) ) HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN – v. –, 2017 ONSC 2549

CITATION : R. v. Eamer, 2017 ONSC 2549 COURT FILE NO.: 15-52 DATE: 2017/05/01 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: ) ) HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN – and – JASON EAMER Accused ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Elaine Evans and Matthew Collins, counsel for the Crown Paul Lewandowski, counsel for the accused ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) HEARD: October 9, 2015, November 28, 2016, December 5,6,7,8,12,14,15, 2016 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED: February 17, 2017 March 31, 2017 April 13, 2017 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT ON DANGEROUS OFFENDER APPLICATION LALIBERTE, J.

INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] On October 9, 2015, the accused Jason Eamer plead guilty to criminal harassment, forcible confinement, assault, assault with a weapon, breach of probation and possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace. All of these offences occurred between the period of May 23, 2014 and June 28, 2014 in the City of Cornwall. They are of a domestic violence nature and revolve around his then girlfriend, the victim Samantha MacKay. [ 2 ] The Crown has brought an Application pursuant to

section 753 of the Criminal Code for a finding that Jason Eamer is a dangerous offender and seeks a sentence in a penitentiary for an indeterminate period. [ 3 ] The accused opposes the Crown’s request and asks that a long-term offender designation be imposed.

Alternatively, if found to be a dangerous offender, a sentence or sentence followed by long-term supervision should result. [ 4 ] The Court is asked to decide the issues in this matter on the basis of the following evidentiary record: − The facts in support of the predicate offences conveyed to the Court by Crown counsel and admitted by defence on October 9, 2015 − A memory stick filed on consent as Exhibit #4 containing materials pertaining to Jason Eamer, including: ➢ Facts for the predicate offences ➢ Criminal history ➢ School records ➢ Correctional records ➢ Assessments ➢ Police records ➢ Probation records ➢ Hospital records − Evidence relating to the administration by the authorities of the various sentencing options

− Forensic psychiatric evidence THE FACTS 1. Facts for predicate offences [ 5 ] The accused and victim, Samantha MacKay were in a relationship between the period of May 23, 2014 and June 28, 2014. They dated for one month. [ 6 ] He was on probation at that time with a condition to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. [ 7 ] On June 28, 2014, the victim was at the accused’s residence where she had spent the night. [ 8 ] He awoke at around noon and was upset with her as he felt she was taking up too much room on the bed and told her to “get her fucking off my side of the bed”.

He became more upset after she received a phone call from her former boyfriend, the father of her son. [ 9 ] The argument became heated and she told him she was leaving. He threw a thermos at her, striking her left thigh. This left a circular bruise. [ 10 ] The victim left out the back door but soon realized she had left her wallet and apartment keys inside the accused’s home. She returned and while walking up the outdoor stairs, he began calling her names and slammed and locked the door. [ 11 ] She began knocking at the door asking for her keys. She called him but he hung up.

She shouted that she would call the police if he didn’t let her in to collect her things. [ 12 ] The accused then opened the door but would not allow her in, slamming the door in her face. She then stated that she would call the police and began dialing her phone. He told her not to call the police and let her in. [ 13 ] Once inside, the argument continued and he struck the victim in the back of the head with a closed fist. The blow was hard enough to give her a headache for several days. [ 14 ] She decided to leave without her belongings.

As she was attempting to move towards the back door, she was again hit with a closed fist in the back of the head. While trying to exit towards the front door, she was again struck in the same way. She tried one further time to exit the back door, but was again struck by the accused’s closed fist. [ 15 ] The victim managed to get to the front door while he was at the back of the apartment. He told her that he would hurt himself if she left. She saw him at the utensil drawer.

She was fearful for her safety and afraid of what he would do at that point. [ 16 ] She saw him standing in his kitchen with a steak knife in his hand. It was six inches long including the handle. [ 17 ] The victim left out the front door and went down the outer stairwell to the sidewalk. He followed her to the sidewalk dressed only in his boxer shorts. He did not have the knife with him at this point. [ 18 ] She told him she was going to call the police. He got on his hands and knees and begged her repeatedly not to call the police or tell them his name.

She continued to call and when she mentioned his name, he ran back up the stairs to his apartment. [ 19 ] She then saw him on the porch holding a knife to his throat and making stabbing gestures towards his neck. He did not actually cut himself at this point. She was still on the phone with police. He went inside his apartment, shutting the door. [ 20 ] The accused then exited the apartment to the front porch, covered in blood and said “Look what you’ve done”. She saw blood on his hands and chest.

He went back in his apartment and locked the doors. [ 21 ] Police arrived on scene and breached the door to gain entry. The accused was located in the bathroom covered in blood. Blood was spattered throughout the apartment, mainly concentrated in the bathroom. This is shown in a series of photographs which were collectively filed as Exhibits 1(

a) to 1(n). [ 22 ] He had cut himself in the neck area. He was brought to the hospital where the injuries were later determined to be non-life threatening. [ 23 ] At the preliminary inquiry held on June 3, 2015, Ms. MacKay disclosed further incidences of domestic violence which had occurred during their month-long relationship. [ 24 ] She testified that an argument had occurred over the accused’s insistence about her not wearing clothing while at his residence. She had resisted his request and he threw an ashtray at her which struck her in the middle of the back resulting in a bruise that remained 3-4 days.

He then punched her in the back of the head. [ 25 ] The victim described another argument in which he struck her in the back of the head and pushed her against the wall. She escaped to the bathroom and he followed her, yelling and demanding that she open the bathroom door. When she did, he stood in her path blocking her way. She pushed him twice to try and get out of the bathroom. He then spit in her face and slapped her. [ 26 ] The victim then tried to leave the apartment through the back door. He grabbed a hammer and threatened to hit himself in the head with it if she left. She began to leave.

He hit himself in the head with the hammer causing a visible bloody injury. She was afraid that he would throw the hammer at her. As she began to walk home, the accused followed her. Once at her home, he demanded entry but she refused despite his insistence. She eventually agreed to return to his apartment with him as she feared he would hurt himself further. [ 27 ] She also describes multiple other occasions where he would physically and/or psychologically prevent her from leaving the residence or ending the relationship.

These included him holding doors shut, standing in front of exit points, blocking her path and closing doors as she attempted to leave. This led her feeling trapped, confined and unable to escape. [ 28 ] Further, while both parties were at her apartment, an argument occurred in regards to his jealousy and controlling behaviour. He deliberately banged his head against a wooden door frame, again causing a visible blood injury.

She feared what he would do either to himself or her. [ 29 ] She explained that she was fearful of remaining in the relationship but was also afraid to end it, for fear of what would happen if she did. [ 30 ] During the course of the relationship, the accused would not allow Ms. MacKay to see her mother, as he did not want her to speak with outside people. He also prevented her from seeing her brother, and when she questioned him as to why, he stated it was because her brother had a penis.

He would also yell at her when she would try to visit with her young son. [ 31 ] In her July 21, 2015 victim impact statement, Ms. MacKay explains how she went into a severe depression following these events. She lost significant weight. She is afraid that he will break into her home even knowing he was in jail. He made her feel worthless, as if she was garbage. She now has a very hard time trusting most men and feels this will impact on her future relationships. [ 32 ] She also describes the bruises and bumps on the back of her head.

2. Criminal History [ 33 ] The accused’s criminal record was filed as Exhibit 2A and is reproduced below.

[ 34 ] The more significant entries on the accused’s criminal record for the purpose of this Application start on July 24, 2006 and onward. These will be briefly reviewed. July 24, 2006 Charges: - sexual assault (s. 271) - assault X 3 (s. 266) Jurisdiction: Ottawa

Summary: The offences occurred between April 24, 2005 and May 4, 2005. The victim is W.F.. She met the accused through mutual friends around April 11, 2005. He moved in with her and her two children within days. He became violent soon thereafter. He had to have his own way or he exploded with anger. He told her she wouldn’t deny him.

