R v Kent, 2023 ABKB 634

Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Citation: R v Kent, 2023 ABKB 634 Date: 20231101 Docket: 181159393Q1 Registry: Edmonton Between: His Majesty the King Crown - and - Jeffrey Paul Kent Offender Restriction on Publication Identification Ban – See the Criminal Code ,

section 486.5 . By Court Order:

(1) Information that could identify the victim shall not be published, broadcast, or transmitted in any way.

(2) No person shall publish, broadcast, or transmit in any way the contents of the publication ban application or the evidence, information or submissions at the hearing of the application. NOTE: Identifying information has been removed from this judgment to comply with the ban so that it may be published. _______________________________________________________ Reasons for Decision of the Honourable Justice M. Hayes-Richards _______________________________________________________ The following is a written version of an oral decision delivered on November 1, 2023. This written version is provided for readier

accessibility; the oral decision remains the official judgement of the Court. The written Assessment Order was signed by the Court on November 2, 2023. I. Introduction [ 1 ] Paul Jeffrey Kent (Offender) entered guilty pleas to five counts of Fraud contrary to s 380(1)(

A) of the Criminal Code of Canada , RSC 1985, c C-46 ( Criminal Code ). The Crown is seeking an assessment order pursuant to s 752.1 of the Criminal Code remanding the Offender for an assessment to determine if he might be found to be a dangerous or long-term offender pursuant to ss 753 and 753.1 of the Criminal Code ( Assessment Order ). The Offender opposes the Assessment Order . [ 2 ] The Assessment Order is granted. II. Statutory and Legal Framework [ 3 ]

Section 752.1 of the Criminal Code mandates that an Assessment Order be made if the Court has reasonable grounds to believe the following: A. That the offender has been convicted of an enumerated or “serious personal injury” offence; and B. That the offender might be found to be a dangerous or long-term offender. [ 4 ] Pursuant to s 753 of the Criminal Code , an offender shall be found to be a dangerous offender (DO) if the Court finds the following: A. The predicate offence is a “serious personal injury” offence; B. The offender constitutes a threat to the life, safety, or physical or mental well-being of other persons on the basis of evidence establishing: (

i) A pattern of repetitive behaviour (of which the predicate offence forms a part); (ii) A failure to restrain his behaviour; (iii) A likelihood of the offender causing death, injury to, or inflicting severe psychological damage on other persons through a failure to restrain his behaviour. [ 5 ] “Serious personal injury offence” is defined in s 752 of the Criminal Code as an indictable offence where violence or attempted violence was used against another person or conduct that would endanger or likely endanger the life or safety of another person or inflict or likely inflict severe psychological damage on another person. [ 6 ] Pursuant to s 753.1 of the Criminal Code , an offender shall be found to be a long-term offender (LTO) if the Court finds the following: A.

A sentence of two years or more for the predicate offence would be appropriate; B. A “substantial risk” of the offender reoffending; C.

A reasonable possibility of eventual control of the risk in the community. [ 7 ] “Substantial risk” is defined in s 753.1(2) of the Criminal Code as a risk to reoffend based on a pattern of repetitive behaviour, a failure to restrain that behaviour, and a likelihood of the behaviour causing death or injury to or inflicting severe psychological damage on another person. [ 8 ] The Crown has the burden of proof in an application pursuant to s 753.1 of the Criminal Code : R v Armstrong , 2014 BCCA 174 [ Armstrong ] at para 27 .

However, the Crown is only required to prove that there exist reasonable grounds to believe that the offender might be found a DO or LTO. The Crown is not required to prove that the offender will probably or likely be found a DO or LTO. In other words, the Crown must show that it is within the realm of possibility that the offender would be found to be a DO or LTO: R v Fulton , 2006 SKCA 115 at para 21 . III. Analysis [ 9 ] The parties agree that I must consider the following criteria in determining whether to make the Assessment Order : A.

