CITATION: R. v. McArthur, 2019 ONSC 963
COURT FILE NO.: 
DATE: 20190208

 

ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN: 

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Michael Cantlon and Craig Harper, for the
Crown
and 

BRUCE James Miglin, for the Mr. McArthur



HEARD: January 29, February 4 and 5,
2019
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
J.
Overview

Mr. McArthur?s case was scheduled to proceed to trial in January, 2020.

Over the last two months since the accused?s arrival in the Superior Court, counsel have
been working towards a potential resolution of this matter. I have conducted several judicial pre-
trials.

On our last appearance on January 29, a little over a year from the accused?s arrest, I was
advised by Mr. Miglin, an experienced criminal defence counsel who represents Mr. McArthur,
that his client wished to plead guilty to eight counts of ?rst degree murder. Further, I was
advised by Mr. Miglin that he had conducted a plea inquiry with his client and had gone over
both the brief statement of facts ?led on January 29 and the evidence that would be conceded.
These materials have since been ?led as exhibits.

Before accepting Mr. McArthur?s pleas of guilty, I also conducted a comprehensive plea
inquiry with Mr. McArthur in open court. I am satis?ed that the accused recognizes he is giving
up his right to a trial. He is' doing so voluntarily and recognizes he can only plead guilty to
things he actually did and to admit to facts that are true.

Page: 2

Further, he fully appreciates the consequences of pleading guilty. He recognizes that I
am required by law to sentence him to life imprisonment for each of the eight counts, and that
the period of parole ineligibility on each count would be 25 years. The only issue to determine,
as he appreciates, is whether the periods of parole ineligibility will run consecutively or
concurrently. Mr. McArthur recognizes that by pleading guilty, he may very well spend the rest
of his life in a federal penitentiary with no prospect of parole.


The facts in support of the pleas of guilty are as follows.

Between September of 2010 and June of 2017, the accused lured eight innocent men to
their deaths. The accused acknowledges that the essential elements for ?rst degree murder in
relation to each of the eight killings was present. That is, he unlawfully caused the death of each
of these eight men. He killed each of them intentionally. Further, the accused admits that each of
the eight killings had one or more of the following elements of ?rst degree murder:

1. They were planned and deliberate;
2. They were committed during the course of a sexual assault; and/or
3. They were committed while the victim was unlawfully con?ned.

After killing his victims, he took digital photos of most of them. In many cases, he staged
the deceased for photos with a fur coat and a cigar, which was placed in the victim?s mouth.
Further, the accused took close up photos of their genitalia. In several cases, he shaved the
beards and heads of some of his deceased victims and took further photos. The accused created a
digital ?le for each of the eight victims where he stored the photos, no doubt for his own
perverted sexual grati?cation. He also kept some personal effects of some of his victims as
keepsakes or trophies.

The accused then systematically dismembered each of his eight victims. The remains
were then hidden on the property of one of the unsuspecting customers of his landscape business.
Seven of the victims were placed in planters as well as other places on the property near the
adjacent ravine.

[10] In 2016, in all likelihood, there would have been another victim if he was unable to ?ee
the accused?s van where the accused was trying to strangle him.

[11] The killings only ended because of the accused?s eventual apprehension. The police had
a breakthrough in the investigation in relation to the killing of his last victim, Andrew Kinsman.
Mr. Kinsman was reported to the police as missing within a day of his disappearance. The
investigative team recovered an entry in his calendar for June 26, 2017 with the name ?Bruce?.
Ironically, Mr. Kinsman making that notation gave the police the key clue that helped bring the
accused to justice. Because of the early report, the police were able to seize relevant security
video footage before it was overwritten.

Page: 3

[12] The police seized various security video surveillance tapes from the neighbourhood and
observed the victim getting into a 2004 red Dodge Caravan. The police, working with the local
dealership, were able to identify the particular model of the 2004 Caravan. Record
searches eventually narrowed down to Mr. Bruce McArthur being the owner of a red Dodge
2004 Caravan.

