Philip Toner murdered Brenda Ware less than six weeks after he was released from prison, where he served five years for raping a 15-year-old girl.
According to documents obtained by CBC, the Parole Board of Canada (PBC) had serious concerns about Philip Toner’s risk of re-offending.
His parole was revoked three times during statutory release (after an offender serves two thirds of their sentence).
Once an individual serves their full sentence, however, the Parole Board no longer has any jurisdiction over an offender.
So Philip Toner was released from prison with no conditions, despite two assessments that stated Toner was a moderate risk to commit violence against a spouse, and a moderate to high risk of committing further sexual offences.
The Murder
On May 5, Karla Ware, Brenda’s mother, went to Brenda’s home after she failed to show up for work. Much to her horror, Karla Ware found her daughter’s home on fire and the front door was wide open, but Brenda was not there.
Family and friends mounted a search for the missing woman and shared what they found with the RCMP.
The next day Brenda’s body and vehicle were found on the side of Highway 93 near Radium Hot Springs.
Philip Toner was arrested in Kelowna, BC, and transported back to Alberta where he now faces a charge of second-degree murder for killing Brenda Ware.
History of Sexual Violence
In April 2021, Philip Toner drugged a 15-year-old girl until she was unconscious, then raped her.
Prior to that, he held an ex-girlfriend against her will and harassed her for months after they broke up.
Brenda told her co-workers she wanted to break up with Toner but was afraid for her safety. Unfortunately, she was correct in fearing for her life, but was unable to escape the relationship before it was too late.
While in Prison
While serving five years for rape, Philip Toner was “abusive, disruptive, disrespectful, verbally abusive and violent.”
He fought with other inmates, tried headbutting staff members, and was so abusive he was kicked out of a sex offender rehabilitation program.
It’s no surprise, given his history while incarcerated, that his potential for successful reintegration into society was assessed as low.
Between June 2019 and December 2020, Toner was released from prison three times only to reoffend and have his release revoked each time because of issues with women, drugs and violence, according to a Parole Board of Canada decision.
Is ‘Dangerous Offender’ Status the Solution?
Canadian law allows a convicted criminal to be labelled as a ‘dangerous offender’ if a violent offender or sexual predator is considered a ‘high risk’ of re-offending.
Part XXIV of the Criminal Code deals with Dangerous Offenders and Long-term Offenders.
This allows Crown prosecutors to apply to a judge to request an offender be deemed a ‘dangerous offender’ in order to keep them incarcerated “for an indeterminate period” with no possibility of parole for seven years.
One of the requirements for a ‘dangerous offender’ designation is the individual have already been convicted at least twice for a ‘designated offence’.
Application for finding that an offender is a dangerous offender
- 753(1) On application made under this Part after an assessment report is filed under subsection 752.1(2), the court shall find the offender to be a dangerous offender if it is satisfied
- (a)that the offence for which the offender has been convicted is a serious personal injury offence described in paragraph (a) of the definition of that expression in section 752 and the offender constitutes a threat to the life, safety or physical or mental well-being of other persons on the basis of evidence establishing
- (i)a pattern of repetitive behaviour by the offender, of which the offence for which he or she has been convicted forms a part, showing a failure to restrain his or her behaviour and a likelihood of causing death or injury to other persons, or inflicting severe psychological damage on other persons, through failure in the future to restrain his or her behaviour,
- (ii)a pattern of persistent aggressive behaviour by the offender, of which the offence for which he or she has been convicted forms a part, showing a substantial degree of indifference on the part of the offender respecting the reasonably foreseeable consequences to other persons of his or her behaviour, or
- (iii)any behaviour by the offender, associated with the offence for which he or she has been convicted, that is of such a brutal nature as to compel the conclusion that the offender’s behaviour in the future is unlikely to be inhibited by normal standards of behavioural restraint; or
- (b)that the offence for which the offender has been convicted is a serious personal injury offence described in paragraph (b) of the definition of that expression in section 752 and the offender, by his or her conduct in any sexual matter including that involved in the commission of the offence for which he or she has been convicted, has shown a failure to control his or her sexual impulses and a likelihood of causing injury, pain or other evil to other persons through failure in the future to control his or her sexual impulses.
- (a)that the offence for which the offender has been convicted is a serious personal injury offence described in paragraph (a) of the definition of that expression in section 752 and the offender constitutes a threat to the life, safety or physical or mental well-being of other persons on the basis of evidence establishing
The Parole Board’s revocation of Toner’s statutory release three times lends credence to Toner’s inability to live peacefully in society.
A host of legal technicalities apply to when an application for a ‘dangerous offender’ designation can be made and, in the specific case of Philip Toner, it is unclear whether he met the two-conviction minimum required.
Whether Philip Toner satisfied the criteria for ‘dangerous offender’ status or not, we clearly need a way of protecting unsuspecting Canadians from violent, repeat offenders like him.
Unfortunately, Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government is far more concerned with reducing sentences for habitual criminals than they are with protecting Canadians from those who would do them harm.
There is no “justice” system in Canada. All judges are appointed by the federal government [Read; PM] and thus they are almost all left wing and beholden to the PM. The Supreme Court no better. As the gun laws show, and the above shows, criminals are the Liberal’s best friends. Gives them something to “justify” their attacks on the law abiding while allowing criminals free rein. .