Are the offences for which the Offender entered guilty pleas “serious personal injury” offences? (required for either designation)

B. Has the Offender demonstrated a pattern of repetitive behaviour that is consistent with the offences for which the Offender entered guilty pleas? (required for either designation) C. Has the Offender shown a failure to restrain that repetitive behaviour? (required for either designation) D. Does that repetitive behaviour pose a likely risk of severe psychological damage to other persons? (required for either designation) E. Is a sentence of 2 years or more appropriate for the predicate offences (required for LTO designation but conceded by the Offender so will not be separately addressed) A.

Serious Personal Injury Offence 1) The Parties’ Positions [ 10 ] The Crown argues that the offences for which the Offender pleaded guilty constitute serious personal injury offences because the victims suffered severe psychological damage as a result of the Offender’s offending behaviour. The Crown argues that given the nature of the offences, the entire relationship between the Offender and each victim must be examined to assess whether severe psychological damage has been caused by the Offender’s offending behaviour.

The Crown relies on jurisprudence, evidence from the victims of the index offences, information from the Offender contained in the exhibits, and common sense to show that the Offender caused severe psychological damage to the victims through his offending behaviour. [ 11 ] The Offender submits that the frauds committed by him cannot be found to be serious personal injury offences. He argues that the Court must look at the elements of the offence to see whether the frauds themselves led to the harm suffered by the victims.

The Offender submits that there must be a causal connection between the elements of the offence and the harm done. Fraud does not have a scale of harm statutorily built into the offence like offences related to assault or criminal driving. The only statutory scale in relation to fraud is the value of the property. As such, the Court cannot find that the Offender’s fraudulent behaviour caused severe psychological damage to the victims.

Rather, the damage caused to the victims was economical, which does not meet the definition of a serious personal injury offence. [ 12 ] Further, the Offender argues that the Court has not been provided with a manner in which it can quantify the psychological harm caused to the victims. The Offender submits that since psychological harm can only be legally inferred in sexual assault cases, the Court cannot legally infer psychological harm in this case without some form of evidence that evaluates the subjective harm as described by the victims.

Further, the psychological harm must also be objectively reasonable for the Court to make the Assessment Order . The Offender submits that the Crown has not tendered any evidence that addresses the manner in which the victim’s subjective harm can be quantified, nor has it tendered any evidence of the objective reasonableness of the harm as described by the victims. As such, the Crown has not met its burden. 2) The Law [ 13 ]

Section 752 (a)(ii) of the Criminal Code includes as a serious personal injury offence conduct endangering or likely to endanger the life or safety of another person or inflicting or likely to inflict severe psychological damage on another person. This definition covers a very expansive range of dangerous behaviour: R v Lebar , 2010 ONCA 220 at para 49 . As long as the offence is an indictable offence with a maximum sentence of 10 years imprisonment or more, no type of offence is excluded from being categorized as a serious personal injury offence.

The Court must review both the elements of the offence and the factual circumstances in which the offence was committed to determine whether an offence constitutes a serious personal injury offence: R v Steele , 2014 SCC 61 [ Steele ] at para 22 . [ 14 ]

Section 752 (a)(ii) of the Criminal Code relates solely to the effects of the conduct and will include offences involving negligence on the basis that they caused one of the effects in question: Steele at para 58 . The Court is not required to undertake a further objective assessment of the conduct of the offender: R v Cook , 2020 ONCA 809 at para 19 [ Cook ]; see also Steele at paras 27 and 39 , where the Supreme Court held that it would be wrong to read in an objective minimum level of violence into the words “use or attempted use of violence” in s 752(a)(

i) of the Criminal Code . When applying s 752(a)(ii) of the Criminal Code , the Court must focus on the impact or potential impact of the offender’s behaviour: Cook at para 19 . [ 15 ] Severe psychological damage is more than serious psychological harm and requires at a minimum a substantial interference with the victim’s physical or psychological integrity, health, or well-being: R v Tremblay , 2010 ONSC 486 (CJ) [ Tremblay ] at para 76 . The psychological impact on a victim depends on both the conduct of the offender and on the specific characteristics of the victim: Tremblay at para 82.

