[ 54 ] Mr. DesRosiers commented that aging will result in a lower static 99 score. He testified, however, that the aging comment in his 2018 report, at page four of seven, was intended to indicate that older individuals often develop physical limitations which make reoffending more difficult. When asked about the impact of intoxicants on Mr. Dionne’s risk, Mr. DesRosiers commented that Mr. Dionne was not intoxicated when he assaulted the two offenders in prison, nor did it appear to the police officer who stopped him that he was impaired when he kidnapped the young girl in 2011. Mr.

DesRosiers also commented that Mr. Dionne’s history includes the commission of both impulsive and planned offences. The manner in which he approached the young girl at the mall was not impulsive; he was looking for a victim. If he had been acting impulsively, he would have simply taken her purse and ran. [ 55 ] At the end of his testimony, Mr. DesRosiers specifically addressed Mr. Dionne, telling him that it is important for him to change himself and to do better, and that Mr. DesRosiers thinks Mr. Dionne has the capacity to do so, if he wants. [ 56 ] Dr.

Grainne Neilson’s report, dated July 12, 2021, was entered and she was qualified, without objection, to give opinion evidence in the area of psychiatry, including, but not limited to, the practice of forensic psychiatry; the diagnosis, assessment and treatment of mental disorders; the diagnosis and classification of violent offenders and sexual offenders; the assessment of risk for future violence or recidivism for violent offenders and sexual offenders; and the treatment for violent offenders and sexual offenders. Dr. Neilson obtained her medical degree in 1985, followed by a specialist designation in 2003.

Since 2004, she has worked full time in the field of psychiatry at the East Coast Forensic Psychiatric Hospital. She also works part-time as a contract psychiatrist with CSC’s Community Mental Health Initiative. She is also an assistant professor of psychiatry at the faculty of medicine at Dalhousie University. [ 57 ] In her report, Dr. Neilson stated that she interviewed Mr. Dionne on 10 occasions, for a total of approximately 20 hours. The meetings were held virtually, by video, due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Dr. Neilson also interviewed two of Mr. Dionne’s sisters, along with his friends, Mr.

Dennis Wickersham and Mr. Peter Cote. She spoke to his parole supervisor while at the Jamieson CCC, Mr. Anthony Thomas, and reviewed the binders of information entered as exhibits at the hearing. [ 58 ] Dr. Neilson’s report is divided into several sections. In

Part I, she reviewed Mr. Dionne’s background history, including his family background and upbringing, adult adjustment, education, vocational history, mental health history, substance use history, relationship and sexual history, medical history, and psychological testing. In

Part II, Dr. Neilson addressed Mr. Dionne’s antisocial and violence history, his correctional adjustment/institutional behaviour/treatment program/community supervision, and his clinical presentation during the assessment. Dr. Neilson then set out the results of prior risk assessments and her current violence risk reassessment. [ 59 ] Dr. Neilson’s assessment is based on actuarial and clinical factors.

Her report contains an overview of her findings relating to the following risk assessment instruments: Violence Risk Assessment Guide-Revised (VRAG-R); Static 99R; Sexual Violence Risk (SVR 20 v2); and the Spousal Assault Risk Assessment Guide (SARA-v3). In the last part of the report, Dr. Neilson addressed the nature of future violence risk; the magnitude of the risk that Mr. Dionne poses for generalized violence, sexual violence and intimate partner violence; risk management strategies required to manage Mr. Dionne’s risk; and prognosis, in terms of whether there is a reasonable expectation that Mr.

Dionne’s risk can be managed in the community. I have set out below in detail her comments in these areas: 1. Nature of future violence risk: Past violent history is one of the strongest and most often cited predictors of future violent recidivism. A consistent pattern of violent behaviour throughout an offender's life is linked to the increased likelihood, frequency, and severity of future violence. In general, prior violent offending of one type is generally found to have positive predictive value for future offending of that type.

The more extensive an individual's criminal history (i.e., greater number of prior arrests and convictions) the greater their potential for future acts of violence. A pattern of escalating violence (i.e. criminal acts that increase in severity/frequency/density) is associated with all facets of risk, that is, the nature, likelihood, frequency, severity, and imminence of future violence. Mr. Dionne's violent behavior is highly diverse/versatile/multifaceted. There are three general types of violence perpetrated by Mr.

Dionne: general violence toward persons and property, sexual violence, and intimate partner violence. These are addressed in turn: The circumstances of the 'general' violence has been variable. Mr. Dionne has assaulted a wide range of victims starting at age 18 and persisting well into adulthood (last recorded incident was age 49, while incarcerated). Victims have been male and female; ranging in age; and have been acquaintances and strangers.

