The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has ordered a man, identified by the initials S.M., to undergo a formal assessment to determine if he should be designated a dangerous offender or a long-term offender1. The ruling, released by Justice A. Doyle on October 29, 2025, granted an application from the Crown following S.M.’s convictions earlier in the year for repeatedly sexually assaulting his two biological daughters. The assessment, which can last up to 60 days, will be conducted by a court-designated expert. The resulting report will be used as evidence in a future, more intensive hearing where the Crown will formally seek one of the special designations, which could lead to an indeterminate sentence or a long-term supervision order.
The application was triggered by S.M.’s convictions for two counts of sexual assault. The first count related to his daughter, M.M., with the assaults occurring between January 1, 1993, and February 2, 1998. The second count involved his other daughter, V.M., with assaults occurring between January 1, 2000, and January 12, 2005. S.M. initially pleaded guilty to both charges. However, a significant dispute arose over the specific nature of the assaults. S.M. admitted only to rubbing his bare erect penis on his daughters’ naked vaginas, denying any other form of contact or penetration. The Crown alleged a much more severe and extensive pattern of abuse, including seven separate instances involving both daughters, which included rubbing his penis on their vaginas, attempting penetration, performing oral sex, and digitally penetrating them after removing their clothes.
This disagreement over the facts necessitated a Gardiner hearing, a proceeding where the Crown must prove its version of events beyond a reasonable doubt. On May 12, 2025, the court ruled in the Crown’s favour, finding that S.M. had, in fact, sexually assaulted his daughters on multiple occasions when they were between the ages of six and ten. The court accepted the evidence that the assaults included touching their vaginal areas with his penis and fingers, as well as engaging in oral sex. Following this finding, the Crown gave notice of its intention to pursue the dangerous offender application, leading to the current hearing.
This legal proceeding is a retread of a long and complex history. S.M. was originally convicted of these same offences on August 27, 2014, and was subsequently designated a dangerous offender. However, in 2022, the Ontario Court of Appeal overturned both the convictions and the designation, ordering a new trial. The May 2025 convictions were the result of that new trial.
The recent application hearing was marked by issues related to S.M.’s legal representation. He appeared at the October 14, 2025, hearing without a lawyer, stating he was unable to retain one. An amicus curiae, or “friend of the court,” Robert Richardson, had previously been appointed in July 2023 to assist the court due to S.M. being self-represented. S.M. had successfully requested an adjournment in August 2025 to find his own lawyer, claiming he could not do so while the amicus was involved, which led to Mr. Richardson being discharged. When S.M. appeared in October still without counsel, he consented to have Mr. Richardson re-appointed to assist in the hearing. In his own submissions, S.M. told the court he does not intend to re-offend, wishes to spend time with his elderly mother, and has gained insight from participating in many programs while incarcerated.
In his ruling, Justice Doyle first addressed a legal argument about which version of the law to apply. The dangerous offender provisions were amended in 2008, removing a judge’s discretion to deny an assessment if the Crown meets the legal test. The court, citing a 2010 precedent, found these changes were procedural and applied retrospectively to S.M.’s case. This meant the court was mandated to order the assessment if the Crown met its burden.
A second legal dispute arose over what evidence could be considered. The amicus curiae argued that psychological reports prepared for the original, overturned 2014 conviction should be excluded. Justice Doyle, however, disagreed. He ruled that at this preliminary stage, the court could review all relevant information filed by the Crown to determine if the “reasonable grounds” threshold was met. He clarified that S.M. would have the right to challenge the admissibility and weight of that evidence at the full dangerous offender hearing.
The court then analyzed the two-step test for ordering an assessment. The first step, which was conceded by the amicus, was easily met: S.M. was convicted of sexual assault, which qualifies as a “serious personal injury offence” under the Criminal Code. The second step was whether the Crown had shown “reasonable grounds to believe” that S.M. might be found to be a dangerous or long-term offender. Justice Doyle described this as a “low” threshold, far less than the criminal burden of proof.
Justice Doyle found the Crown had met this threshold based on a “plethora of evidence.” He pointed to S.M.’s extensive criminal record, which spans 35 years and includes 83 convictions over 35 separate sentencing dates, with no significant crime-free gaps. This record includes 22 property convictions, 15 driving offences, four violent offences, and 15 breaches of court orders. The court also noted S.M. has three prior convictions for sexual offences against women, five other sexual assault charges that were withdrawn, and an outstanding sexual assault charge in Minnesota, for which he did not return to the jurisdiction. In 2007, S.M. was convicted of aggravated assault, attempted kidnapping, assault with a weapon, and other offences, which resulted in a seven-year sentence. He was also convicted in 2016 for possessing a handmade weapon while in prison.
The court also considered the psychological reports. A 2013 dangerous offender risk assessment by Dr. G.D. Glancy noted S.M. demonstrated “significant denial and minimization.” The report detailed a history of violence, antisocial behaviour, substance abuse, and traits of psychopathy. Dr. Glancy opined that S.M. had a “high potential for violent and antisocial recidivism,” “little insight,” and a “poor” response to past treatment, making him “very difficult to supervise.” The report also stated S.M. “has shown a failure to control his sexual impulses” and “a substantial degree of indifference” to the consequences of his behaviour.
Later reports, prepared in 2018 and 2020 without interviewing S.M., detailed his conduct within the prison system. A 2018 report noted S.M. had completed numerous programs, including for sex offenders, substance abuse, and violence prevention, and had earned his secondary school diploma, making “some gains.” However, a 2020 psychological risk assessment by Dr. W. Lowza suggested these gains were “superficial at best.” Dr. Lowza’s report outlined several concerns, including an “institutional pattern of predatory sexual behaviour.” It cited four separate allegations of S.M. sexually assaulting other inmates between 2004 and 2017. One alleged victim was described as having a “lower functioning mental capacity.” None of these institutional allegations resulted in criminal charges. The report suggested S.M.’s potential victim pool is broad, extending to any “vulnerable people,” and that he posed a risk even within the institution.
Justice Doyle acknowledged mitigating factors, including that S.M. has served 11 years in pre-trial custody, which could be credited as over 16 years. He also noted S.M. is older and disabled, and that Dr. Glancy’s 2013 report had observed sexual recidivism tends to decrease significantly after age 60. Nevertheless, the judge concluded that the evidence demonstrated a pattern of repetitive behaviour, a failure to restrain himself, and persistent aggressive behaviour. Finding the Crown had met the low threshold, the court granted the application and mandated the assessment.
Read more crime stories here.
