was asleep. Approximately one year later, after getting blood
work done in relation to a pregnancy, C.C. found out that she had
 The second complainant, M.N., was involved in sporadic
relationships with the appellant between 2008 and 2011. When
they dated in 2010, the appellant told M.N. on multiple occasions
that he did not have a sexually transmitted disease. They engaged
in unprotected sex. In 2011, they started dating again and
engaged in unprotected intercourse after the appellant confirmed
that he had no sexually transmitted diseases. In April of that
year, M.N. saw a police media release naming the appellant as an
HIV-infected person charged with aggravated sexual assault. She
sought medical treatment and learned that she had contracted
HIV from the appellant.
 To establish the mens rea component of the offences, medical evidence dating back to 2002 was tendered. It demonstrated
that the appellant had been educated by physicians on the great
risk posed by unprotected sex to sexual partners.
(3) The uncharged conduct involving a third victim
 At the sentencing hearing, the Crown tendered the evidence
of N.R. N.R. had met the appellant through a social networking site
in 2009. Later that year, the appellant travelled to Halifax to visit
N.R. He stayed with her, her children and her parents. The appellant assured N.R. that he had no sexually transmitted disease. The
appellant and N.R. had unprotected sex on several occasions.
 When the appellant left Halifax, N.R. learned that, contrary
to what he had told her, he did not live with a male roommate but
rather with his girlfriend. N.R. then broke off relations with the
appellant some time later.
 Approximately three years later, in October 2012, N.R.
learned that the appellant was HIV-positive. She reported the
matter to police and was tested for HIV. The test was negative.
The sentencing judge relied on N.R.’s testimony as further evidence of the pattern of behaviour that could support a dangerous
(4) The appellant’s supervision and treatment history
 While serving his ten-year penitentiary sentence commencing in 1996, the appellant was identified as being a “High
Risk/Needs” offender. His correctional plan recommended that he
attend various programs, including a sex offender program, an
anger and emotions management program and an educational
upgrading program. Although the appellant attended some of the
recommended programs, there was, overall, little progress in