Families of Ontario murder victims outraged at Supreme Court ruling

spaminator

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 26, 2009
31,584
2,154
113
Families of Ontario murder victims outraged at Supreme Court ruling
Author of the article:Canadian Press
Canadian Press
Liam Casey
Publishing date:May 28, 2022 • 20 hours ago • 3 minute read • 8 Comments
Clayton Babcock (right) and Linda Babcock read a statement outside a Toronto courthouse on Feb. 26, 2018, after a sentencing hearing for Dellen Millard and Mark Smich, who were convicted of the first degree murder of their daughter Laura Babcock.
Clayton Babcock (right) and Linda Babcock read a statement outside a Toronto courthouse on Feb. 26, 2018, after a sentencing hearing for Dellen Millard and Mark Smich, who were convicted of the first degree murder of their daughter Laura Babcock. PHOTO BY CHRIS YOUNG / FILES /THE CANADIAN PRESS

The latest decision from the country’s top court opened an old wound in Linda Babcock’s heart.


The Friday ruling that declared consecutive parole sentences unconstitutional brought back the sharp pain of her daughter’s murder by a serial killer and his friend nearly 10 years ago – and left Babcock in tears.

“This means that every life does not matter,” Babcock told The Canadian Press as she choked up.

The Supreme Court of Canada declared unconstitutional a 2011 Criminal Code provision that allowed judges to impose parole ineligibility periods of 25 years to be served consecutively for each murder, rather than concurrently.

The law had been applied to some of Canada’s most notorious multiple murderers in recent years, including Dellen Millard and Mark Smich, who were found guilty of murdering Babcock’s 23-year-old daughter, Laura.


The Supreme Court said the law violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that guarantees against cruel and unusual treatment because it can deny offenders a realistic possibility of being granted parole before they die.

Linda Babcock said the ruling was a huge blow.

“Our life has been destroyed by their crime,” Babcock said of her daughter’s killers. “And yet the courts feel that it is cruel to have them in prison for life. Why do the victims have less rights than the criminals?”

She suggested the top court was out of touch with victims and their families.

“These judges don’t understand the pain we go through every single day for our lifetime,” Babcock said.

“And yet they give criminals some leniency, not wanting them to suffer too much. We suffer horribly every single day – I mean, it’s been almost 10 years and I still cry every day.”


Five months after the pair killed Laura Babcock in 2012, Millard killed his father, Wayne Millard, a wealthy aviation executive whose death was initially ruled a suicide.

Six months after that, Dellen Millard and Smich would kill again, taking Tim Bosma, a 32-year-old, out for a test drive in the Hamilton man’s truck and killing him.

Wayne Millard’s cousin, Peter Roberts, said he couldn’t believe the Supreme Court’s ruling.

“This is a travesty of justice,” Roberts said. “The murders (Dellen Millard) has committed are heinous, unforgivable, madness at its zenith, and he is only one of many. His parole reduced is a joke.”

Dellen Millard was found guilty of three counts of first-degree murder in three separate trials, each judge stacking 25 years of parole ineligibility on top of the others. Smich was found guilty of two counts of first-degree murder and sentenced to 50 years without chance of parole.


In a different case, the families and survivors of 2018’s deadly van attack in Toronto have been waiting – along with the judge in the trial – for the Supreme Court’s ruling for more than a year before proceeding to sentencing.

Now Alek Minassian will serve an automatic life sentence without chance of parole for 25 years for killing 10 people on April 23, 2018. Two others died a few years later, one of whom never left the hospital after the rampage.

Victims had believed the prosecution would apply for several consecutive periods of parole ineligibility for Minassian, who was found guilty of 10 counts of first-degree murder last year.

Cathy Riddell is one of the victims who survived after suffering brutal injuries when she was blindsided by Minassian as he drove down a busy sidewalk in a rented van.


Now she is enraged.

“I’ll tell you what cruel and unusual punishment is,” she said.

“It’s an innocent person being murdered. It’s an innocent person being maimed or an innocent person having their life ripped apart. That is cruel and unusual punishment.”

She said she was disappointed in the justice system.

“I’m ashamed of our country,” she said. “And I’m ashamed of our court system for doing what they did.”

Elwood Delaney was infuriated when The Canadian Press told him about Friday’s ruling.

His grandmother, Dorothy Sewell, was walking to the bank that April day when she was killed in the attack.