Mostly these incidents appear to be reactive in nature (emotion driven), in response to some perceived psychological insult, mediated by the use of intoxicants and angry emotional state. Within the realm of sexual violence , Mr. Dionne appears to have two clinical patterns: • He has been convicted of sexual assault against an adult sex trade worker. Other charges against sex trade workers included sexual assault /kidnapping/forcible confinement which were stayed. He has typically taken his victims to remote locations, increasing their vulnerability. These offences occurred in the context of cocaine use, which Mr.

Dionne acknowledged increased his sexual drive. An element of sexual sadism appears relevant in these assaults, although another motivation could also be the desire to discharge vengeful hostility and assert power against easily accessible, vulnerable victims who he devalued and disrespected. These offences appear more planned/instrumental. • He has also been convicted of sexual assault against a 16-year-old female acquaintance. He was charged with sexual interference of a 10-year-old female acquaintance which was pled down to assault, and the kidnapping of a 10-year-old female stranger.

In my clinical opinion both of those offences were likely sexually motivated, despite Mr. Dionne's denials of same. These assault appear to reflect pedophilic sexual attraction and were all associated with substance use (alcohol or cocaine). These offences seem more impulsive/opportunistic. With regard to intimate partner violence, Mr. Dionne has demonstrated sexual and physical aggression in most domestic relationships he has been in, although he has only been convicted of assault in relation to his relationship with his wife during their marriage when he was in his 20's.

However, subsequent domestic partnerships have been characterized by emotional volatility and physical/sexual aggression. Mr. Dionne tends to choose intimate partners who are physically diminutive, or who are vulnerable in some other way (single mothers,

addiction/personal issues). Intimate partner violence is different from violent crime perpetrated against strangers. The nature of the relationship between perpetrator and victim in intimate partner violence means that the violence is often more frequent and more serious. The greater frequency reflects opportunity and access; the greater severity reflects the fact that intimate partner violence typically occurs in the context of strong emotional attachment. Strong emotions can lead to reactive (ie impulsive or disinhibited) violence, with severe physical harm to the victim.

But even interpersonal violence that results in little or no physical harm can have severe psychological consequences as the victim may experience a profound loss of a sense of security and safety. Overall, Mr. Donne's expected future pattern of violent behaviour is one that would involve physical or sexual aggression and either calculated planning or impulsive behavioural dyscontrol, (or more typically a combination of both).

It would be directed at victims who are vulnerable or who he feels the need to control, degrade, or demonstrate power over (hence intimate female relationships are at particularly high risk). The risk of such behaviour seems to markedly escalate in situations in which he is subject to unmanageable life stress, when he experiences negative emotions (rejection, humiliation, shame), when he incurs relationship stress, engages in substance abuse, experiences sexual frustration, or reverts to a criminal lifestyle.

In my opinion, based on his history there is a substantial risk that future violence will involve serious physical and/or psychological harm. 2. Magnitude of the risk that Mr. Dionne poses for generalized violence, sexual violence, and intimate partner violence In arriving at a professional judgment concerning Mr. Dionne's risk of violent recidivism I have considered several risk assessment instruments that weigh both static and dynamic factors for the risk of future violence, and relevant case​specific factors. The actuarial risk assessment tools I have employed demonstrate at least moderate predictive accuracy.

The structured professional judgement tools have allowed the consideration of some of the dynamic risk to help to identify currently unmanaged risk factors and to identify potential treatment targets. The risk instruments converge in their results that Mr. Dionne's overall risk of violence over the long term (which includes general violence, sexual violence, and intimate partner violence) is in the very high or 'well above average' range. He is at particular risk of sexual and intimate partner violence, although he is also at risk of general violence against persons and property. With Mr.

Dionne's history it is easily seen that he represents a serious and alarming risk for violence. 3. Imminence of risk Poorly controlled dynamic risk variables provide some insight into the 'warning signs' that might signal that risk is increasing and becoming imminent. The more unmanaged dynamic risk factors, the more imminent the risk. Presently, Mr. Dionne has several outstanding dynamic risk factors that indicate that his current risk is poorly managed, as noted in the SVR-20 v 2 and the SARA v3.

These include things such as problems related to treatment interventions and supervision, relationship problems, problems with stress and coping, pro-offending attitudes/orientation, sexual preoccupation, and distorted thinking around violent behaviour, and poor insight into risk factors for violence. A highly salient dynamic risk factor (return to the use of substances, particularly cocaine and alcohol) is not currently in evidence. It is notable that during Mr.