While fear alone is insufficient to meet the definition of severe psychological damage, the definition does not require that a victim be debilitated or crippled by fear or terror.

It is sufficient that the victim suffers serious and prolonged effects that significantly affect the victim’s day-to-day activities: Armstrong at para 53 . [ 16 ] If the Court finds that an offender’s conduct was well beyond trivial and substantially interfered with the victim’s psychological integrity, health, or well-being, the Court’s analysis will be sufficient to meet the statutory requirements of s 752(a)(ii) of the Criminal Code : Cook at para 21 . [ 17 ] A “likelihood” as contemplated in s 752(a)(ii) is less than “more probable than not”: R v Warren , [2018] OJ No 2040 (SC) at para 69 . 3) Application [ 18 ] I accept that economic loss is an essential element of the offence of fraud, and economic loss does not automatically constitute

a serious personal injury offence. However, when I look at the factual circumstances of the case before me, which involve frauds premised on a romantic personal relationship with the victims, I find the impact of the Offender’s behaviour on the victims does meet the definition of serious personal injury offence. [ 19 ] The Crown has provided several authorities where Courts have found romance frauds to have resulted in psychological harm to the victims that goes deeper and further than economic loss.

In R v Rosenberg , 2016 ONCJ 869 , the Court found that one of the victims suffered “the most devastating loss” and “[t]he experience with [the offender] left her disheartened with a loss of trust”: para 10. In R v Rosenberg , 2013 ONCJ 670 , the Court found that the victim described “deep psychological injury that is...often overlooked when the Courts consider sentencing in so-called ‘property offences’” and the damage done by the offences “goes deeper and further than mere dollars and cents”: at para 17.

In R v Devries , 2004 BCPC 252 the victims of the offender’s frauds described sleepless nights, deteriorating relationships with friends and family, stress, fear, anxiety, racing heart, shaking and sweaty hands, fearful thoughts, fear in trusting people, lower self-esteem, shame, self-doubt, weight loss, fear of dating, of going outside and of walking to their car, requiring antidepressants, and feeling like a criminal: paras 33 – 35.

In R v Rootenberg , 2020 ONSC 3928 , the victim described excruciating and disabling depression and anxiety, shame, and embarrassment that resulted from the offender’s frauds: paras 27 – 28. [ 20 ] In this case, I agree with the Crown that the entire relationship between the Offender and the victims must be examined. The Offender would not have had access to the victims’ finances had the victims not been duped by his false persona and false romantic commitment to them.

It would be improper to separate the offending conduct from the surrounding circumstances, given the Offender purposely used this false romantic relationship to enable the commission of the frauds: Tremblay at para 63; Cook at para 15 . [ 21 ] The victims all describe suffering long-term psychological harm as a result of the Offender’s conduct.

The psychological harm includes symptoms and consequences such as: • Long-term tearfulness; • The need for professional counselling, medical assistance, and/or prescription medication to cope with the impact of the offences; • Fear that led to the victims either moving from or changing the locks and/or increasing security in their homes; • Inability to trust romantic partners or to date at all; • Sleeping issues; • Withdrawal from social activities, losing friends, family support, and/or family contact; • Ongoing anxiety and depression; • Incapacity to work or being forced back to work prematurely and/or difficulty concentrating to the point that it negatively impacted their work; • Shame, humiliation, self-hatred, and/or thoughts of suicide; and • Feeling gross, disgusting, dirty, or sick with respect to the intimate relationship with the Offender. [ 22 ] These descriptions show serious and prolonged psychological effects on the victims that significantly affect their day-to-day activities and constitute a substantial interference with the victim’s physical or psychological integrity, health, or well-being.

As such, the impact on the victims meets the definition of severe psychological damage as contemplated by s 753(1)(a)(ii) of the Criminal Code . I do not agree with the Offender that the Court must also look at whether the psychological damage described by the victims is also objectively reasonable. There is no need for an objective assessment when determining if the statutory preconditions of s 753(1)(a)(ii) of the Criminal Code are met: Cook at paras 18 – 20 . B.

