 |
| John L. Hill |
Michel Bouvier, a 59-year-old man with a violent criminal history spanning four decades, had been convicted of multiple serious offences, including rape, sexual assault (some resulting in bodily harm), assault with a weapon and aggravated sexual assault. His most recent convictions in 2020 — assault, assault causing bodily harm and two counts of sexual assault — occurred while he was unlawfully at large under a long-term supervision order (LTSO).
Despite participating in treatment programs, including Indigenous spiritual healing, Bouvier had shown no significant behavioural change. He was described as manipulative, dishonest and adept at presenting himself in a favourable light without genuine transformation. Experts concluded that he remained at a high risk of reoffending, with no effective strategy to manage his risk safely in the community. His psychiatric issues arose from a maladaptive personality structure and substance abuse rather than acute mental illness.
Notably, Bouvier reoffended shortly after completing a sex offender treatment program and at the beginning of his LTSO in 2016–2017, targeting a 15-year-old Indigenous girl over seven months. His community supervisors had no warning signs of
T-Vector-Icons: ISTOCKPHOTO.COM
Following a 21-day hearing with extensive evidence, including testimony from 39 witnesses and multiple expert reports, the court designated him a dangerous offender, concluding no realistic treatment or supervision plan could mitigate his risk. His appeal of the conviction and designation was dismissed in R. v. Bouvier, 2024 ABCA 123, with the appellate court affirming the sentencing judge’s findings as well-supported and unchallenged by contrary expert evidence. Bouvier appealed the designation and indeterminate sentence. He asked the Alberta Court of Appeal to reconsider his case or to implement a 14-year determinate sentence followed by a 10-year long-term supervision order instead.
Section 759(1) of the Criminal Code allows for the designation to be appealed on any ground of law, fact, or mixed law and fact (R. v. Wolfleg, 2018 ABCA 222 and the cases it relies on, including R. v. Currie [1997], 2 S.C.R. 260, R. v. Sipos, 2014 SCC 47, R. v. Lévesque, 2000 SCC 47 and R. v. Ipeelee, 2012 SCC 13). In R. v. Palmer, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 759, it was established that evidence used to arrive at a designation ought to be tested on diligence, relevance, credibility and impact on the result. After the fact evidence may be considered in recognition of the fact that things can change between sentencing and the appeal.
A forensic psychologist concluded that Bouvier’s “predatory behaviour” was a significant concern for future risk management. It would be challenging, if not impossible, to devise a risk management scheme that would allow Bouvier to be managed in the community. No expert evidence was called to rebut that conclusion.
The Court of Appeal found that the arguments Bouvier put forward were a repetition of his argument at the initial designation hearing. Even though the nature of review in dangerous offender appeals is broader, it is not a de novo assessment, and deference is owed to the findings of the sentencing judge.
Gladue factors were central to the sentencing judge’s considerations (R. v. Gladue, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 688). The Alberta Appeal Court had determined in R. v. Mattson, 2014 ABCA 178, that an offender’s Aboriginal past is not determinative of the outcome. Indigeneity may be considered in suggesting unique treatments, supports and community involvement in addressing risk, but it is not determinative of risk. If a person is dangerous, Gladue factors may somewhat explain how dangerousness occurred, but it does not make that person any less dangerous (R. v. Bonnetrouge, 2017 NWTCA 1).
Bouvier’s argument is that the actuarial tools used to measure risk are less accurate for individuals of Indigenous backgrounds. However, the Appeal Court found that the sentencing judge took the psychologist’s evidence into account. He carefully examined the evidence regarding prospective risk, understanding what it measured and how, in accordance with R. v. Natomagan, 2022 ABCA 48.
Even though Bouvier was able to show progress in his treatment since the designation was imposed, similar to the Wolfleg decision, it would not have been sufficient to transform an unmanageable risk into a manageable one.
The conclusion dismissing the appeal and the refusal to admit new evidence was encapsulated in one sentence by the court: “Given the record, Mr. Bouvier’s optimistic outlook four years post-sentence does little to displace the sentencing judge’s finding that Mr. Bouvier’s high risk to reoffend is not manageable in the community. As the sentencing judge found, ‘Expressions of hope do not suffice’ to protect the public.”
John L. Hill practised and taught prison law until his retirement. He holds a J.D. from Queen’s and an LL.M. in constitutional law from Osgoode Hall. He is also the author of Pine Box Parole: Terry Fitzsimmons and the Quest to End Solitary Confinement (Durvile & UpRoute Books) and The Rest of the [True Crime] Story (AOS Publishing). The Rest of the [True Crime] Story has been shortlisted for a prestigious Brass Knuckles Award, which is the Crime Writers’ of Canada’s prize for best nonfiction crime book of the year. Contact him at johnlornehill@hotmail.com.
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.