Dionne's recent period of LTSO supervision, although he did not re-offend in a violent manner, he appeared to be engaging in high risk-related behaviours which were likely the precursors to violent offending (viz., problems with stress and coping, resistance to supervision, embarking on a relationship with a vulnerable woman with children, use of pornography). His insight into his risk for violence remains poor. It is also worth examining Mr. Dionne's past rate of re-offending. Mr.

Dionne has a tendency to get into conflict with the law (charges/commission of a parole violation) only a few months following his release into the community (for example: his 2006 parole violation occurred approximately 2 months after his statutory release; in 2008 he was charged with a serious sexual assault only 4 months after his release from his first period of federal custody; the 2011 offenses occurred about six months after his release from a period of provincial remand; and he was arrested for the current offenses approximately five months into his LTSO supervision after his release from his second period of federal custody on his warrant expiry date).

Thus, Mr. Dionne appears to be an individual who can 'hold it together' for brief periods of time, but whose behavior reverts to his usual antisocial pattern when supervision is relaxed to any appreciable degree. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that in future, absent highly structured and prolonged external controls that fully manage Mr. Dionne's dynamic risk factors, his risk of re-offence would be reasonably imminent. 4. Risk management strategies that are required to manage Mr.

Dionne's risk From a clinical perspective, risk management strategies related to violence risk may be divided into four general categories: treatment, monitoring, supervision, and victim safety planning.

a) Treatment: Treatment involves the provision of rehabilitation or re-integration services, including specific strategies such as pharmacological and psychotherapeutic treatment for mental health or substance use problems, educational and vocational program etc. The goal of treatment is to improve deficits in the offender's psychosocial adjustment and functioning. In trying to identify offenders who would be good candidates for future treatment ( sic ) is often helpful to look at their response to previous treatment.

This often provides an indication of the individual's treatment responsiveness/degree of motivation for change. That said, some individuals may demonstrate failure to benefit from treatment early in their incarceration(s), only to fully engage in treatment later.

In Mr. Dionne's case, the evidence is mixed. As noted in the sections above, he participated in various institutional programs and refused others when he perceived that there would be little direct benefit to him (i.e. a change to his release date/conditions). He made limited gains in the High Intensity Sex Offender Treatment Program and the Institutional Maintenance Sex Offender Program. He is said to have done somewhat better in the High Intensity Family Violence program.

He participated in individual Community Maintenance Sex Offender Programming during his most recent LTSO release and regressed as he was clearly not being honest with the program facilitators about his activities. Based on his past program performance, the prognosis for significant improvement with any future programming remains guarded. Nevertheless, some CSC cognitive behavioural programs that he has previously taken could be repeated (eg high intensity sexual offender program; violent offender programs; family violence programs) as his gains were not robust or have dissipated with the passage of time.

Programs aimed at reducing his antisocial attitudes and behaviours and enhancing his moral and emotional reasoning may also be beneficial. Individual counseling, and attention to his psychological issues (eg low self-esteem, proneness to negative emotional states, antisocial attitudes and values) may be beneficial. Treatments should aim to improve his life skills and social skills to assist him with coping with high risk situations. With regard to specific treatment for sexual deviance, Mr.

Dionne's consent would be required for PPG testing, and if indicated, pharmacologic anti-arousal treatment, or pharmacologic treatments aimed at reducing his impulsivity and aggressiveness. Anti-arousal medication treatments are associated with reduced rates of sexually violent recidivism in offenders who have deviant sexual arousal, high sex drive/sexual preoccupation, and recurrent sexual acting out behaviours. Not all offenders who sexually assault other adults or children necessarily suffer from a sexual deviance. Some commit these acts out of a broadly antisocial or psychopathic personality or lifestyle.

In Mr. Dionne's case, deviant sexual preference may not be the sole driver of Mr. Dionne's sexual offense behavior as noted by reported feelings of anger towards women present during some of the offenses. … Motivation is key to sustaining effort through treatment programs and the ongoing rehabilitative process. … It is difficult to determine the genuineness of Mr. Dionne's current motivation. His past motivation for treatment has been mixed: there have been times when despite some initial reticence, he has eventually participated well.