“Because of that ruling, I’m not going to get proper closure anymore,” he said. “That’s what the Supreme Court of Canada just did to me and all a whole bunch of other victims.”

The Babcocks, Riddell and Delaney all vowed to fight for change at Parliament.

Linda Babcock wrote a letter to her Member of Parliament Friday afternoon

“How are we ever to prevent multiple murders if not with stricter sentences?” she wrote.

“If there is any hope of changing what has occurred in the courts, please stand up for the rights of the victims of crime and make sure that these people are never allowed into society again.”
 
  • Angry
Reactions: Dixie Cup

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
49,934
3,563
113
Washington DC
I'm a firm believer in the death penalty. BUT. . .

Don't let the prosecutors play with it. If you do, you end up with situations like the Sonniers, where as best we know (there's considerable question), the brother who was executed was NOT the one who pulled the trigger.

Define by statute who is to die, and under what circumstances. No prosecutorial discretion. Prosecutors aren't interested in justice, they're interested in career advancement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Serryah

Jinentonix

Executive Branch Member
Sep 6, 2015
9,805
4,179
113
Olympus Mons
I'm a firm believer in the death penalty. BUT. . .

Don't let the prosecutors play with it. If you do, you end up with situations like the Sonniers, where as best we know (there's considerable question), the brother who was executed was NOT the one who pulled the trigger.

Define by statute who is to die, and under what circumstances. No prosecutorial discretion. Prosecutors aren't interested in justice, they're interested in career advancement.
I am also a firm believer too, but the metric of "beyond reasonable doubt" to hand down a death sentence is garbage. For me there must be zero doubt at all before a death sentence can be brought into play. And there are/were cases where there is zero doubt. In Canada Bisonette and Bernardo are two prime examples of people who are clearly guilty without a doubt.
I do have one other idea though too. I've seen cases where the victim's family have argued against a death sentence for the perpetrator for whatever personal reasons they have. I think that once a death sentence is issued, the victim's family, if they so desire, can ask to have the sentence commuted to life in prison with no possibility of parole.

One last thing, based on the metric of "no doubt whatsoever", appeals would be limited to one, and it better be started within a year because that's how long you got until the hangman comes to get you. Unless the appeal process has already been started.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
49,934
3,563
113
Washington DC
I am also a firm believer too, but the metric of "beyond reasonable doubt" to hand down a death sentence is garbage. For me there must be zero doubt at all before a death sentence can be brought into play. And there are/were cases where there is zero doubt. In Canada Bisonette and Bernardo are two prime examples of people who are clearly guilty without a doubt.
I do have one other idea though too. I've seen cases where the victim's family have argued against a death sentence for the perpetrator for whatever personal reasons they have. I think that once a death sentence is issued, the victim's family, if they so desire, can ask to have the sentence commuted to life in prison with no possibility of parole.

One last thing, based on the metric of "no doubt whatsoever", appeals would be limited to one, and it better be started within a year because that's how long you got until the hangman comes to get you. Unless the appeal process has already been started.
I'm not sure about up yonder, but down here in the United States of AR-15, "beyond a reasonable doubt" is the standard for guilt at all.

I feel for what you're saying, and I would support a super-standard for capital punishment. Just sayin'.

What can I say about the rest of the ideas. You're right.

Mark this date on your calendar.
 

Serryah

Senate Member
Dec 3, 2008
6,485
1,153
113
New Brunswick
I'm not sure about up yonder, but down here in the United States of AR-15, "beyond a reasonable doubt" is the standard for guilt at all.

I feel for what you're saying, and I would support a super-standard for capital punishment. Just sayin'.

What can I say about the rest of the ideas. You're right.

Mark this date on your calendar.

Ditto for me since I absolutely agree with Jin too.

This does not bode well for my day/night of work.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: Jinentonix

spaminator

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 26, 2009
31,584
2,154
113
What shocking multiple murderer ruling means
Author of the article:Brad Hunter
Publishing date:May 29, 2022 • 10 hours ago • 1 minute read • Join the conversation

Late Friday, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down a Criminal Code provision that meant multiple murderers might have to wait 50 years or more to apply for parole.


WHAT: Lawyers for Quebec City mosque killer Alexandre Bissonnette who murdered six people and was sentenced to serve 40 years in prison before he could apply for parole took umbrage at his sentence. They wanted the Supreme Court to rule the sentence unconstitutional.

