Dangerous offender appeal denied for Sask. man convicted of sexual assault

Joseph Yaremko. (Facebook photo)

A Warman man convicted of sexually assaulting a 21-year-old woman after breaking into her Saskatoon condo has lost his appeal of a dangerous offender designation and indeterminate sentence.

In a decision released Tuesday, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal dismissed Joseph Yaremko’s appeal of the designation and sentence. Under the indeterminate sentence, Yaremko may never have a chance to step foot outside of prison again.

Justice Neal W. Caldwell wrote that the sentencing judge made no error in deeming Yaremko a dangerous offender and that the decision was reasonable.

“Overall, I find no error in the judge’s analysis of the evidence,” Caldwell wrote.

On June 3, 2019, Yaremko forced his way into the Stonebridge condo of a 21-year-old woman while trying to evade police.

Court heard he threatened her with a knife, sexually assaulted her multiple times and forced her to consume drugs before she escaped and called police.

Yaremko was found guilty of sexual assault with a weapon and forcible confinement on Dec. 23, 2021.

On Jan. 30, 2025 Justice Daryl Labach designated Yaremko as a dangerous offender. He was sentenced to an “indeterminate period of incarceration,” meaning there is no date for release, and no opportunity for parole.

• Download the CTV News app to get breaking news alerts sent to your device

Under the Criminal Code, someone considered a dangerous offender may appeal against those decisions on any ground of law, fact or mixed law and fact. An appeal court will review allegations of legal error on the standard of correctness and will consider whether a designation and the sentence imposed are reasonable in the circumstances.

In his appeal, Yaremko argued the judge erred in finding that the record established a pattern of repetitive behaviour, a pattern of persistent aggressive behaviour, a high likelihood of committing another violent crime in the future, and that his behaviour was unmanageable in the community.

He also disputed the judge’s conclusion that there was no reasonable expectation that a lesser measure than indeterminate detention would adequately protect the public.

The Court of Appeal rejected those arguments, finding Yaremko’s record established a pattern of repetitive and persistent aggressive behaviour and a high likelihood of harmful recidivism.

His criminal history showed an escalating pattern of using physical and coercive control over vulnerable women for a criminal purpose, whether to “obtain drugs, to evade apprehension or escape custody, or to satisfy his venal desires.”

The court also agreed there was no reasonable expectation that a lesser measure than indeterminate detention would adequately protect the public.

“In his analysis ... the 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,” Justice Neal Caldwell wrote.

Yaremko also argued the judge failed to give sufficient weight to evidence that his drug use had decreased while receiving treatment with the medication Sublocade, and that his behaviour had improved while incarcerated.

But the appeal court decided the evidence did not outweigh his lengthy history of addiction, relapses, supervision breaches and reoffending.

The court said a lesser sentence, such as a fixed prison term followed by long-term community supervision, would not adequately protect the public.

As a result, the court upheld both the dangerous offender designation and the indeterminate sentence, leaving Yaremko in prison indefinitely.