The victim described the following: − He wouldn’t let her visit friends or family; he was angry because her sister visited − He would wake up angry and call her “whore”, “cunt”, “slut” − He was jealous of her children; on one occasion he demanded that she return to him when she had fallen asleep next to her daughter; he slapped her face; while he raised his hand at one of the children, he never struck the children; he did call them “niggers”, “cunts” − He would request sex and oral sex on demand; he would demand 5 times a day and state “you do not say no to me”; she refused once and he beat her dog in front of her; he was violent during sex; he slapped her buttocks with such force that it left handprints − The assaults consisted of: • He slapped her across the face • He grabbed her face with both hands and squeezed • He struck her back with a cord 10 times • He flicked her face constantly • He kicked her hard on her right knee • She was scared and tolerated his behaviour and complied to avoid repercussions she told him to leave on May 11, 2005 while her sister was present; he kept calling on May 12-13, 2005; she went to the police on May 13, 2005; he was arrested on May 29, 2005 The pre-sentence report dated July 22, 2006 reveals the following information: − As a child, Mr.

Eamer is described as controlling, demanding and impulsive; he insisted on having his own way; he threw temper tantrums when his wants were

denied − He did what he wanted as an adolescent; there were episodes when family members barricaded themselves in their bedrooms to avoid his angry outbursts; his parents threatened to have him removed from the home by the police; he is said to have “terrorized” family members through his anger outbursts − He has longstanding anger management problems − In 1983, school records describe him as a “volatile young man” − He was in a common law relationship with Krista Allen for 5 years while living in Kitchener; she reported that: • His temper flared • He yelled and called her names • He hit her on the arm once • She left him because of his unwillingness to address his anger issues. − He was in a month long relationship with Domenique Lafleche resulting in a child; he insisted on having his own way all the time; they argued constantly − His former girlfriends report: • Abusive behaviours of varying degrees • Verbal and mental abuse • Intimidation through displays of rage were common • Incidences of physical abuse • He was possessive and jealous; anger escalates quickly − In 1994, he self-referred to anger management in Brockville but ceased to attend after 2 months − He acknowledges his abusive behaviours in previous relationships; he is said to recognize that his demanding nature and insistence in having his own way intimidated and frightened past girlfriends − Following his arrest, he commenced counselling with Jewish Family Services; he met the worker weekly for a year; he is described in positive terms: • Committed • Takes responsibility • Shows insight − He also completed New Directions between September and December 2005; he is again described in positive terms: • Highly motivated • Appears sincere • He is constructive • Accepts responsibility • States having learned to change his abusive ways − It is noted that: • Long-term intervention is required • He is needy and desperate in his want to be in a relationship • Counsellors recommend against his involvement in any relationship until he is emotionally prepared − The victim W.F. is described as fearful; she wants no further contacts; she is afraid of meeting other men; she did not return to her home for 7 months following his arrest Justice Diane Nicholas was the sentencing judge on July 24, 2006.

She raised the following concerns: − The victim lived in terror; he was a bully, controlling and demeaning as he has been in other relationships; this has been a very longstanding problem for him − It cannot be said that this pattern of behaviour is in any way out of character; it is a pattern of behaviour that has been ingrained throughout his life − Long term counselling is required to address well-entrenched beliefs and patterns − It is a significantly abusive pattern of behaviour which needs to be addressed January 19, 2007 Charges: - sexual assault (s. 271) - breach of undertaking (s. 145(5.1)) Jurisdiction: Ottawa

Summary: The victim in this matter is K.S.-Q., a mother of 5 children. She met the accused through his mother who was her boss at work. She had a brief intimate relationship with the accused. She put an end to their relationship by reason of his angry outbursts. They then resided together as roommates only. The offences took place on October 7, 2005. She was asleep in her bedroom when she felt a hand on her left shoulder. The accused was shaking her and telling her to wake

up. She told him to leave her alone. He kissed her neck and shoulder. He shook her more forcefully and she again told him to leave her alone and not touch her. He then pushed her onto her back and put his leg over her so she couldn’t move. He then yelled “do you want me to hate you? Is that what you want for me to hate you? Because it’s working, I hate you”. He then grabbed and kissed her breasts. She was trying to push him away. He digitally penetrated her vagina. Her two young children called out from the doorway. He got off the victim and she was able to get away. She went to her children’s bedroom.

The accused was pacing up and down the hallway calling her a bitch. He eventually went to bed. She later saw him hitting himself on the head. She reported the incident to the police on October 26, 2005. She states having noted his bad temper within a few weeks of residing with him. The January 19, 2007 pre-sentence report reveals the following information: − There had been a recommendation for the accused to attend the St.

Lawrence Valley Treatment Centre (sex offender program) but the transfer was deferred because of the new charges − He is said to be eager to commence treatment to better understand his mood swings and anger; he is tired of being miserable and angry; he wants to be a good role model for his son − He had made a number of requests to meet with institutional psychologist for depression, temper control and stress − He is described as motivated; he takes responsibility for his actions; he attributed his behaviour to becoming frustrated when he does not get his own way − It is said that he would derive great benefit from the program at St.

Lawrence Valley Treatment Centre Mr.

Eamer stated the following at the January 19, 2007 sentencing hearing: “…I know the things I’ve done are wrong and I want to get the help I need to change to change and be a better role model for my son.” The sentencing judge stated the following: “I want to support your intention to make changes… If you do not, ultimately, with these types of offences and the two that you now have on your record, you end up spending the rest of your life in jail and it is as stark a comparison as that between what directions you can go in.” September 27, 2010 Charges: - assault (s. 266) Jurisdiction: Perth

Summary: The victim is Shanna Acres with whom the accused lived in a common law relationship. There is a child of the union. The assault occurred on June 5, 2010. They argued over laundry. He wanted her to do the laundry. He punched her on the side and the back of her head a number of times. He also punched her on the arm and shoulder. He picked her up off the floor by her hair after she had fallen on the floor. He called her a stupid “cunt” and “bitch”. He smashed both his and her cell phone so she couldn’t call anyone. He then kept apologizing and she left with their son. She attended the police station.

Police observed bruises on her arm and shoulder. Reference is made at the September 27, 2010 sentencing hearing to Mr. Eamer seeking help in respect of his mental health and the “way he acts out”. Letters authored by psychiatrist Doctor Jonathan Gray were filed as exhibits. The need to reduce Mr. Eamer’s level of irritability so as to lower the risk of reoffending violently is noted on the record by his counsel. May 2, 2011 Charges: - assault X 4 (s. 266) - breach of probation X 4 (s. 733.1) Jurisdiction: Brockville

Summary: The victim of the four assaults is Melissa Looyen who was in a common law relationship with the accused. The offences took place between November 22, 2010 and December 1, 2010 and are described as follows: − She was in a vehicle with the accused when he became upset and punched her on the head − While at the residence, he pinned her down by straddling her and punched her repeatedly on the shoulder for 20 seconds − She was taking a shower when he entered and slapped her across the face. He called her a slut − He became upset and threw a coffee table across the living room.

He began to yell and punched her on the head. She pushed him back to get away and he again punched her on the head The victim in regards to the four breaches of probation is Shanna Acres. He was bound by a condition not to communicate with her. Between the period of December 14, 2010 and January 4, 2011 he communicated with her by sending a letter, an e-mail and leaving a voicemail message. At the May 2, 2011 sentencing hearing, Crown counsel noted that the victim Ms. Looyen had provided a letter wherein she indicates being supportive of the accused and wanting to have contacts with him.

She suggested that she would recant on her statement given to the police. Victim Mrs. Acres was said to be afraid of the accused and not wishing of any contacts with him. The following comments are noted on the record: − The accused was diagnosed as bipolar and with adult attention deficit disorder; this came from a report prepared by Dr. Bradford − Dr. Bradford had opined that the offences were due to Mr. Eamer being off his medication which increased his irritability − Counsel for Mr.