BACKGROUND: In 2011, the government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper introduced a provision that allowed a judge, in the event of multiple murders, to impose a life sentence and parole ineligibility periods of 25 years to be served consecutively for each murder.

OVERTURNED: Judges from Canada’s highest court sniffed that to hammer multiple murderers with consecutive 25-year sentences was “cruel and unusual.” Their reasoning was that it takes away from our most violent killers any hope of parole before they die.


AND: The Supreme Court said that in order to ensure respect for the inherent dignity of every individual, the Charter requires Parliament to leave a door open for rehabilitation.

WHAT NEXT? Every mass murderer in Canada sentenced after 2011 will now see their sentences until parole eligibility cut by up to two-thirds. Chief Justice Richard Wagner sniffed that a whole life sentence “would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.” Many of these monsters will still never see the light of day.

QUOTE: “Today, we are thinking about the families. Their pain has never fully healed, and their wounds are reopened today as they struggle with the possibility of being among the one who killed their loved ones that night.” — Mustafa Farooq, CEO of the National Council of Canadian Muslims
 

spaminator

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 26, 2009
31,584
2,154
113
Shocking court ruling bans consecutive sentences for multiple killers
Author of the article:Brad Hunter
Publishing date:May 29, 2022 • 8 hours ago • 3 minute read • 52 Comments
Multiple killer Dellen Millard, left, with the woman he murdered, Laura Babcock. Millard will benefit from a shocking Supreme Court ruling.
Multiple killer Dellen Millard, left, with the woman he murdered, Laura Babcock. Millard will benefit from a shocking Supreme Court ruling. PHOTO BY HANDOUTS /POSTMEDIA
The elderly woman on the other end of the line was sobbing.


No, I’m sorry, she said through her tears, I just can’t. She is now in her 90s and had agreed to talk to me about the horrific 1962 rape and murder of her toddler son in Toronto.

Sixty years later, she could not bring herself to discuss it.

That’s the effect of murder. Once upon a time, a hangman’s rope promised some relief for the most heinous crimes.

No, no leave it to us, politicians, bureaucrats, and the judiciary told appalled Canadians after capital punishment left the stage. Trust. Us.


One could be forgiven for believing the courts are soft on violent crime. It isn’t always so, but it frequently seems like it.

On Friday, the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously ruled that consecutive sentences for this country’s most violent killers was tantamount to “cruel and unusual” punishment and unconstitutional.


The 2011 Criminal Code provision brought in by then Prime Minister Stephen Harper allowed judges to impose parole ineligibility periods of 25 years to be served consecutively for each murder, rather than concurrently. Previously, anything after the first homicide was a freebie — unless the killer was tagged with a dangerous offender label.

No more.

Murder victim Laura Babcock is shown in a Toronto Police Service handout photo.
Murder victim Laura Babcock is shown in a Toronto Police Service handout photo.
For Linda Babcock, whose 23-year-old daughter, Laura, was the victim of one of three murders, committed by rich kid killer Dellen Millard and his goofy sidekick Mark Smich it is another kick in the face.

“This means that every life does not matter,” Babcock told the Canadian Press through her tears.

“Our life has been destroyed by their crime. And yet the courts feel that it is cruel to have them in prison for life. Why do the victims have less rights than the criminals?”


That’s the question of the day.

Alek Minassian is accused of murdering 10 people and wounding 16 others in a van attack on Yonge St. in Toronto.
Alek Minassian is accused of murdering 10 people and wounding 16 others in a van attack on Yonge St. in Toronto. PHOTO BY ALEX MINASSIAN /LinkedIn
Millard and Smich — who also murdered Ancaster dad Tim Bosma, while Millard alone offed his aviation executive father Wayne — are just two of the rock stars likely to get a break courtesy of our kindly judges.

— Justin Bourque murdered three RCMP officers in Moncton on June 2, 2014. He was sentenced to serve 75 years in prison before being able to apply for parole. His lawyer indicated Saturday he planned to get the maniac Maritmer’s sentence changed.

— The specific case the highest court was ruling on was that of Alexandre Bissonnette. In 2017, Bissonnette walked into a Quebec City mosque and shot to death six, peaceful worshippers.

— Sentencing of Toronto mass murderer Alek Minassian — who murdered 10 people with a rental van along busy Yonge St. in 2018 — has been delayed while the high court made their decision.


