Saskatchewan’s Court of Appeal has upheld a lower court decision to label Joseph Yaremko as a dangerous offender with an indeterminate sentence.

Yaremko was found guilty of sexual assault with a weapon and forcible confinement in December of 2021 for crimes a prosecutor described as a “nightmare scenario.”

The incident happened on June 3, 2019, when he forced his way into the victim’s Saskatoon condominium while fleeing police and locked the door behind him. Yaremko coerced her to use drugs, threatening her with sexual violence if she did not oblige. He also sexually assaulted her multiple times and forbade her from leaving for two days.

He pled guilty to the charges in 2020 and received an indeterminate sentence, meaning it does not have a fixed end date. He was also designated a dangerous offender.

Get breaking National news

Dangerous offender status is only assigned for people convicted in serious, threatening or sexual offences, who the court believes may pose a threat to the public. The label may only be revoked based on fact or law. Anyone identified as a dangerous offender is eligible for indeterminate sentencing, though the Canadian Criminal Code notes that standard sentences may also be applied in some cases.

Yaremko appealed this designation and his sentence. It was heard in May.

“The appeal must be dismissed,” reads last week’s decision. “Critically, his submissions fail to establish error in the Sentencing Decision.”

Yaremko’s actions in the Saskatoon condo, as well as his previous violent offences and “chronic drug addiction,” led to the appeal court’s decision, written by Justice Neal Caldwell and concurred with by Justices Jeffrey Kalmakoff and Meghan McCreary.

• Saint John crime severity index jumped but expert says that doesn’t mean city is more unsafe
• Winnipeg man arrested after waving gun through sunroof on highway: RCMP
• Man, 22, accused of murder in southeast Edmonton intimate partner homicide case
• New Brunswick RCMP investigates whether Moncton altercation was hate-motivated

“Given the ample support in the record, this Court is not entitled to remake findings about Mr. Yaremko’s personal profile and criminal history, to re-evaluate what the judge found was a documented inability to benefit from or resistance to treatment, or to reconsider what the judge saw as a chronicle of unsuccessful supervision in the community,” the appeal court’s decision said. It pointed to his other violent and non-violent crimes.

“The (lower court) judge essentially found that Mr. Yaremko understood but did not care that his violent offending caused serious harm to others and that the pattern of his repetitive behaviour in that regard meant that he posed an acute risk to the public in the future,” the decision said.

In it, the appeal court found the non-violent offences where he violated court-imposed conditions indicate he struggles with impulse control and put him at a high-risk of reoffending. It cites those reasons as its justifications for denying to hear the case.