Generally speaking, if you start from the perspective that reverse onuses prima facie fly in the face of the charter, they can often be shown, and have been shown in other charter challenges on other sections, to be necessary in the circumstances: what they are trying to accomplish justifies the imposition of the reverse onus. But in a situation like this, I think it would be hard to justify when there's absolutely no good reason for doing it in the dangerous offender setting.
If an individual is a danger, allow the prosecution to call its case, prove its case, and have the appropriate designation made by the court. To simply cut corners in a situation where it's the individual's third time, what's the purpose behind it? It's not as if we have prosecutors or individuals across the country screaming and yelling that we have an un-meetable burden here as prosecutors. That's not the case. It's being done for expediency and nothing more.
In the case of organized crime, where you have the reverse onus--there have been challenges to it, and there will continue to be, I expect--there is a situation that's being justified by the government that we have no other way of proving certain things, therefore we have to resort to the reverse onus. But that's not the case here.