There are probably about 18 killers in total who will get a big discount on their propensity for murder. And make no mistake, this is exactly what this is.

Why leave witnesses, right? You’ll get the same 25 years in the slammer. Why stop at one? Kill some more.

A steady stream of people stop to drop off flowers and read handwritten notes at a memorial wall at Yonge St and Finch Ave. on Wednesday April 25, 2018 after the deadly van attack in North York. Veronica Henri/Toronto Sun/Postmedia Network
A steady stream of people stop to drop off flowers and read handwritten notes at a memorial wall at Yonge St and Finch Ave. on Wednesday April 25, 2018 after the deadly van attack in North York. Veronica Henri/Toronto Sun/Postmedia Network
It is clear our august Supreme Court judges have not stood in a morgue while a medical examiner works on a child murder victim. They have not walked hand-in-hand with EMTs in the wake of carnage. Nor have they spent the hours and hours homicide detectives do with grieving families.

And they are certainly not there for the tear-saturated ride in the years and decades following the murder of someone who loved and was loved.

No, to them, it must be like a Call of Duty game: Lots of blood and guts but no real dying, no real crying.


“These judges don’t understand the pain we go through every single day for our lifetime,” Linda Babcock told CP.

“And yet they give criminals some leniency, not wanting them to suffer too much. We suffer horribly every single day – I mean, it’s been almost 10 years and I still cry every day.”

Toronto van attack survivor Cathy Riddell suffered life-altering injuries in Minassian’s Incel-fueled attack.

“I’ll tell you what cruel and unusual punishment is,” she told CP. “It’s an innocent person being murdered. It’s an innocent person being maimed or an innocent person having their life ripped apart. That is cruel and unusual punishment.”

Riddell is, of course, correct. All the judges have to do is pick up the phone and dial the elderly woman whose baby was defiled and murdered so very long ago.

She would give them a significantly better definition of “cruel and unusual” than I ever could.

bhunter@postmedia.com

@HunterTOSun
 

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
17,577
3,335
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
Maximum sentencing in Canada is 25 years. Murder somebody and get the maximum sentence and that’s 25 years.

Murder many and serve all sentences concurrently, and the maximum sentence is 25 years. Bulk discount for Multiple murders. Less packaging and probably better for the environment or something.

This doesn’t touch on the death penalty at all which is a different subject. This is all about consecutive versus concurrent sentencing in Canada.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jinentonix

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
49,934
3,563
113
Washington DC
Maximum sentencing in Canada is 25 years. Murder somebody and get the maximum sentence and that’s 25 years.

Murder many and serve all sentences concurrently, and the maximum sentence is 25 years. Bulk discount for Multiple murders. Less packaging and probably better for the environment or something.

This doesn’t touch on the death penalty at all which is a different subject. This is all about consecutive versus concurrent sentencing in Canada.
So, basically, once you've offed your intended target, no real reason no to go ahead on and settle up with everybody who ever hurt your feelings.

Cool.
 

IdRatherBeSkiing

Satelitte Radio Addict
May 28, 2007
13,782
1,571
113
Toronto, ON
Maximum sentencing in Canada is 25 years. Murder somebody and get the maximum sentence and that’s 25 years.

Murder many and serve all sentences concurrently, and the maximum sentence is 25 years. Bulk discount for Multiple murders. Less packaging and probably better for the environment or something.

This doesn’t touch on the death penalty at all which is a different subject. This is all about consecutive versus concurrent sentencing in Canada.
Technically the maximum and mandatory sentence for first degree murder is life (with parole after 25 years.). Second degree is also life with parole after 10 years. If the parole boards were not just rubber stamp bureaucrats, this would be reasonable. A multiple murderer with no remorse would be denied parole after 25 years and justice would prevail.
 

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
17,577
3,335
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
So, basically, once you've offed your intended target, no real reason no to go ahead on and settle up with everybody who ever hurt your feelings.

Cool.
I know it sounds crazy but that’s the system we’ve got….& it’s not just murders, but a bulk discount on crimes in general.

Commit a whole string of crimes, end up with 100+ charges…. get an actual sentence on half of them… and whatever the longest sentence is, all the charges are served concurrently, Plus at least double time for time and remand before sentencing, Plus time off for good behaviour, Plus probation.

