completion of his correctional plan and no observable change in his
behaviour. According to his parole officer, there was no change in
the appellant’s level of insight into his offending behaviour.
 The National Parole Board, who reviewed the appellant’s
detention on four occasions, also noted in its first assessment that
the appellant lacked insight into his risk factors. The following
three assessments respectively noted that there was no change in
his level of insight, no reduction in risk and no observable change
in his behaviour. It determined that the appellant should remain
incarcerated until the expiration of his sentence.
 While the appellant was on probation following his 2008
convictions for the offences of uttering threats, possessing a weapon
and assaulting a police officer, the police expressed concern to the
probation officer who supervised him that the appellant might
be having unprotected sex and not disclosing his HIV status to
potential sexual partners. As a result, the probation officer clearly
conveyed to the appellant the moral and legal obligations of
reporting his HIV status to potential partners. The two predicate
offences and the uncharged assault on N.R. occurred subsequent
to this caution.
 Following his arrest for the predicate offences, the appellant was detained at the Elgin Middlesex Detention Centre. He
was detained there for over three years while he was awaiting
sentencing. During that time, the appellant expressed some
remorse and acceptance of responsibility for the failure to disclose
his HIV status to his sexual partners. In addition to being drug-free, he incurred no misconducts or occurrences during this
detention. Moreover, the appellant was committed and motivated
to address issues that had caused him trouble in the past and to
make necessary changes to his life. He was an active participant
in institutional programming to address his substance abuse and
anger management issues, as well as to reduce stress.
(5) Psychiatric evidence
 Dr. Scott Woodside performed the psychiatric assessment
ordered under s.752.1 of the Criminal Code and Dr. Gary
Chaimowitz provided expert evidence for the defence. Both
experts found that the appellant suffers from antisocial personality
disorder. A diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder results
from meeting at least three of seven criteria, including failure to
conform to social norms, deceitfulness, impulsivity, reckless disregard for the safety of self or others and lack of remorse. The
appellant met all seven criteria.
 The appellant’s scores on PCL-R, an instrument used to
measure psychopathy, indicated that he had significant psychopathic