Pattern of Repetitive Behaviour 1) The Parties’ Positions [ 23 ] The Crown submits that the evidence shows a clear and unremitting pattern of the Offender using fictitious personas to enter into intimate partnerships with his victims, and once he has gained the trust and affection of the victims, he financially exploits them.

This pattern of behaviour was likely to result in severe psychological damage to the victims and is consistent with the predicate offences for which the Offender pleaded guilty. [ 24 ] The Offender concedes that he has demonstrated a pattern of behaviour with respect to the economic exploitation of his victims but argues the harm resulting was merely economic and not psychological. As such, it does not meet the statutory conditions for the Assessment Order .

The Offender also acknowledges that his behaviour has caused psychological harm to the victims, but it does not rise to the level of severe psychological damage, which is a requirement under s 753 of the Criminal Code . Since the Crown cannot meet that requirement, the Assessment Order cannot be made. 2) The Law [ 25 ] For the Assessment Order to be made, the Crown must prove that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the Offender has been convicted of a serious personal injury offence and might be found to be a DO or LTO.

To determine if the Crown has met its burden, the Court must find sufficient evidence to show a real possibility that the criteria in s 753 or 753.1 of the Criminal Code have been met. Both of those sections require the Crown to establish that the offender has engaged in a pattern of repetitive behaviour that is criminal in nature and involves some degree of likelihood of causing severe psychological damage: R v Dow , 1999 BCCA 177 at paras

21 and 24 , cited in R v White , 2022 BCCA 91 at para 94 . [ 26 ] To establish a pattern of persistent, aggressive behaviour as contemplated by s 753(1)(a)(ii) of the Criminal Code , the Crown must show a common element in the behaviour that connects prior incidents together in a manner that justifies considering them as a whole: Tremblay at para 96. While the offending pattern must be criminal in nature, the pattern is one of behaviour as opposed to offences. The offender must show a substantial degree of indifference to the reasonably foreseeable consequences to others of his behaviour: R v McCallum , 2016 SKCA 96 at para 46 . [ 27 ]

Section 753.1(2) (b)(ii) of the Criminal Code only requires that the Crown show a pattern of repetitive behaviour that shows a likelihood of an offender causing severe psychological damage on another person. [ 28 ] In determining whether there is a pattern of behaviour sufficient to predict future conduct, the Court can consider the type of conduct, the victims of the conduct, and what motivated the offender in committing the offences: Tremblay at para 98. 3) Application [ 29 ] I am satisfied that the Crown has met its burden with respect to establishing a pattern of behaviour that is likely to cause severe psychological damage on a person and that the pattern is connected to the predicate offences. [ 30 ] The Offender’s criminal record shows a pattern of criminal convictions for fraud and theft offences beginning in Sydney, BC in 1990.

Between 1990 and 1996, the Offender was convicted of 12 separate counts of fraud, two counts of attempted fraud, and 14 counts of theft. There is a gap in the Offender’s record between 1996 and 2008, during which the Offender was serving an 18-month jail sentence and probation supervision for three years. Between 2008 and 2019, the Offender was convicted of 10 further convictions for fraud and one further conviction for theft. [ 31 ] The Offender’s behaviour with the five victims of the predicate offences itself shows a pattern of repetitive behaviour.

The predicate offences were committed between April 2016 and July 2017 and involved five separate women with whom the Offender was romantically involved. He was dating some of the women at the same time. He created fake personas to meet and begin relationships with each woman and obtained money from them using various tactics of deceit. All five victims met the Offender through the online dating site Plenty of Fish. The Offender used the fake name Jeff Sheridan or Dr Jeff Sheridan and had an email address utilizing that fake name.

He lied to the women about his background to entice them into a relationship and then shortly thereafter, into their homes and/or their bank accounts. [ 32 ] These relationships often moved at a very quick pace with the Offender moving in with some of the women in short course, sometimes within two weeks or a month, after he fabricated a reason why he needed somewhere to live. After imposing himself into their lives, the Offender would ask the women for money related to a business opportunity where he promised a quick profit or repayment, and then he would fail to repay the money, giving one excuse or another.