Eamer states that the accused realizes that he needs to get his life back on track and his medical issues in some kind of order − He has been under the care of Dr. Gray for quite a while and “he knows he needs to be under care of Dr. Gray and willing to do so upon release” October 5, 2011

Charges: -assault X 2 (s. 266) Jurisdiction: -Brockville

Summary: The victim is Melissa Looyen. She was assaulted on September 7 and 11, 2011. She contacted the police after leaving the home in the early morning hours of September 11. She advised the police that the accused had not been taking his medication and was bipolar.

She described the assaults as follows: − On September 7, 2011, they were in an argument; he lost control and hit her on her forehead and arms; she had visible bruises − On September 11, 2011, she told him that she wanted to end the relationship; he was refusing to leave her home; he stated that he would only leave if police removed him; he threw an ashtray on the floor and then struck her when she bent over to pick it up; she was struck several times on the back of the head; he then told her she now had a reason to call the police Mr. Eamer was on probation for assaults against the same victim at that time.

In her video statement to the police, she states that she had promised him that she wouldn’t call the police. Justice MacPhee imposed a 9 months jail term followed by 3 years probation as sought by both counsel. Counsel for the accused referred to the following ailments in his submissions to the Court: • Bipolar • ADHD • Sleep apnea • Depression • The accused was involved with the anger management disorders clinic for “quite some time” and “meets regularly with Dr.

Gray” • Counsel stated: − “…he is remorseful…extremely remorseful and he – undertakes to try and get help for the issues….he is wishing to serve the sentence at the St. Lawrence Treatment Facility…” October 16, 2012 Charges: - assault X 2 (s. 266) - forcible confinement (s. 279(2)) - mischief (s. 430) Jurisdiction: Pembroke

Summary: The victim is Carrie Stewart. The offences occurred between June 1, 2012 and September 6, 2012. She had an online relationship with him for one year. They met in June 2012 and moved in together. He soon thereafter became very violent, controlling and obsessive.

She describes the following: − She was not allowed to leave the house − She couldn’t take a bath or go to the bathroom without him − He had to be present when she called people; she wasn’t allowed to have a key for their home; she had to sell her car − She wasn’t allowed to leave the home without him − She couldn’t hug her children She described the following violent incidents − Soon after moving in together, he believed that she was cheating on him; he slapped her in the face and cut her lip; she wanted to leave but he blocked her way and wouldn’t allow her to leave; she hid in the bathroom − Three weeks later, she told him she wanted to end their relationship; he followed her in the bathroom where he grabbed her by the hair and punched her in the face; she told him she would call the police and again grabbed her by the hair; he blocked her way and wouldn’t allow her to leave the apartment − On one occasion, they were in bed and she did not want to have sex; he head butted the victim in the back of her head leaving bruises and headache which lasted 3 days − He kicked her on the leg during an argument − He placed a mattress up against the front door so that she couldn’t leave at night − He would hit himself with a rubber mallet over his head − He threw a glass ashtray against a wall; he smashed a plate over his head and broke it; he would wack his head on the counter − In a video interview given to the police on November 6, 2015, the victim states that she is fearful of the accused; he stated that he would kill her, her children and family; the impact on her is also described in a November 6, 2015 victim impact statement Justice Radley-Walters recommended that Mr.

Eamer serve his sentence in the St. Lawrence Centre in Brockville. She stated the following: “Obviously, Mr. Eamer, you need some assistance in terms of living in society. This is not the behaviour that is acceptable. It is criminal behaviour and unfortunately for you if when you get out you continue this kind of behaviour, simply you can see the writing on the wall that in all likelihood you will end up in penitentiary the next time.” [ 35 ] The Court is provided evidence in regards to the accused’s conduct towards Julie Carruthers. Exhibit #4 reveals that Mr. Eamer was initially charged under

sections 266 (assault) and 267(b) (assault causing bodily harm) against Ms. Carruthers. The incidents took place in March and May of 2006. These were reported by her to the police on May 26, 2006. [ 36 ] Ultimately the charges were withdrawn and Mr. Eamer entered into a

section 810 recognizance. The facts conveyed to the Court on December 18, 2006 can be summarized as follows: − The parties were in a common law relationship; Ms.

Carruthers advised the police she was in an abusive relationship and was leaving the residence − They had been living together since March 17, 2006 after meeting on the internet − He becomes frustrated easily when his needs were not met sexually or generally − She recalled incidents where he would hit her in the face with a pillow during conflicts − On May 2, 2006, he became enraged when she told him she wanted to leave; he started to hit himself on the head with a hammer; she intervened and removed the hammer; he then ran out of the bedroom and threw himself down the stairs landing at the bottom; she again told him she was leaving him and he hit her on both sides of her head with his hands and pushed her into the dining room table where she struck and injured her finger on a chair − In March 2006, he punched her on the head and threw his son on the bed; she sustained a bump on her head [ 37 ] On October 29, 2015, Ms.

Carruthers provided a video interview to the police during which she gave the following additional information: − She describes Mr. Eamer as controlling and possessive; he has anger issues; he is jealous − He wouldn’t let her speak to family or friends; he became upset when she spoke to others; she always had to be with him; he believed she was cheating on him − He once disconnected the spark plugs of her vehicle so she couldn’t leave − She was afraid of how he would react 3. School Records [ 38 ] The Court was provided with Mr. Eamer’s school records from 1980 to 1990.

These reveal significant concerns with his behaviour at a very early age. [ 39 ] The following is noted in 1981 while in Kindergarten: − He becomes easily upset − He is aggressive towards his peers − He is uncooperative and manipulative − Teachers are concerned for his safety and safety of others − He has a high level of hostility as well as aggressiveness − His impulsive actions pose a threat of potential danger to his peers − He reacts in an impulsive manner [ 40 ] The records reveal incidents of violence towards other students: − He would push and shove other students − He pushed another student off a stage − Often striking out at classmates with various objects − He held a pair of scissors to another child’s throat following a comment regarding his work [ 41 ] He was referred to the Royal Ottawa Hospital for an assessment while in Kindergarten.

A June 16, 1982 psychological assessment identified lack of self-control as an issue. [ 42 ] In November 1982, it is noted that he had a “very low frustration tolerance” He will often over-react when chastised to the slightest degree by an adult. [ 43 ] Mr. Eamer attended grade 2 in 1982 at the Beechgrove Regional Children’s Center as an in-patient.

He did so by reason of his behaviour problems identified as hostility, aggressiveness and inability to exert self-control. [ 44 ] The November 1983 entry indicates that he is easily frustrated and prone to temper tantrums. [ 45 ] Reference is made on January 28, 1988 to him hitting a girl and this was the first time this had happened. Counselling is recommended to defuse his “fierce anger, temper tantrums and violence”. [ 46 ] In 1989, the records suggest what is termed as “a dramatic turn-around”. Mr. Eamer is described as calm and polite.

He is capable of functioning in a regular classroom. [ 47 ] It is said that he had made great gains over the last two years. He hasn’t been getting into fights and arguments with other students. He demonstrated control over his emotions. 4. St. Lawrence Valley Correctional and Treatment Center Records [ 48 ] Mr. Eamer has served three separate jail sentences at the St. Lawrence Valley Correctional and Treatment Center. They are as follows: − February 14, 2007 to August 19, 2007 − October 12, 2011 to April 5, 2012 − November 29, 2012 to April 3, 2013 [ 49 ] The complete records of Mr.

Eamer’s stays at this center were filed with the Court as exhibits. The Court has reviewed same and highlights the following information contained therein:

February 14, 2007 to August 19, 2007 [ 50 ] In his August 28, 2007 discharge

summary, staff psychiatrist Dr. Brad Booth explains that Mr. Eamer had a number of challenges. He notes that he was angry, impulsive and had gotten into a number of confrontations with both staff and co-patients. He is described as quite controlling when he was in charge of the laundry group. He would harm himself by banging his head into a wall. [ 51 ] Dr. Booth states that he did improve significantly once his medication was adjusted but remained with impulsive anger. [ 52 ] The nursing record on discharge dated August 19, 2007 reflects the same concerns.

