Law360 Canada (February 21, 2023, 9:09 AM EST) -- Appeal by Ross from his conviction, dangerous offender designation, and sentence for sexually assaulting IR. He argued that the verdict was unreasonable, and the judge erred by not considering a less restrictive sentence that would adequately protect the public before sentencing him to an indeterminate sentence. IR testified she was walking by Ross’s home when he invited her into what she called his “shack” to consume a joint. He then asked her to sit beside him on the bed, which she did. She described what followed as the “bad incident” and the “rape incident”. She testified she did not consent, but he kept on until she was able to throw him off her body by lifting her feet and hands. Ross did not challenge his conviction on the basis that it was unsupported by the evidence. Rather, he said the conviction was unreasonable because IR’s testimony was replete with inconsistencies and should have resulted in an acquittal based on reasonable doubt. Ross submitted the judge did not give effect to the Gladue factors and ss. 718.2(d) and 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code (the Code), did not give effect to the principle of restraint and concluded, wrongly, her finding of intractability in relation to the designation stage meant an indeterminate sentence must be imposed....