In most cases, he was spending their money at the casino or on horse races. [ 33 ] The Offender told each victim various lies. Some of these lies included that he owned property in Vancouver, Millet, Malta, and/or Edmonton, that he was an active or retired lawyer, that he had a Ph D in legal ethics or taught legal ethics, and that he was a businessman or owned a construction company or a horse farm. He told some of the women that he and his brother owned the horse farm and that they helped reintegrate offenders on parole back into the community.

He also told some of the women that he had brain cancer or a seizure disorder. [ 34 ] Not all of the Offender’s prior convictions for fraud and theft relate to defrauding romantic partners. However, a pattern of defrauding romantic partners began in 1991. With respect to convictions for five counts of fraud and two counts of attempted fraud in Matsqui, BC, a pre-sentence report (PSR) was prepared prior to sentencing. In that PSR, the Offender acknowledged defrauding his former common-law wife. In 1995, a PSR was prepared prior to sentencing for five counts of fraud and 11 counts of theft in Surrey, BC.

In that PSR, the Offender acknowledged that he has been involved in many relationships and has conned the women involved with him out of thousands of dollars. [ 35 ] In 2010, the Offender was convicted of five counts of fraud that related to incidents between 2005 and 2010. The Offender became romantically involved with four women who put up money and used their names and good credit to support a fraudulent hotel- reservation business that the Offender claimed he owned. The fifth victim was the sister of one of the romantic partners.

To the first romantic partner, the Offender portrayed himself as a successful businessman. She lost $150,000 and her life savings to the Offender. She had to sell her house and declare bankruptcy. The effect was traumatic. To the second romantic partner, the Offender portrayed himself as an orthopedic surgeon. The Offender married and impregnated the second romantic partner. The fraud involved the Offender emptying her bank accounts and using her name and credit to set up a merchant account through which the Offender harvested credit card information. She had to declare bankruptcy.

The victim’s sister also got wrapped up in the Offender’s scheme and lost many thousands of dollars to the Offender. To the third romantic partner, the Offender portrayed himself as a successful businessman. The Offender convinced her to sell her house and give him $150,000 for the hotel-reservation business, all of which the Offender gambled away. The fourth romantic partner was defrauded of $20,000 by the Offender who convinced her to give him money by claiming that his accounts were frozen.

The two were about to be married when the Offender was arrested. [ 36 ] In 2013 while on parole in relation to the 2010 fraud convictions, the Offender began dating another woman in Victoria, BC. The Offender claimed to be a tenured professor at the University of British Columbia with a Ph D from the London School of Economics and a lucrative publishing contract. He claimed to have substantial assets worth millions and an income of over $400,000 earned as an investment expert.

He also claimed to be suffering from cancer and that Corrections Canada and Revenue Canada had frozen his assets due to a wrongful conviction for fraud. The Offender convinced the victim to loan him a total of $15,000. The victim described the experience as the most horrific betrayal that she had ever experienced, a complete violation of her trust, and something from which she did not think she would ever recover. She does not think she will ever trust anyone again, felt ashamed, and at times was suicidal. She was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

[37] The Offender’s pattern of behaviour has resulted in psychological harm to at least two of his past victims. With respect to thevictim of the Offender’s 2013 fraud, the victim suffers from PTSD because of the Offender’s behaviour. I accept that PTSD would likelycause severe psychological damage. With respect to the first victim of the 2010 romance frauds, the victim was traumatized by theOffender’s behaviour. I accept that trauma would likely cause severe psychological damage.

With respect to the other victims, I acceptthat losing thousands of dollars to a person to whom they were committed and who claimed to love them, but who adopted a falsepersona, lied to them for the entire relationship, and defrauded them of thousands of dollars, would likely cause severe psychologicaldamage to that victim. C.