He is described as generally cooperative with staff but becomes upset if they do not intervene the way he feels they should. He can be inflexible and verbally abusive when angry. He had numerous conflicts with peers. [ 53 ] Mr. Eamer participated in the following programs: − Self-regulations for sexual offenders − Substance abuse psychotherapy − Substance recovery issues − Self esteem − Essential employment skills [ 54 ] He did not participate in the anger management program by reason of the waiting list. [ 55 ] A psychosexual risks assessment completed by psychometrist Dr. Mike Saelhof disclosed that Mr.

Eamer is at medium-high risk category for sexual recidivism. [ 56 ] It is said that Mr. Eamer had shown some improvement during his stay.

The following are noted: − He has made gains in his ability to control his impulses but this remains an area requiring further attention; he identified plans to do so − He continues to behave somewhat impulsively when angry and frustrated but he has improved − He admits to a history of feeling entitlement to sex in intimate relationships; he used sex as a way to dominate and control partners; his current attitude was describe as more pro-social ; he spoke of mutual respect and equality − He is increasingly aware of risk factors (life history events, low self-esteem, intimacy deficits, relationship problems); he accepts responsibility for his actions and has generated a comprehensive list of strategies to avoid and better manage the risk factors − He has come to realize that his bullying, abusive and controlling behaviours within intimate relationships are largely influenced by self-esteem, insecurity and lack of self-confidence; he engages in aggressive domineering, controlling and bullying to cope with his jealousy [ 57 ] Dr.

Booth referred Mr. Eamer to the Royal Ottawa Hospital anger management program. [ 58 ] In his August 15, 2007 report , Dr. Booth provides the following opinion: “It is my opinion that without appropriate treatment of his ADHD using Strattera, he poses a significant risk to the safety of others. However with treatment this risk is manageable in the community. October 12, 2011 to April 5, 2012 [ 59 ] Mr. Eamer is described in fairly positive terms during this second stay. The discharge

summary dated April 4, 2012 prepared by Dr. Colin Cameron provides the following diagnoses: − Bipolar − ADHD − Cannabis dependent − Antisocial personality disorder with dysfunctional anger − Borderline personality [ 60 ] He completed a number of programs: − Understanding illness − Medication management − “Dialectical Behaviour” − Self-esteem − “Living without violence” [ 61 ] The records confirm that he completed these programs with success. He is described as an active participant. He took on a leadership role during the discussions and was receptive to feedback from others.

He showed insight. [ 62 ] The “Living without Violence” program focuses on healthy relationships and attitude towards women. Issues such as jealousy, healthy sexuality, emotional awareness and violence are discussed. [ 63 ] Mr. Eamer’s participation in this group and “Dialectical Behaviour” is noted as follows: − Active participant − Posed appropriate questions − Shared his insights

− Good understanding of problem solving skills − Receptive [ 64 ] It is said that Mr. Eamer showed a good understanding of risk factors such as use of drugs, trust, jealousy, attachment, mental illness and low self-esteem. November 29, 2012 to April 3, 2013 [ 65 ] Mr. Eamer was admitted at the Center from the Ottawa-Carleton Detention Center by reason of recurrent domestic violence. [ 66 ] The discharge

summary of Dr. Colin Cameron dated March 25, 2013 explains that Mr. Eamer’s last stay was problematic. [ 67 ] Mr. Eamer is reported as engaging in “recurrent staff splitting” and projecting blame on others. He was also verbally abusive towards his social worker.

In a fit of rage he told her that she was just like his mother and that she was putting blame on him. [ 68 ] He is described as follows: − Has distorted automatic thoughts − Is entrenched in his point of view and resistant to looking at alternatives − Unable to work with key members of treatment team − Not cooperative to discharge planning with his social worker − He continues to be aggressive and violent especially towards women − Unable to accept responsibility for his own actions [ 69 ] Mr.

Eamer’s inability to work with his treatment team and his repeated requests when frustrated to be discharged from the Center led to his return at the OCDC. [ 70 ] He did participate in the CALM program which teaches male participants to monitor and understand their emotions in order to prevent and control problematic behaviour. His participation in this program is described as good. He appeared motivated. He didn’t complete the program because of the transfer to the ODDC as he had asked various times. 5.

Threat assessment prepared by Detective Sergeant Glenn Sheil [ 71 ] Detective Sergeant Glenn Sheil is a member of the Ontario Provincial Police, Behavioral Sciences and Analysis Section, Criminal Behaviour Analysis Unit – Threat Assessment. His assessment of Mr. Eamer dated July 30, 2013 was filed in this hearing. [ 72 ] His conclusion is found at page 3 of the said report: “Assessment of Risk” Based on the information provided, Jason Andrew Eamer presents a High risk for future violence towards any woman he is involved in a relationship with. “High categorization of risk indicates Mr.

Eamer is at imminent risk for future violence towards future partners and intervention is required to prevent further acts of violence from occurring”. [ 73 ] Sergeant Sheil explains that his finding is based on a compilation of indicators present with Mr. Eamer. These are viewed as Risk Enhancing in the analysis of the potential for violence, including sexual violence. [ 74 ] The following are the risk factors identified by Sergeant Sheil in his assessment of Mr.

Eamer: − Previous violence • A reliable predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour − Relationship instability • Offenders with unstable intimate relationships tend to have more extensive criminal histories and higher rate of general and violent recidivism than those with stable relationships − Employment problems; • Unemployment is associated with an increased risk for general recidivism and unemployed offenders are more likely to recidivate violently − Substance abuse/dependence • Substance abuse is one of the strongest links to violent behaviour − Major mental illness • Individuals with major mental illnesses may have an increased probability and likelihood for committing violence and in particular when an individual abuses substances − Early maladjustment • Future violence and anti-social behaviour is strongly related to maladjustment within the home, school and community as a child − Personality disorder • Personality disorders in particular those whose key ingredients include anger, impulsivity and hostility, are predictive of an elevated risk for both general and violent criminal behaviour − Prior supervision failures • Individuals who violate conditions of release or supervision are at an increased risk of criminality and violence − Negative attitudes • Pro-criminal or anti-social attitudes are related to criminal and violent behaviour

− Impulsivity • Impulsive persons are often quick to react to stress, slights and disappointments with no regard being given to the thought or consideration of the consequences of violence to the individual or others − Non-compliance with remediation attempts • Non–compliance with intervention indicates an individual’s unwillingness to comply with medication and other treatment efforts − Lack of positive support networks; • Positive support networks can increase the effectiveness of risks reduction or intervention attempts and may reduce the risk of exposure to risk enhancing conditions 6.

Occurrence reports while in custody [ 75 ] The occurrence reports filed as evidence show that Mr. Eamer was involved in incidents while detained in custody.

The following are noted by the Court: − On April 3, 2007, he got involved in a verbal altercation with an inmate; he is described as becoming very angry and banged his own head “very hard” several times on a cement wall as he was leaving the room; he required minor medical attention − On April 22, 2007 he is reported as calling other inmates “fucking goofs”, “pedophiles” and “diddlers”; he hit his head on a wall causing a laceration when left alone in a room − On November 5, 2011, he was involved in a verbal altercation with an inmate; both were separated ; he punched the wall while going to his room; he sustained contusions to his knuckles ; he explained doing this because he was angry − On August 23, 2014 , he admitted striking an inmate in the face because he had insulted his mother − On December 12, 2014 , he admitted assaulting an inmate; he did so with a newspaper; he explained that he felt stressed and was still trying to have proper medication for his anxiety − On March 9, 2013, he told a staff “Go fuck yourself” when told that he was taking more food than allowed to; when told by nursing staff to refrain from voicing his comment, he stated “I am allowed to voice my comments...