At other times his motivation has been lacking, especially when there is no tangible benefit to him (eg achieving parole). That said, he did attend community maintenance programs when he was released during his LTSO. Ideally, the motivation for change in an offender who is embarking on rehabilitative programs should be heartfelt and internally driven. At this time, I believe his primary motivation for attending programming is to fulfill requirements of his parole, not to learn how to desist from violent offending (because fundamentally he does not perceive himself as a dangerous individual).

The research literature indicates that individuals high in psychopathic traits exhibit a poor response to treatment with a greater likelihood of refusing treatment out right or dropping out of treatment. In this case Mr. Dionne has psychopathy, so this would suggest a negative prognosis on its own. Overall, there is significant reason to be concerned about Mr.

Dionne's capacity to benefit from future treatment, given his limited benefit from prior program participation (that was specifically aimed at managing his risk of relationship violence and sexual recidivism), his continued limited insight into the nature of his difficulties, his demonstrated inability to translate the limited gains he made from that programming to 'real life' situations, as well as the presence of psychopathy.

b) Monitoring/Surveillance The goal of monitoring is to evaluate changes in risk over time so that risk management strategies can be revised over time. Monitoring involves surveillance or repeated assessment, rather than control or restriction of liberties and may include contacts with the offender, as well as potential victims and other relevant people (eg therapists, family members, associates, co-workers, employers).

It should include both office and field visits (eg at work), and could also include undercover surveillance by a law enforcement unit, inspection of mail/telecommunications, and urine drug screens etc. The kind and frequency of contacts required is determined by their dynamically assessed risk levels. All these measures were in place for Mr. Dionne during his LTSO release, and were in my opinion, appropriate to his dynamic risk. However, I am not an expert in monitoring and surveillance techniques, so am not aware of what further measures could have been taken to monitor Mr. Dionne in the community.

Absent significant improvements in Mr. Dionne's performance in treatment programs, very close monitoring and surveillance will be required on any future release into the community and over a prolonged period to ensure that Mr. Dionne's dynamic risk is appropriately managed. The specific content of a detailed risk management plan is the purview of the Correctional Services of Canada and will depend on his progress during the intervening time, professional resources available to him and to his parole supervisors in the community at the time.

The degree to which Correctional Service of Canada could provide the necessary long-term monitoring and surveillance upon any eventual release is unknown to me.

c) Supervision/Control The research supports that appropriate supervision addressing risk factors associated with violent and sexually violent recidivism clearly results in reduced recidivism. Supervision involves restriction of the offender's freedoms to make it (more) difficult for him to engage in further violence. Incapacitation (ie incarceration) is an extreme form of supervision. Although incapacitation is an effective means of reducing an offender's access to potential victims, it is by no means perfectly effective as the person may commit violence while institutionalized (as Mr. Dionne has done).

Furthermore, it is expensive, and it may promote the further development of antisocial attitudes by increasing

contact with antisocial peers and by creating a sense of powerlessness and frustration. However, community supervision is only appropriate if can be anticipated that the restrictions on activity, movement, associations, and communications are indeed followed. To determine whether Mr. Dionne might respond to community supervision in the future it is useful to examine how he has responded to past community supervision. Mr. Dionne's community supervision record is generally poor as discussed in the

section entitled "Community supervision" (page 36). Examining Mr. Dionne's most recent period of LTSO supervision it was clear that Mr. Dionne fundamentally did not perceive himself to be a high risk to re-offend and thus substituted his own judgment for that of his parole supervisors and deliberately placed himself in high-risk situations, failing to heed the conditions of supervision or take them seriously. He consistently demonstrated a resistance to supervision by testing known risk factors, failing to disclose high risk situations, and breaking the conditions of supervision.

Supervising psychopathic people has formidable problems. They evince considerable self-righteousness, they are difficult to engage in Correctional Plans, and are manipulative of 'the system' and the people who work in it. Most often, attempts to compel compliance inflame the psychopath's sense of being victimized, and attempts to provide a corrective experience are limited by dishonesty in communication or trivialization of the correction. These all represent significant challenges in Mr. Dionne's case. At the present time Mr.

Dionne says he intends to cooperate with supervision on any future release, but given the circumstances, this is not surprising. Like treatment participation, stated positive intentions are irrelevant in terms of violence risk prediction. However, an expression of refusal to comply with supervision has been shown to be related to negative outcome and increased recidivism in antisocial individuals. Mr.

Dionne did not express an intention to outright refuse to comply with supervision in the future, but it is likely that after a possible honeymoon period of good behavior, his previously demonstrated defiance of supervision will continue. This does not bode well. … d)Victim safety planning Victim safety planning i

[…]