RESPONDENT’S FACTUM - Criminal Lawyers’ Association (Ontario)

Oct 22, 2026

Respondent’s factum in a Supreme Court of Canada appeal concerning the Appellant’s dangerous offender designation and sentencing. It addresses the procedural and legal impact of a “Johnson error” related to long-term offender provisions, the Ontario Court of Appeal’s use of the curative proviso, and the conclusion that no miscarriage of justice occurred. It outlines the facts, issues, argument, and appellate submissions, including costs, order requested, and authorities.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages35

Reading Time1 h 28 min

AccessFree to download

PART I: RESPONDENT’S STATEMENT AS TO FACTS

A. Overview

B. Statement of the Facts

1. The Appellant's History of Violent and Predatory Sexual Offences

2. Psychological Findings at the Dangerous Offender Hearing

3. The Fresh Evidence

4. Court of Appeal Ruling (2012)

PART II: POINT IN ISSUE

PART II: ARGUMENT

C. A. The Nature of Dangerous Offender Appeals Do Not Support a Prospective Approach

D. The Judgement on Appeal

PART IV: SUBMISSIONS ON COSTS

PART V: ORDER REQUESTED

PART VI: LIST OF AUTHORITIES

BETWEEN ROGER A.PINNOCK Ministry of the Attorney GeneralCrown Law Office-Criminal720 Bay Street,10ᵗFloorToronto,Ontario M7A 2S9Tel:(416)326-4575Fax:(416)326-4656E-mail:roger.pinnock@ontario.ca Counsel for the Respondent MICHAEL DINEEN Dawe &Dineen171 John Street,Suite 101Toronto,Ontario M5T 1X3Tel.:(416)649-5059Fax:(416)352-7733E-mail:mdineen@dawedineen.com Counsel for the Appellant # IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA(ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALFOR ONTARIO) JAMES PETER SIPOS Appellant -and- # HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent # CRIMINAL LAWYERS’ASSOCIATION (ONTARIO) Intervener # RESPONDENT’S FACTUM ROBERT E.HOUSTON,Q.C.Burke-Robertson 441 MacLaren Street,Suite 200Ottawa,OntarioK2P 2H3 Tel:(613)236-9665Fax:(613)235-4430E-mail:rhouston@burkerobertson.com Ottawa Agent for the Respondent GUY REGIMBALD Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP160 Elgin Street,Suite 2600Ottawa,Ontario K1P 1C3Tel.:(613)786-0197Fax:(613)563-9869E-mail:guy.regimbald@gowlings.com Ottawa Agent for the Appellant RUBY SHILLER CHAN HASAN Barristers 11 Prince Arrthur AvenueToronto,ON M5R 1B2 Gerald Chan Nader R.Hasan Tel:(416)964-9664 Fax:(416)964-8305 Email:gchan@rubyshiller.comnhasan@rubyshiller.com GOWLING LAFLEUR HENDERSON Barristers and Solicitors 2600-160 Elgin St.,Box 466,Station DOttawa,ON K1P 1C3 Guy Regimbald Tel:(613)786-0197 Fax:(613)563-9869 Email:guy.regimbald@gowlings.com # IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO) BETWEEN JAMES PETER SIPOS Appellant - and- # HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent # CRIMINALLAWYERS'ASSOCIATION(ONTARIO) Intervener # RESPONDENT’S FACTUM Table of Contents PARTI: RESPONDENT'S STATEMENT AS TO FACTS……………………………………………………1 A. Overview……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………1 B. Statement of the Facts ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………2 1. The Appellant's History of Violent and Predatory Sexual Offences………………………2 i) His First Victim-I.H………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………2 ii) His Second Victim-P.N………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………3 iii) His Third Victim -D.B……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………3 iv) His Fourth Victim-L.C……………………………………………………………………………………………………………4 V) His Fifth Victim-P.S………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………4 vi) His Sixth Victim-C.S……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………4 vii) The Predicate Crimes-His Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Victims-Susan C., Cathy S and Linda N………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………4 ii 2. Psychological Findings at the Dangerous Offender Hearing…………………………………………6 i. Evidence in support of the Dangerous Offender Designation…………………………………………………6 ii. The defence evidence……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………12 3. The Fresh Evidence…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………14 4. Court of Appeal Ruling(2012)……………………………………………………………………………………………………15 PART II: POINT IN ISSUE………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………17 PART II:ARGUMENT………………………………………………………………………………………………………………18 C. A. The Nature of Dangerous Offender Appeals Do Not Support a Prospective……18 Approach……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………18 5. The Role of an Appellate Court is to Review for Errors in Principle…………………18 6. vidence of Post-Sentence Rehabilitation Is Better Assessed by the………………………… Parole Board………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………18 7. Release by the Parole Board Will be Authorized in the…………………………………………………… Appropriate Circumstances………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………20 8. This case is consistent with other appellate level jurisprudence………………………………22 9. Dangerous Offender Appeals are Different from Appeals as to Quantum……………… of Sentence…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………23 D. The Judgement on Appeal……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………24 1. The O

FAQs

What is the subject of the Respondent’s factum in this Supreme Court appeal?

It concerns the Appellant’s dangerous offender designation and the indeterminate period of incarceration imposed after conviction for violent sexual offences.

What is the “Johnson error” referenced in the overview?

The trial judge did not specifically advert to recently enacted long-term offender provisions, and the Respondent describes this as an error in applying the required approach per R. v. Johnson.

How did the Ontario Court of Appeal treat the legal error on appeal?

The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the indeterminate sentence, applying the curative proviso, and found no reasonable possibility the sentencing judge would have ruled differently.

Oct 22, 2026

Uploaded by notyourbestiee