I want a fucking transfer”; he then proceeded to his dorm and was observed punching the wall and banged his head off the wall; he later explained “I lost my temper. I punched the wall to the hall to my room and banged my head on the wall” − On March 21, 2013, when told by the social worker that she cannot and will not take the abuse, he became angry and stated “You get right in my face. You are just like my mother. You are putting the blame all on me. I have had it. I want to be discharged to Ottawa. I do not want to be here anymore”; he then left the room punching the door frame and the wall going to his room 7.

Provincial Offences Records [ 76 ] The Court was provided with Provincial Offences Records relating to Mr. Eamer. The only relevant incident occurred on October 26, 2007 when he was stopped by the police while driving his mother’s vehicle not having a driver’s licence. [ 77 ] He is described as becoming extremely hostile when served with the offence notice. He was enraged and “drop kicked” his cell phone and then threw numerous items as he stormed away from the scene. 8.

Police Incident Reports- No Charges [ 78 ] These reports include information relating to an August 27, 1992 incident when police had received a complaint from Raeanne McDougall’s friends. They reported that she had been assaulted by Mr. Eamer. [ 79 ] The police attended and spoke to Ms. McDougall and Mr. Eamer. There were no injuries and both appeared distressed. Mr. Eamer told the police that he wanted help with his anger problem. He contacted Lanark County Mental Health. [ 80 ] The other documented event is on September 7, 2012 and revolves around the search for Mr.

Eamer by the police following his assault on victim Carrie Stewart. [ 81 ] Briefly, the police had been advised by Ms. Stewart that he had left telling her that he wasn’t going back to jail and that he would drive into the back of a trailer. He had consumed a quantity of pills. The police had obtained a warrant for his arrest. [ 82 ] His locked vehicle was later found in a ditch near a trail leading to the woods. He was not at the scene. The police proceeded to search the area.

Efforts were made to locate him through family, friends and a media release. [ 83 ] On September 11, 2012, the police received an anonymous complaint that Mr. Eamer was back at Carrie Stewarts’s home where he was later arrested. 9. Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Service Records [ 84 ] For the most part, the case notes prepared by the various probation officers who have supervised Mr. Eamer are positive.

He presented as showing insight and wishing to change. [ 85 ] The Court notes the following entries as examples: − July 17, 2009: He is stable ; positive about his future; committed to counselling ; working on his issues so as not to reoffend − December 29, 2010: Motivated to attend intensive anger group at the ROH in Ottawa with Dr. Gray and social worker Ms.

Woods − January 11, 2011: He understands that on paper he looks very high risk; aware he will go to the penitentiary − September 6, 2012: He seemed very motivated; compliant and reporting as directed; enrolled in programs − May 16, 2013 : Just released from custody; he acknowledges offence and it was wrong ; had no excuses for what he did; knows must monitor himself carefully; as before, he verbalizes a desire to do the work needed to get better; he doesn’t want to hurt anyone; understands he has issues and willing to address same

− January 29, 2014: He has now completed the PARS program and loved it; he is doing well; all criminogenic factors put him in active/maintenance stage [ 86 ] The last probation officer who supervised Mr. Eamer in 2013 and 2014 prior to the commission of the predicate offences was Ronald Gendron. In his May 22, 2015 closing

summary of his dealings with Mr. Eamer , he states: “Response to probation had been going very well. Reporting was excellent…PARS completed. He was attending ROH for programming. He had been taking meds- Lithium and reported his moods were so much better. He was also receiving in house counselling from psychology team. He was hungry for programming. Then it fell apart and he was charged with assault on a woman…. Exact nature of relationships remains unknown. Therefore, probation is not successful. Due to reoffending, he is not suitable for more supervision” [ 87 ] Mr.

Eamer’s seeming appreciation of the risk he poses for female partners is also reflected in Dr. Annie Yessine’s December 6, 2006 psychological report found in records filed in this hearing. She had prepared same for the Ontario Parole and Earned Release Board following the sentence of July 24, 2006 for physical and sexual violence against victim W.F.. [ 88 ] Dr. Yessine opines that Mr. Eamer was within the medium level risk to re-offend. She notes: − Mr.

Eamer seems to have acquired insight into his behavior patterns from services at the Jewish Family Services − Although he minimizes the severity of the offences, he describes himself as a bully and seems to be aware of the impact his actions had on the victims − He is quoted as saying: • “Nobody deserves that” • “I have no right to treat women like that” • “I wish I could go back and do things differently” • “I want to change…I don’t want to be the way I’ve been” − He attributes his behaviour to his being demanding at times and becoming easily frustrated when not getting his way [ 89 ] The probation records reveal that the issue of Mr.

Eamer entering into relationships with female partners was regularly raised by probation officer Ronald Gendron. [ 90 ] On May 16, 2013, Mr. Eamer agreed with the Officer that “he shouldn’t enter a relationship for a while”. [ 91 ] This notion was reinforced following a report on October 8, 2013 that he was in a relationship with Joanne Lauterbauch. Mr. Eamer denied being in a relationship and explained that she was just a friend. He was residing with this individual and her children. While he yelled on occasions, he didn’t yell at them. [ 92 ] The probation officer met with Ms.

Lauterbauch who confirmed that they were just friends and she was aware of his past domestic violence. She was warned of the risk of entering a relationship with Mr. Eamer. She stated that she had been in such a relationship and knew the warning signs. She agreed to call the probation officer. [ 93 ] The importance of remaining relationship/ sex free was reviewed with Mr. Eamer on October 30, 2013. He agreed that he was not ready and that doing so would place any woman in a high risk violent situation. [ 94 ] Mr.

Eamer maintained not being in a. relationship throughout his supervision by Ronald Gendron from May 2013 to the commission of the offences in June 2014. He had not disclosed his relationship with victim Samantha McKay which started on May 23, 2014. [ 95 ] In regards to other victims and the information conveyed by Mr.

Eamer to the probation officers, the Court notes: − On October 6, 2008 , he stated that he had broken up with Shanna since the relationship was not healthy; there was nothing criminal − On October 16, 2008 , he describes Shanna as being very patient with him − On November 7, 2008, he explains that he ended relationship with Shanna; she didn’t trust him − On October 27, 2010, he advised living with Melissa Looyen and relationship is going well; probation officer met with Ms. Looyen and she stated she had no concerns − On November 29, 2010, he states that relationship with Ms. Looyen is going well 10.

Royal Ottawa Mental Health Clinic Records [ 96 ] The Court was provided with Mr. Eamer’s complete clinical record from the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Clinic. These documents show that he has been under Dr. Jonathan Gray’s care since September 2007 at the Anger Disorders Clinic. It is noted that he has participated in individual counselling for anger issues with social worker Vanessa Woods. He joined the Anger Management Group sessions in June 2011. [ 97 ] The record discloses a number of various types of assessments through the years. [ 98 ] In his October 12, 2007 Anger Disorders Clinic Assessment, Dr.

Gray states having received the following information from Mr.

Eamer: − His primary problem is anger − He still gets irritation almost every day − His feelings are triggered when not treated with respect and not getting his way − His anger can last for a few hours on occasion − He uses anger to bully and control others − The sexual assault is as a result of his girlfriend being too afraid to say no − He was fired form jobs because of anger outbursts [ 99 ] Social worker Vanessa Wood’s March 29, 2010 Social Work Assessment relates that: − His behaviour when angry include yelling, breaking inanimate objects, ripping the clothing he is wearing and physical aggression toward others − He describes his anger episodes as having a blow-up in which he blacks out and acts without thinking

− Triggers identified by him include not getting his way, lazy and /or stupid people and bad drivers [ 100 ] It is also confirmed as of July 2010, that Mr. Eamer has a sleep disorder which requires treatment as this increases irritability which in turn, impacts on the risk of reoffending violently. Mr. Eamer requires a CPAP machine to manage his sleep apnea. [ 101 ] The more recent assessments stem from the Court’s request for an opinion in regards to Mr. Eamer‘s criminal responsibility for the June 2014 offences. Forensic psychiatrist Dr. Kunjukrishna was tasked to prepare such a report.