Here’s an example of the situation I’m talking about:
After the man became a suspect in several open fraud cases, the Regina Police Service’s Financial Crime Unit investigated and identified more than 178 victims of mail theft. After conducting surveillance on the alleged fraudster, police arrested him and he now faces 102 separate charges.

Among the charges are 29 counts of forgery, 29 counts of identity theft, 17 counts of possessing stolen property, five counts of possessing a controlled substance with intent to distribute, carrying a concealed weapon, mail theft, and more.

Which charge carries the longest sentence? The rest are served concurrently, so they don’t count. The man made his first court appearance Friday morning in Regina, but the first of how many is anyone’s guess with remand time served at least a double count towards an eventual sentence…. So the longer this can be dragged out in the courts…The most and more advantageous for the offender.

Maybe….maybe he can drag this out for 3-4 court appearances before sentencing. That could take a year (which would count as two years towards a sentence), and maybe he gets a 4yr sentence, with no violence (even with the concealed weapon they’re not seeing assault charges), so 1/2 the sentence served in the community, so after court and sentencing he could potentially go straight to a halfway house for a bit and then straight to probation, & actually serve 1 year of a 4 year sentence incarcerated (but on remand), then to community living & probation and done deal….with only 178 victims that they know about so far. Canadian bulk discount for crime.
 

Dixie Cup

House Member
Sep 16, 2006
4,377
2,387
113
Edmonton
What shocking multiple murderer ruling means
Author of the article:Brad Hunter
Publishing date:May 29, 2022 • 10 hours ago • 1 minute read • Join the conversation

Late Friday, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down a Criminal Code provision that meant multiple murderers might have to wait 50 years or more to apply for parole.


WHAT: Lawyers for Quebec City mosque killer Alexandre Bissonnette who murdered six people and was sentenced to serve 40 years in prison before he could apply for parole took umbrage at his sentence. They wanted the Supreme Court to rule the sentence unconstitutional.

BACKGROUND: In 2011, the government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper introduced a provision that allowed a judge, in the event of multiple murders, to impose a life sentence and parole ineligibility periods of 25 years to be served consecutively for each murder.

OVERTURNED: Judges from Canada’s highest court sniffed that to hammer multiple murderers with consecutive 25-year sentences was “cruel and unusual.” Their reasoning was that it takes away from our most violent killers any hope of parole before they die.


AND: The Supreme Court said that in order to ensure respect for the inherent dignity of every individual, the Charter requires Parliament to leave a door open for rehabilitation.

WHAT NEXT? Every mass murderer in Canada sentenced after 2011 will now see their sentences until parole eligibility cut by up to two-thirds. Chief Justice Richard Wagner sniffed that a whole life sentence “would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.” Many of these monsters will still never see the light of day.

QUOTE: “Today, we are thinking about the families. Their pain has never fully healed, and their wounds are reopened today as they struggle with the possibility of being among the one who killed their loved ones that night.” — Mustafa Farooq, CEO of the National Council of Canadian Muslims
What a horrible decision. I too would be pissed if it involved a member of my family who was killed, especially if there were multiple killings. Unbelievable but that's what you get with Liberal judges and we have absolutely no say in who gets appointed.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Serryah

pgs

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 29, 2008
24,377
5,227
113
B.C.
What a horrible decision. I too would be pissed if it involved a member of my family who was killed, especially if there were multiple killings. Unbelievable but that's what you get with Liberal judges and we have absolutely no say in who gets appointed.
They want to get guns off the streets , criminals not so much .
 

Dixie Cup

House Member
Sep 16, 2006
4,377
2,387
113
Edmonton
They want to get guns off the streets , criminals not so much .
Exactly! I emailed Trudeau (not that he'd ever read them) and Singh telling them what morons they are with their stupid regulations, not just about guns either but about the travel mandates. It's incumbent upon Canadians to tell their politicians when they suck so I did and do each & every time they make a stupid decision. More people need to participate but they're so worried about getting "offended" or couldn't be bothered because they "don't pay attention to politics" - reasons why we're in the situation we are in today. Apathy is killing this country!
 

spaminator

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 26, 2009
31,584
2,154
113
Triple killer Cory Fenn won't serve more than 25 years before parole eligibility
On May 27, Canada's highest court ruled unanimously that making killers wait longer than 25 years was cruel and unusual punishment.