Failure to Restrain the Offending Behaviour/Substantial Risk of Reoffending/Likelihood of Inflicting Severe Psychological Harm 1) The Parties’ Positions [38] The Crown argues that the Offender has shown a failure to restrain his offending behaviour or that there is a likelihood thatthe Offender will reoffend. The Crown submits that the Offender’s recent and long-term history shows that the Offender is incapable ofrestraining his behaviour despite being aware of the devastating consequences to his victims.

If the Offender were to reoffend, there is areasonable possibility that the Offender will cause severe psychological damage to another person. [39] The Offender submits that there is nothing to suggest that his future behaviour will include the likelihood of inflicting severepsychological damage on a person. The Offender does not address whether the Offender is at a substantial risk to reoffend. 2) The Law [40] For the Assessment Order to be made, the Crown must demonstrate a pattern of conduct that is substantially or pathologicallyintractable: R v Lyons, (SCC), [1987] 2 SCR 309 at para 43.

A pattern of conduct will be intractable if it is deep-seated,but not impossible to treat: R v Nadolnick, 2013 ABPC 33 at para 142 [Nadolnick], citing R v Ackerman, 2004 BCCA 434 at para 9 andR v Johnson, 2001 BCCA 255 at para 7 [sic] [Johnson (BCCA)], affirmed on appeal 2003 SCC 46 (note: Johnson (BCCA) is miscitedin Nadolnic, it should be 2001 BCCA 456 at para 70). Courts have considered the following factors in determining if behaviour isintractable and unlikely to be treatable: A. Deeply ingrained personality disorders that are resistant to change; B.

A lack of available and appropriate treatment facilities; C. A poor outlook for improvement even where facilities exist; D. Inability to estimate or predict a time frame for improvement; E. Some, but very little, hope for treatment some time in the future; F. Treatment that will be long and difficult because the offender has more than one disorder and a limited capacity to learn.

R v Ominayak, 2007 ABQB 442 (aff’d 2012 ABCA 337) at para 209, citing R v Latham (1987), (MB KB), 47 Man R(2d) 81 (QB); R v Milne (1982), (BC CA), 66 CCC (2d) 544 (BCCA); R v Laboucan, 2002 BCCA 37. [41] The Court can look at past conduct and expert opinions to determine the future likelihood that an offender will fail to restrainbehaviour and whether it was likely to lead to severe psychological damage: Tremblay at paras 98 – 99. 3) Application [42] I am satisfied that the Crown has met its burden with respect to establishing that the Offender may fail to restrain hisbehaviour in the future and that if he reoffends, he could inflict severe psychological damage on a person. [43] I recognize that there is a gap in the Offender’s record between 1996 and 2008.

During that time, the Offender served an 18-month jail sentence and was supervised on probation for three years. By 2005, the Offender was again engaging in romance fraud.Between 1991 and 1993, the Offender was placed on probation three times. During these periods of probation, the Offender committedfurther offences, including theft and fraud offences. The Offender was reported to have lied frequently to his supervisors and movedoften.

While on parole for a sentence imposed in 2010, the Offender committed another romance fraud, failed to report all of hisrelationships with women to his parole supervisor, and failed to abstain from gambling. The Offender’s parole was revoked in 2011. [44] Experts have assessed the Offender’s risk to reoffend to be at a moderate, moderate high, and high risk to reoffend. In 2012,the Offender was deemed to have a poor prognosis without strict and long-term treatment, without which the Offender would not be ableto refrain from gambling.

In 2018, the Offender was deemed to have significant antisocial and narcissistic traits, failed to conform withsocial norms, and a self-reported pattern of deceitfulness. The Offender’s expressions of remorse are not lasting and do not impact on hisbehaviour. [45] Sentencing judges have commented on the Offender’s ability to restrain his behaviour. These comments have included(paraphrased): • Gambling Anonymous was not working for the Offender. His ability to stand back and say to himself “I’m not going to cause thiskind of pain to anybody else again” was limited (2010);

• The Offender has a pattern of the most deplorable leech-like behaviour, involving preying on people for the purposes of dealing with his own problems and particularly his gambling addiction (2013); • The Offender has an unaddressed deep-seated problem (2018); • Although the Offender is generally contrite after being caught and shows genuine remorse, it does not stop him from committing further frauds again (2018); and • There is a degree of incorrigibility and predatory conduct on the Offender’s part towards members of the community that he occupies (2019). [ 46 ] The Offender has recognized that he is unable to control his criminal behaviour.