His opinion is set out in the July 29, 2014 report which concludes: “I do not believe that Mr. Eamer’s behaviour at the time of the alleged offences would come under the provision of

section 16 of the Criminal Code of Canada ” [ 102 ] In assessing Mr. Eamer’s criminal responsibility, Dr. Kunjukrishna consulted with a number of other experts who have provided the following insight and opinions: July 16. 2014 Report of Dr. Booth − Mr. Eamer told him that he felt depressed from December 2013 to June 2014 − It is unlikely that he meets the

section 16 threshold of non-criminally responsible • Current offence is very in keeping with previous offences suggesting acting out in his usual and “rational’ manner • While he says he wasn’t in a relationship with the victim, there is a rational motive for his behaviour, namely, being upset in the context of the dysfunctional dynamics of the relationship • His Antisocial personality explains well his antisocial behaviour in this offence − His self-harm behaviours are well documented; he resorts to these when threats and other manipulative behaviours are not successful He suspects malingering; Mr.

Eamer may be exaggerating his claims of memory difficulties. July 23, 2014 report of Dr. Gray − Mr. Eamer told him that they argued because the victim wanted the relationship to become more serious and he wanted it as it was − He “blacked out” and doesn’t remember anything until police arrival; he has no recollection of cutting his throat − He agreed with Dr.

Booth’s 2007 diagnoses: • Bipolar affective disorder • Adult ADHD with childhood onset • Antisocial personality disorder given history of conduct disorder as a child as well as adult antisocial behaviours − He is likely criminally responsible; • Offence is very similar to his pattern of offending with 13 previous assault convictions • There would be rational motive of his offence given that there were different views on the goal of the relationship between him and the alleged victim July 22, 2014 report of Social Worker Lindsay McLean − He may benefit from a program that focuses on self-esteem so that he doesn’t feel insecure in his relationships − She met with Joanne Lauterbauch as part of her psychosocial assessment; she was provided with the following information by Ms.

Lauterbauch: • She did not fear for her or her children’s safety despite Mr. Eamer’s aggressive outbursts • The more she got close to him the more she saw his anger • He kicked her on one occasion • It was mostly property damage • His behaviours were worse when he was not taking his medication • He got jealous if she wanted to go out at night • There were 5 to 10 episodes of him banging his head against the wall from September to October 2013 July 25, 2014 Report of Psychologist Dr. Felicia Agyare-Kwamena − She reports that the results of Mr.

Eamer’s personality assessment should be looked at with caution as she felt he “ over reported so many problems”; he reported more symptoms and problems than seen in most psychiatric patients − He endorsed a MMPI-2 which translates as follows: • Difficulty in maintaining control over impulses • After acting out, such individuals experience guilt and anxiety regarding the consequences of their actions; this anxiety unfortunately took place too late to serve as a potent deterrent • In spite of their conscience pangs and expression of firm intention to change their behaviour, future acting out is quite likely to reoccur in a cyclic pattern • Expression of guilt is short lived • Often vacillate between pitying themselves and blaming others for their difficulties • They resent any demands placed on them while they demand sympathy and attention from others; they get upset easily; they are overly suspicious, angry and unduly sensitive to criticism; they tend to be insecure; manipulative with poor judgment − She states the following: “In terms of diagnosis, there is a strong component of avoidant personality with antisocial and passive-aggressive as well as self-defeating features to Mr.

Eamer’s personality. In terms of prognosis, we do see the cycle of acting out and expression of guilt and not wanting to do it again and he has been through anger management

before”. [ 103 ] Mr. Eamer’s clinical record from the ROMHC also includes Dr. Gray’s and social worker Vanessa Woods’s progress notes. The vast majority of these entries describe him in fairly positive terms. The following are noted as examples: − He appeared to be a motivated individual regarding his anger ( March 29, 2010 ) − He is compliant with appointments and recommended medications; very proactive in his care; on his own , he suggested attendance at the Anger Disorders Group ( letter dated July 6, 2010 sent by Dr. Gray to Mr.

Eamer’s lawyer) − He has presented as motivated to participate in treatment to address issues as they relate to anger as well as interested in learning skills in order to better manage anger (letter dated March 29, 2011 sent by Dr. Gray to Mr. Eamer ) − He is very enthusiastic to receive treatment for his anger ( letter dated May 17, 2011 sent by Dr. Gray to Mr.

Eamer’s lawyer) − He wants to get help with his anger; he said anger has a major impact on his life; relationship broke with Shanna when he hit her; he is often angry with her ( February 22, 2010) − Relationship with Melissa is good between them at the present ( November 29, 2010 ) − He said his mood has gotten better in last 2 weeks; things are more settled and getting along very well with Melissa; no anger towards her; he has not gotten into any arguments; “…presents to writer as one who continues to be motivated to address anger issues but may still have little insight into his experience of anger…” ( May 16, 2011) − Reports doing very well; mood is stable; anger group has been very helpful; his anger is much better towards his girlfriend Melissa; he has not had any episodes of anger towards her; if he starts to feel somewhat irritated, she just agrees to go back home ( July 5, 2011) − He has not had any major anger outbursts; his mood has been very good ( August 5, 2011) − Said he is doing extremely well , no anger episodes ( July 19, 2013) − States doing well despite major stressors in regards to a complaint filed by Joanne’s ex-husband to CAS; admits to 2 occasions where he blew up and yelled at Joanne ( October 11, 2013) − Reports doing much better; he was exposed to triggers from Joanne but he didn’t take the bait and didn’t become angry at her ; in the past he would have become frustrated and may even have struck her ( November 15, 2013) − States still has anger on occasion but does not take it out on other people (January 22, 2014) − Said he was having sexual relations with his friend Joanne ( February 4, 2014) − He is no longer in a sexual relationship with Joanne; she was volatile and giving him mixed signals; he was proud of himself since he did not get angry but rather ended the relationship ; stated he can change and that he didn’t want to hurt anyone anymore (February 25, 2014) 11.

Administration of Sentencing options [ 104 ] Witnesses Lindsay Maahs, Nikki Smith, Tamara Sasto and Petrina Lemieux provided the Court with a roadmap of how the various sentencing options in this matter are administered by authorities. The Court will briefly review this evidence. Lindsay Maahs [ 105 ] Witness Lindsay Maahs is employed by Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) as a supervisor of parole officers. [ 106 ] CSC is the federal government agency which administers court-imposed sentences of two years or more.

It also manages institutions of various security levels and supervises offenders under conditional release to the community. Post-sentence supervision of offenders with long-term supervision orders for up to 10 years is also administered by CSC. [ 107 ] The protection of the public is the paramount consideration for CSC in the correctional process.

It does so, in part, by actively encouraging and assisting offenders to become law-abiding citizens, while exercising reasonable, safe, secure and humane control. [ 108 ] The federal offender intake process includes the following: − Preliminary Assessment Report prepared by a community Parole Officer • Identifies community contacts for the offender such as family, friend or employer − Post-Sentence Community Assessment − Offender Intake Assessment • To determine risk and needs • To establish an initial placement to an institution at the appropriate security level • Analysis of the offender’s criminal history including mental health history − A Correctional Plan developed by a Parole Officer • Described as a blueprint for the offender’s sentence • The offender’s progress is measured against goals set out in this plan • It includes an assessment of the offender’s static risk factors (age, offence history, current offence, harm caused, etc.) and dynamic risk factors (education, employment, marital/family, substance abuse, community functioning, attitude); ratings of low, medium or high will be assessed to these risk factors • Includes an assessment of the offender’s accountability, motivation and responsivity • Includes risk management strategies and recommended intervention • Identifies the objectives for the offender to gain support for reduced security classification, temporary absences, work release and/or conditional release • The Parole Officer will update this plan in consultation with the offender

− The Intake Assessment is finalized with the assignment of a security level of minimum, medium or maximum [ 109 ] CSC is responsible for the monitoring of offenders released in the community through the following types of release: − Temporary absence − Work release − Day parole − Full parole − Statutory release − Long-term supervision orders [ 110 ] A community strategy is completed by a Community Parole Officer.

