Kyle Bear told the Sask. Appeal Court his LTO was ‘not fair’
By Amy Jackson
Kyle Clinton Bear has lost his application to appeal his long-term offender (LTO) designation. The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal handed down its decision after hearing the application on June 26.
Previously, a Prince Albert Provincial Court had designated Bear as a long-term offender rather than a dangerous offender. He had pleaded guilty in May 2005 to aggravated assault and at the time had 53 criminal convictions, including a number of violent offences. In 2006 he was sentenced to eight years in prison followed by a 10-year LTO order.
The three Sask. Court of Appeal Justices that heard Bear’s appeal said that he didn’t appeal the LTO designation, or his prison sentence, but now applies to extend the time to permit him to appeal the length of his LTO. Bear had appealed saying he is seriously struggling breaching the order. He wants his long-term supervision order lifted saying it is not “fair” to do “all these years of this supervision order.”
The court noted that if Bear had complied with the terms of his LTO, it would expire on Dec. 11, 2024.
Bear didn’t give the appeal court any explanation of why he didn’t appeal his sentence by the required time of January 2007 and his appeal didn’t raise a reasonably arguable issue, said the Court of Appeal. Bear also didn’t say the provincial court judge erred by imposing a 10-year LTO.
Mr. Bear’s inability to comply with the terms of the long-term supervision order is powerful evidence that [provincial court judge] did not err by imposing the order he did.
Sask. Court of Appeal
Since being released from prison he has committed 11 offences that resulted in him spending six more years in custody and suspending the LTO. The offences included carrot river breach supervision, mischief escape lawful custody, and unlawfully being at large in Carrot River. As well as assault, mischief, and being unlawfully at large in Melfort, unlawfully at large in Regina, and two breaches and being unlawfully at large in Saskatoon.
“Mr. Bear’s inability to comply with the terms of the long-term supervision order is powerful evidence that [provincial court judge] did not err by imposing the order he did,” said the Sask. Court of Appeal. “Mr. Bear is taking a long time to demonstrate that he is not a danger to the community.
“I conclude that the interests of justice do not weigh in favour of extending the time for Mr. Bear to appeal the term of his long-term supervision order,” added the Court of Appeal. “I do note, however, that Mr. Bear has not committed a violent offence since 2018. This gives some hope that Mr. Bear may at some point be able to overcome his offending behaviour and avail himself.”
amy@criminalsamongus.ca
