[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-635186-105":59,"doc-detail-635186-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","respondents-factum-criminal-lawyers-association-ontario","RESPONDENT’S FACTUM -  Criminal Lawyers’ Association (Ontario)","","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.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":40,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/respondents-factum-criminal-lawyers-association-ontario/635186/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/respondents-factum-criminal-lawyers-association-ontario/635186.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"notyourbestiee","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-11-03","2026-10-22",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":14},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"What is the subject of the Respondent’s factum in this Supreme Court appeal?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"It concerns the Appellant’s dangerous offender designation and the indeterminate period of incarceration imposed after conviction for violent sexual offences.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"What is the “Johnson error” referenced in the overview?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"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.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"How did the Ontario Court of Appeal treat the legal error on appeal?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"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.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},635186,1792675456,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":39,"category_name":40,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":14,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":139,"language":140,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":129,"read_time":144},962094243716,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_29158cc5080c5b710cf443261637dec0","BETWEEN  \nROGER A.PINNOCK  \nMinistry of the Attorney GeneralCrown Law Office-Criminal720 Bay Street,10ᵗFloorToronto,Ontario M7A 2S9Tel:(416)326-4575Fax:(416)326-4656E-mail:roger.pinnock@ontario.ca  \nCounsel for the Respondent  \nMICHAEL DINEEN  \nDawe &Dineen171 John Street,Suite 101Toronto,Ontario M5T 1X3Tel.:(416)649-5059Fax:(416)352-7733E-mail:mdineen@dawedineen.com  \nCounsel for the Appellant  \n# IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA(ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALFOR ONTARIO)\n\nJAMES PETER SIPOS  \nAppellant  \n-and-  \n# HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN\n\nRespondent  \n# CRIMINAL LAWYERS’ASSOCIATION (ONTARIO)\n\nIntervener  \n# RESPONDENT’S FACTUM\n\nROBERT E.HOUSTON,Q.C.Burke-Robertson  \n441 MacLaren Street,Suite 200Ottawa,OntarioK2P 2H3  \nTel:(613)236-9665Fax:(613)235-4430E-mail:rhouston@burkerobertson.com  \nOttawa Agent for the Respondent  \nGUY REGIMBALD  \nGowling Lafleur Henderson LLP160 Elgin Street,Suite 2600Ottawa,Ontario K1P 1C3Tel.:(613)786-0197Fax:(613)563-9869E-mail:guy.regimbald@gowlings.com  \nOttawa Agent for the Appellant  \nRUBY SHILLER CHAN HASAN  \nBarristers  \n11 Prince Arrthur AvenueToronto,ON M5R 1B2  \nGerald Chan  \nNader R.Hasan  \nTel:(416)964-9664  \nFax:(416)964-8305  \nEmail:gchan@rubyshiller.comnhasan@rubyshiller.com  \nGOWLING LAFLEUR HENDERSON  \nBarristers and Solicitors  \n2600-160 Elgin St.,Box 466,Station DOttawa,ON K1P 1C3  \nGuy Regimbald  \nTel:(613)786-0197  \nFax:(613)563-9869  \nEmail:guy.regimbald@gowlings.com  \n# IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA\n\n(ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO)  \nBETWEEN  \nJAMES PETER SIPOS  \nAppellant  \n- and-  \n# HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN\n\nRespondent  \n# CRIMINALLAWYERS'ASSOCIATION(ONTARIO)\n\nIntervener  \n# RESPONDENT’S FACTUM\n\nTable of Contents  \nPARTI: RESPONDENT'S STATEMENT AS TO FACTS……………………………………………………1  \nA. Overview……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………1  \nB. Statement of the Facts ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………2  \n1. The Appellant's History of Violent and Predatory Sexual Offences………………………2  \ni) His First Victim-I.H………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………2  \nii) His Second Victim-P.N………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………3  \niii) His Third Victim -D.B……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………3  \niv) His Fourth Victim-L.C……………………………………………………………………………………………………………4  \nV) His Fifth Victim-P.S………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………4  \nvi) His Sixth Victim-C.S……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………4  \nvii) The Predicate Crimes-His Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Victims-Susan C.,  \nCathy S and Linda N………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………4  \nii  \n2. Psychological Findings at the Dangerous Offender Hearing…………………………………………6  \ni. Evidence in support of the Dangerous Offender Designation…………………………………………………6  \nii. The defence evidence……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………12  \n3. The Fresh Evidence…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………14  \n4. Court of Appeal Ruling(2012)……………………………………………………………………………………………………15  \nPART II: POINT IN ISSUE………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………17  \nPART II:ARGUMENT………………………………………………………………………………………………………………18  \nC. A. The Nature of Dangerous Offender Appeals Do Not Support a Prospective……18  \nApproach………………………………………………………………………………………………………………  \n………………………………………………………………………18  \n5. The Role of an Appellate Court is to Review for Errors in Principle…………………18  \n6. vidence of Post-Sentence Rehabilitation Is Better Assessed by the…………………………  \nParole Board………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………18  \n7. Release by the Parole Board Will be Authorized in the……………………………………………………  \nAppropriate Circumstances………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………20  \n8. This case is consistent with other appellate level jurisprudence………………………………22  \n9. Dangerous Offender Appeals are Different from Appeals as to Quantum………………  \nof Sentence…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………23  \nD. The Judgement on Appeal……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………24  \n1. The O","cbCaimysmNWC67Zt","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaimysmNWC67Zt","pdf",1155599,35,"English","# PART I: RESPONDENT’S STATEMENT AS TO FACTS\n## A. Overview\n## B. Statement of the Facts\n### 1. The Appellant's History of Violent and Predatory Sexual Offences\n### 2. Psychological Findings at the Dangerous Offender Hearing\n### 3. The Fresh Evidence\n### 4. Court of Appeal Ruling (2012)\n# PART II: POINT IN ISSUE\n# PART II: ARGUMENT\n## C. A. The Nature of Dangerous Offender Appeals Do Not Support a Prospective Approach\n## D. The Judgement on Appeal\n# PART IV: SUBMISSIONS ON COSTS\n# PART V: ORDER REQUESTED\n# PART VI: LIST OF AUTHORITIES","[{\"question\":\"What is the subject of the Respondent’s factum in this Supreme Court appeal?\",\"answer\":\"It concerns the Appellant’s dangerous offender designation and the indeterminate period of incarceration imposed after conviction for violent sexual offences.\"},{\"question\":\"What is the “Johnson error” referenced in the overview?\",\"answer\":\"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.\"},{\"question\":\"How did the Ontario Court of Appeal treat the legal error on appeal?\",\"answer\":\"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.\"}]","RESPONDENT’S FACTUM -  Criminal Lawyers’ Association (Ontario) | PDF",88]