Its purpose is to develop a supervision plan which will be implemented upon release and to identify the means by which the risk can be managed in the community. [ 111 ] Parole Officers present recommendations to the Parole Board of Canada (PBC) regarding the conditional release and detention of offenders following risk assessments, based on ongoing correctional interventions and evaluations. [ 112 ] PBC is responsible for all release grants and denials and establishing special conditions except for a narrow band of authority, in which CSC manages the decision making required on temporary absences and work releases. [ 113 ] The releasing authority may impose any condition that it considers reasonable and necessary in order to protect society and to facilitate the offender’s successful reintegration into society, including: − Remain in specific geographical areas − Reside in a community-based residential facility or a psychiatric facility − Abstention from alcohol or drugs − Report intimate and/or non-intimate relationship (as oppose to prohibiting relationship which the witness states never having seen as a condition) [ 114 ] The following considerations apply to long-term supervision orders (LTSO): − All offenders subject to a LTSO are supervised by CSC even offenders serving a sentence in a provincial prison − A CSC community Parole Officer completes the intake and case preparation for offenders serving a provincial jail term • This creates special challenges since CSC is provided with short notice and it is sometimes difficult to gather information from the provincial jail • Witness states that CSC will scramble to develop a plan • This may result in a lack of supervision • CSC has no input as to treatment while in a provincial program • Providing CSC with a memory stick such as Exhibit #4 would address these concerns − Prior to their warrant expiry date, offenders are eligible for all forms of conditional release − Special conditions that may have been imposed on parole or statutory release do not automatically carry over to the long-term supervision; Parole Officers must make recommendation for such conditions to the PBC − Even with a residency condition, CSC does not provide 24-hour supervision − CSC can suspend the Offender’s release on the same basis as offenders on conditional or statutory release for a breach of condition, prevention of a breach or protection of society − The police or Crown Attorney can directly charge an offender with a breach − A LTSO may be reduced or terminated by the PBC upon application by the offender or the Parole Officer [ 115 ] The following considerations apply to dangerous offenders: − Offenders designated a dangerous offender and sentenced to a determinate sentence and LTSO are supervised in accordance with all other offenders and LTSO − A dangerous offender serving an indeterminate sentence: • Has no statutory right to release and must earn his or her release on an unescorted temporary absence, day parole or full parole • Is not eligible for full parole until he or she has served seven years from the date of arrest; the offender is entitled to a review every five years after serving seven years • Eligible for day parole and unescorted temporary absences the longer of three years and three years prior to the full parole eligibility date • If granted a form of conditional release, the offender is subject to the same supervision standards and policies as other offenders and may be suspended for the same basis (i.e., breach of condition, prevent a breach, protection of society) Petrina Lemieux [ 116 ] Witness Petrina Lemieux is the Regional Program Manager for CSC.

As such, she oversees treatment programs offered to offenders in federal institutions. She described the programs available to offenders while in custody and once released. [ 117 ] Ms. Lemieux testified as to the Integrated Correctional Program Model which is more fully described in Exhibit #9.

This model includes three distinct correctional program streams for men offenders, namely, a multi-target program, an Aboriginal-specific multi-target program and a sex offender program, all of which include a maintenance component. [ 118 ] As already described by witness Lindsay Maahs, an offender is assessed upon entering the federal institution. This assessment will serve to identify the program needed to address the offender’s criminal behaviour. The treatment plan is identified in accordance with risk. The assessment includes risk of recidivism, education, spousal assault and mental health.

Depending on the level of risk, the offender will be asked to participate in a “high intensity” or “moderate intensity” program.

[ 119 ] Participation in such a program is voluntary. Failure to participate will impact on parole eligibility. [ 120 ] The programming is meant to be delivered in an integrated or holistic way. The aim of the program is for the offender to gain an understanding of the interplay among multiple risk factors as well as an understanding of how the same skill sets can be used to effectively manage them. The ultimate purpose is to develop a “self- management program”. [ 121 ] The program is followed by a 12 session maintenance program, the purpose of which is to develop and maintain “management skills”.

An offender may be required to repeat the maintenance program. [ 122 ] The witness described that the same type of program is offered in the community upon release. The parole officer will create a community plan for the offender. [ 123 ] She states that a long-term offender who refuses to participate in community programs will be returned to custody by PBC. [ 124 ] She explains that there are certain issues when an offender is received from a provincial jail.

CSC has much less details and therefore, the assessment is not as thorough as there is less staff in the community. [ 125 ] The witness testified that inmates have access to a mental health unit which is separate from these programs. Individual counselling is provided through this unit. Offenders can make a request for mental health assistance. [ 126 ] In cross-examination, the witness agrees with the suggestion that mental health resources are taxed in federal institutions.

The focus is on more acute offenders suffering from active psychosis for example as oppose to individuals suffering from a mental health condition contributing to criminal conduct. [ 127 ] An individual requiring a CPAP device by reason of sleep apnea would present as a challenge in a federal institution. The witness has heard of such cases but it is uncommon. Nikki Smith [ 128 ] Witness, Nikki Smith, is a Regional Manager of conditional release programs with the Parole Board of Canada (PBC).

She explained that the PBC is an independent administrative tribunal which takes decisions in regards to the conditional release of federal offenders. [ 129 ] The PBC is provided with materials relating to the offender by CSC prior to a review. These will include various types of assessments, Judge’s decision, police reports, facts pertaining to the offences, progress reports and the correctional plan.

A case review officer will ensure that the file is complete and provide same to the Board for its consideration. [ 130 ] The witness testified that the basic philosophy of conditional releases is whether the offender is a risk to the public and whether it is in the offender’s best interests to be released and managed in the community. This measure applies to every type of release. [ 131 ] The process is such that the CSC will provide an analysis and recommendations based on the materials. The PBC will in turn view these submissions and the materials.

In deciding whether or not to grant a release, the PBC will weigh the risk factors and the steps taken by the offender to mitigate these risks. Both static documents (i.e. historical facts which cannot be changed such as criminal record and history) and dynamic documents (i.e. steps taken by offender while in custody/what can be changed) will be assessed by the Board. [ 132 ] The witness described the various types of release which are available for federal offenders in accordance with the nature of the sentence.

Her evidence can be summarized as follows: Determinate Sentences − If an offender is serving a determinate sentence: • Will remain in custody for the first third • Is eligible for legislative review during the second third; can apply for day parole • Statutory release following two third − When an offender is released on any type of release, standard and special conditions are imposed; special conditions may be imposed if reasonably necessary to manage risk − An offender may be detained beyond the two third statutory release date if CSC refers to the Board based on the belief that there is an elevated risk that will commit an offence causing death or serious harm − An offender may be released on escorted and unescorted temporary absences for specified periods of time Indeterminate Sentences − If an offender is serving an indeterminate sentence: • Fractions are not used in calculating release since the sentence does not end • The full parole eligibility date is 7 years following the date of arrest • Day parole eligibility date is 4 years after the date of arrest • There is a 5 year review following a negative review at the 7 year initial review • Day parole and unescorted temporary absence eligibility occur 3 years before the full parole eligibility date • An offender will be supervised for the rest of his or her life by CSC; the conditions of release continue to be dynamic and to change throughout the offender’s life • If an offender is suspected of or is known to have breached conditions of release or it is necessary to prevent a breach, his or her release may be suspended by CSC; the suspension may then be cancelled or a reference is made to PBC with a recommendation to either cancel the suspension or revoke release [ 133 ] Miss Smith was questioned in regards to conditions imposed on an offender released in the community.

These include standard conditions of release as well as any special conditions imposed by PBC. [ 134 ] The standard conditions apply to all offenders and include the following: − Obey the law − Keep the peace − Remain within territorial boundaries set by the parole officer − Report any interaction with the police

[ 135 ] Special conditions may be imposed based on an offender’s risk and the need to manage same in the community. These conditions must be reasonable and necessary. They are dynamic and may be varied based on need.