The Offender has made the following comments with respect to his offending behaviour to various report writers and in Court (paraphrased): • He knew what he was doing was wrong, but he could not control himself and would “go back to the bank” whenever he needed money (1995); • His gambling addiction compels him to do some horrible despicable things and maintain sociopathic behaviour (2010); • He has moral gaps that he needs to work on and would commit crimes even without the gambling addiction due to those moral gaps (2018); • Deception in relationships is part of the fabric of who he is (2018); and • When he gambles, a need takes hold and anyone in his life could be the person he exploits.

He feels horrible that he lies and gets his victims to do something they would not do otherwise. It feels predatory and he feels shame and guilt (2018). [ 47 ] The Offender has benefitted from several different types of programming and treatment as a result of his criminal sentences.

These include: • Regular treatment by psychologists, including weekly and bi-weekly sessions both in and out of custody; • Gamblers Anonymous; and • Cognitive behaviour therapy targeting criminogenic factors and gambling addiction. [ 48 ] None of these programs or treatments prevented the Offender from gambling after his supervision ended, nor have they prevented the Offender from engaging in the pattern of behaviour that leads to criminal charges. In fact, it appears that the Offender has become more adept at his criminal enterprise.

Between 2016 and his arrest in 2017, the Offender was engaged in 10 separate fraudulent schemes, some of which were occurring at the same time. [ 49 ] The Offender appears to have deeply ingrained personality disorders that are resistant to change and that lead him back to gambling and deception. The Offender has benefitted from significant treatment which has not deterred him from his offending behaviour. This suggests that he is difficult to treat.

As such, it would be difficult to estimate or predict a time frame for improvement or evaluate the outlook for improvement. [ 50 ] The Offender’s behaviour is likely to cause severe psychological damage to any victim with whom the Offender chooses to engage with romantically. The Offender appears to have an intentional disregard for how his offending behaviour affects his victims. He knows that his behaviour inflicts psychological harm on his victims, yet that fact does not deter him from engaging in the same behaviour over and over again.

The Offender’s behaviour has caused severe psychological damage to his past victims. Left untreated, the Offender is likely to engage in the same behaviour again, which is likely to cause severe psychological damage to any person who becomes a target of the Offender’s schemes. IV. Conclusion [ 51 ] The Crown has met its burden of showing reasonable grounds to believe that the Offender has been convicted of a serious personal injury offence and that there is a possibility that the Offender may be designated a DO or LTO.

As such, the requirements of s 752.1(1) of the Criminal Code have been met. [ 52 ] The Crown has demonstrated that the Offender has been found guilty of a serious personal injury offence and has shown a pattern of repetitive behaviour, a failure to restrain that behaviour, and that the behaviour is likely to inflict severe psychological damage on other persons. Therefore, the criteria in s 753 of the Criminal Code as they relate to the potential of a DO designation have been met. [ 53 ] I accept that the Offender is facing a sentence of more than two years for the predicate offences.

The Crown has shown reasonable grounds to believe that the Offender will reoffend, and that there may be the possibility of eventual control in the community. As such, the criteria in s 753.1 of the Criminal Code as they relate to the potential of a LTO designation have been met. [ 54 ] I order that the Offender be remanded for a period not exceeding 60 days to the custody of a person designated by the Court who can perform an assessment or have an assessment performed by experts for use as evidence in an application under ss 753 or 753.1 of the Criminal Code .

The written Assessment Order shall be filed on the Court file.

Heard on the 8 th day of September 2023. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 1 st day of November, 2023. M. Hayes-Richards J.C.K.B.A. Appearances: Megan Rosborough Kate Andress for the Crown Jeinis S. Patel for the Offender