Author of the article:Michele Mandel
Publishing date:Jun 02, 2022 • 14 hours ago • 3 minute read • 69 Comments
Cory Fenn was convicted of murdering Krassimira Pejcinovski, 39, her 15-year-old son, Roy, and her 13-year-old daughter, Venellia, in their Ajax home on March 14, 2018.
Cory Fenn was convicted of murdering Krassimira Pejcinovski, 39, her 15-year-old son, Roy, and her 13-year-old daughter, Venellia, in their Ajax home on March 14, 2018. FACEBOOK
In the first Ontario sentencing of a multiple murderer since last week’s landmark Supreme Court decision, triple killer Cory Fenn won’t have to serve longer than 25 years before he can apply for parole.


And so Fenn was able to take three lives for the price of one.

In a violent rage, the jealous ex-boyfriend killed esthetician Krassimira “Krissy” Pejcinovski, 39, and her 14-year-old son Roy, in their Ajax home on March 14, 2018 in what Justice Howard Leibovich considered “one continuous heinous criminal act.” Five hours later, he viciously slaughtered her 13-year-old daughter Vana as well.

The Toronto District School Board janitor on medical leave had unsuccessfully argued that he was in a cocaine-induced psychosis at the time of the slayings.

Krassimira Pejcinovski, 39, her 15-year-old son, Roy, and her 13-year-old daughter, Venellia, were slain in their Ajax home on March 14, 2018.
Krassimira Pejcinovski, 39, her 15-year-old son, Roy, and her 13-year-old daughter, Venellia, were slain in their Ajax home on March 14, 2018. Toronto Sun files
Convicted on three counts of second-degree murder, Fenn, 33, was sentenced in April to life without parole for 25 years for killing Pejcinovski and her son. But Leibovich adjourned sentencing him for the third slaying pending the Supreme Court decision on sentencing Alexandre Bissonette, the Quebec City mosque shooter who killed six worshippers.


A 2011 Criminal Code provision brought in by the Conservative Stephen Harper government allowed judges to impose parole ineligibility periods of 25 years to be served consecutively for each murder, rather than concurrently.

If the provision was ruled constitutional, the judge said he would sentence Fenn to an additional consecutive period of time before he could apply for release.

But on May 27, Canada’s highest court ruled unanimously that making killers wait longer than 25 years was cruel and unusual punishment and the provision was declared unconstitutional.

“Sentences of imprisonment for life without a realistic possibility of parole may also have devastating effects on offenders, who are left with no incentive to rehabilitate themselves and whose incarceration will end only upon their death,” the judgment said.


Leibovich convened the Oshawa court earlier than the original Aug. 5 date to sentence the lucky triple killer to a concurrent life term. “In other words, Mr. Fenn will be able to apply for parole after serving 25 years,” the judge said in the brief hearing Thursday morning. “It will of course be up to the National Parole Board to decide whether he should, in fact, receive parole.

“As the Supreme Court of Canada explained in R v. Bissonnette,” he added, “eligibility for parole is not a right to parole. Experience has shown the board generally proceeds with care and caution before making a decision as important as releasing multiple murderers back into society.”

Vana deserved more.

Durham Regional Police secure a crime scene following the triple homicide of a mother and her two children on Hilling Dr. – south of Bayly St. W. and Westney Rd. S. – in Ajax on Thursday March 15, 2018.
Durham Regional Police secure a crime scene following the triple homicide of a mother and her two children on Hilling Dr. – south of Bayly St. W. and Westney Rd. S. – in Ajax on Thursday March 15, 2018. PHOTO BY ERNEST DOROSZUK /Toronto Sun
Unaware her mother and brother had been slaughtered hours earlier, the teen had woken that morning and ventured to Fenn’s basement apartment looking for her mom. The killer stabbed the girl multiple times in the chest and stomach with a butter knife, kicked her repeatedly in the face, and then stuffed the dying girl under his bed.

“A consecutive parole ineligibility period must be imposed for the savage and cruel murder of Vana,” the judge had concluded in April. “There are countless other measures Mr. Fenn could have employed to effect his escape without the brutalization and discarding of poor Vana.”

But the Supreme Court decision had tied his hands.

Fenn is just the first of many multiple murderers to benefit from the highest court’s controversial ruling. Van killer Alek Minassian, guilty on 10 counts of first-degree murder, is to be sentenced June 13.

mmandel@postmedia.com