Additional conditions can be added by the PBC. [ 136 ] Examples of such special conditions are: − Abstaining from alcohol/drugs − Participate in a program/counselling − Not to have contact with certain individuals − Not attend a particular place − Not possess a cell phone − Abide by a curfew [ 137 ] She is questioned in regards to the PBC imposing a special condition whereby an offender would be prohibited from getting involved in an intimate sexual or non- sexual relationship. She indicates never having seen such a condition as oppose to an obligation to report same to a parole supervisor.

Her view is that conditions must be necessary and reasonable and that a ban against certain types of relationships would not be reasonable or feasible. She questions whether it could be managed by CSC. She raises the issue of semantics and how to assess the nature of a relationship.

For example, when does a friendship become an intimate relationship. [ 138 ] Through the witnesses’ vica voce evidence and Exhibit #6, the Court is provided with the following information in regards to long-term supervision orders (LTSO): − It is not a custodial sentence so that it cannot be structured so as to effectively convert such an order to a period of custody − It is described as a tool to manage an offender in the community − When an offender commences a LTSO, the PBC imposes special conditions: • These must be reasonable and necessary to manage risk • Residency conditions are imposed for a period of up to 365 days; it may be renewed if reasonable and necessary • As it is not a custodial sentence, house arrest is not a likely condition • The offender is subject to standard conditions − A LTSO is finite and thus, comes to an end − If an offender breaches a condition, the CSC may issue a suspension and apprehension warrant and make a referral to the PBC; the PBC cannot revoke a LTSO; it can only make a recommendation that a charge be laid under

section 753.3 of the Criminal Code or cancel the suspension; the police will decide whether or not to proceed with such a charge [ 139 ] The witness raises the issue of “gap” when an offender is sentenced to a provincial jail term and subsequently supervised by way of an LTSO. [ 140 ] The essence of the concern is that the CSC will not have the required information to transmit to the PBC. The CSC will have to gather the information after the offender enters the federal process. The information is not provided to the CSC prior to the said transfer.

Therefore, there is a “gap” during which CSC is not able to make recommendations to the PBC. [ 141 ] The points raised in cross-examination include the following: − While she has seen a condition that an offender is not to associate with children under a certain age, she has never seen a condition not to associate with “women” as a grouping − The conditions of a LTSO are set out by the PBC; while a judge’s comments and recommendations are considered by the Board, it is not bound by same; it is a piece of information considered by the PBC − The special conditions are not static and can be reviewed; some may be added and others removed based on risk; all offenders present some risk − The criteria to revoke a conditional release is whether the offender represents an undue risk − The PBC will recommend the laying of a charge in the context of a LTSO when there is no appropriate program of supervision to adequately protect society from the risk of re-offending and it appears that a breach has occurred − There are administrative challenges when the transition is from the provincial system to the federal system: • There is a gap in the providing of the information • There is no authority for the PBC to craft conditions before the commencement of the LTSO • There is no mechanism for the PBC to impose conditions on the day an offender enters the federal system through an LTSO • It is the transfer to the federal system which triggers the creation of a file • It is a systemic problem between 2 separate levels of government; it is all about administrative processes; it is a federal process; you are dealing with bureaucracy; there is no mechanism to deal with information that would be received before the offender enters the federal system; this is a known issue in Ontario which has been discussed but she is not aware of any changes and/or legislation Tamara Easto [ 142 ] Tamara Easto is employed with the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services of Ontario.

She holds the position of Deputy Superintendent at the Central East Correctional Centre in Lindsay. Through her testimony and Exhibit #3, she provides the Court with insight in regards to risk assessment programming and other features of sentence administration for sentences of less than 2 years. [ 143 ] She explained that following the imposition of such a sentence, an offender will be classified by a Classification Officer. This is done by way of a risk assessment and a review of relevant information which includes criminal history, offence, pre-sentence report, probation files and health history.

The appropriate correctional facility in terms of risks and available programs is then identified. [ 144 ] Provincial correctional facilities offer a myriad of programs to offenders. For example, programs offered at Central East in Lindsay include addiction, anger management, life skill counselling and positive parenting. [ 145 ] Algoma in Sault Ste Marie provides an intensive domestic violence program. O.C.I. in Brampton also offers an anger management program which is not, however, directed at domestic violence.

[ 146 ] The witness states that a Judge’s recommendation that an offender participate in such programs will be considered but there is no guarantee as the decision rests with the facility. She notes that there are fairly long waiting lists for such programs. [ 147 ] She is questioned in relation to the St. Lawrence Valley Correctional and Treatment Centre in Brockville. It is the only “Schedule 1 Hospital” correctional facility in Ontario.

Affiliated with the Royal Ottawa Hospital, it is geared to offenders suffering from significant mental health issues. [ 148 ] The setting is more in the nature of a hospital as health care is the dominant concern. The offenders are in contact with medical staff more than security officers. [ 149 ] There is a significant waiting list of 6 to 8 months. Entry is gained by application with the decision resting with a committee. Again, a Judge’s recommendation is a consideration but not determinative.

It is noted that the waiting list is fluid and may vary depending on an offender’s needs. [ 150 ] The witness also discusses the provincial parole eligibility dates which are determined by the length of the offender’s sentence.

Her evidence on this point can be summarized as follows: − There is no day parole − Offenders become eligible after serving one third − If parole is waived or denied, offenders become eligible after serving two thirds − An offender may be kept in custody beyond two thirds due to misconduct and loss of earned remission [ 151 ] Prior to the hearing before the Ontario Parole Board, a Probation and Parole Officer will conduct an investigation in order to prepare a Parole Report. This consists of performing a home visit to meet the proposed sponsor and confirm the existence of the proposed home.

It also serves to confirm the relationship with the sponsor. Employment, if any, will also be confirmed. [ 152 ] The Parole Board then makes its decision based on risks, and recommendations from the Parole Report, the police and by the Probation and Parole Officer. [ 153 ] If parole is granted, the offender will serve the remainder of his sentence in the community in the proposed residence and is compelled to report to the police and the Probation and Parole Officer at least twice a month. [ 154 ] The witness explains that there are no “half-way houses” in the provincial parole process.

She also states that, unlike the federal system, there is no authority to keep an offender in jail up to the end of the warrant on the basis of undue risk. [ 155 ] If an offender breaches a term of parole, the supervisor may issue a parole warrant for his or her arrest. The offender will be incarcerated and appear before the Parole Board. The options are: − Revocation of parole − Issue a warning and release to offender − Impose additional conditions [ 156 ] The witness explains that a LTSO does not come into effect until the expiry of the provincial warrant.

So that an offender will not be subject of conditions under a LTSO while on parole. [ 157 ] Finally, in examination in-chief, the witness speaks to the question of the transition from a provincial jail term to the federal system in the context of a L.T.S.O. [ 158 ] Specifically, she testifies that the provincial authorities contact their federal counterparts in regards to such an offender on 2 specific points in time, namely: 1. Once the offender’s probable date of release is calculated; this is usually 6 to 8 weeks following entry in the provincial institution. 2.

Two (2) weeks prior to the offender’s release from custody [ 159 ] She also makes the point that there is no process allowing for the exchange of information to C.S.C. prior to the offender’s transfer to the federal system. The only material conveyed is the offender’s medical record. This would include details such as medication, treatment and physical/psychiatric assessments if any. She states that they will not release any other record unless the offender consents to disclosure. [ 160 ] In cross-examination, she is questioned in regards to the transfer from the provincial to the federal system.

She confirms that federal parole officers could attend the facilities to meet with an inmate prior to release. The province would allow such contacts. Furthermore, while she has never seen this nor heard of this being done, an inmate’s file could be given to CSC prior to the transfer on consent of the inmate. [ 161 ] Finally, the witness confirms that the St. Lawrence Valley Correctional and Treatment Centre is designated as a “Schedule 1 Hospital” as inmates can be compelled to take m

[…]