[13] By September 2017, the police had Mr. McArthur under surveillance. They were able to
obtain a discarded coffee cup. A DNA pro?le for Mr. McArthur was obtained. They also
surveilled him on many occasions at a Leaside address where he was observed doing landscaping
work.

[14] By November 2017, after a great deal of surveillance of Mr. McArthur, they discovered
that the accused ?junked? the Caravan and the police recovered it ?om an auto wrecker in
Courtice, Ontario.

[15] In late November 2017, forensic analysis of the junked van revealed blood and semen.
Some of those samples contained the DNA of Mr. Kinsman. The forensic analysis also
connected the DNA of Mr. Selim Esen to the van. Mr. Esen had been reported missing since
April 16, 2017.

[16] Armed with this evidentiary foundation, the police obtained a judicial authorization to
covertly enter the accused?s residence, search it, and copy the contents of his computer. Due to
the circumstances and timing, the police were only able to download 45% of the content of the
computer. The contents on the computer included many photos of Mr. Kinsman in life.

[17] Further forensic analysis of the download continued and on January 17, 2018, the police
were able to recover deleted photos of Mr. Kinsman and Mr. Esen who clearly appear to be
deceased. This ?nally gave the police grounds for arrest.

[18] The next day the accused, who was under constant surveillance, was observed outside his
residence in the company of another man. When the accused and the man entered the building,
the police decided for the safety of the person to arrest the accused immediately. On entering the
accused?s apartment, they found the man, referred to as John, naked and handcuffed to the
accused?s bed against his will. It is an admitted fact that John went there for the purpose of
consensual sex but was handcuffed against his will. A black bag placed over his head, which he
was able to shake off as the police entered.

[19] With a search warrant for the accused?s residence, the police were able to recover more
DNA evidence linking many of the victims to the apartment. Keepsakes from the victims were
found. Importantly, a USB drive accessed from Mr. McArthur?s computer was recovered, which
contained nine sub folders. Eight of these folders were named for each of his eight victims, and
contained graphic photos that the accused had taken of each victim. The ninth folder was entitled
?John?, and contained pictures of the man rescued by the police. I have no hesitation in
concluding that if it were not for the police intervention on January 18, 2018, John would have
been the ninth victim of Mr. McArthur.

Page: 4

[20] In an effort to determine the location of the bodies, the police searched various properties,
relying on their previous surveillance and on the fact the accused was a landscaper. They
obtained a search warrant and the next day, January 19, it was executed. As a result, the police
recovered the various body parts of the eight victims from the grounds of a particular address in
Leaside. It is clear that the unsuspecting home owners of this address had nothing to do with this
brutal behavior of Mr. McArthur and are wholly innocent victims of any wrongdoing.

Determining the Appropriate Sentence
[21] It is based upon these facts, I must sentence the accused.

[22] As I indicated to the accused at the time he entered his pleas of guilty, I am required by
law to sentence the accused on each count to life imprisonment, and direct he must serve 25
years before being eligible to apply for parole. The only issue to be determined on this
sentencing is whether the periods of parole ineligibility, which must be 25 years on each count
pursuant to the provisions of the Code, should run concurrently or consecutively.

[23] Parliament of Canada enacted Section 745.51 of the Criminal Code to deal with parole
ineligibility in cases involving multiple murders. It came into force on December 2, 2011.

[24] Section 745.51(1) reads as follows:

At the time of the sentencing under section 745 of an offender who is convicted of
murder and who has already been convicted of one or more other murders, the judge who
presided at the trial of the offender or, if that judge is unable to do so, any judge of the
same court may, having regard to the character of the offender, the nature of the offence
and the circumstances surrounding its commission, and the recommendation, if any,
made pursuant to section 745.21, by order, decide that the periods without eligibility for
parole for each murder conviction are to be served consecutively.

[25] This legislation applies to six of the murders. The ?rst two counts, which relate to the
killing of Mr. Navaratnam and Mr. Faizi, took place in 2010 and predate the enactment of s.
745.51. As a result, they are not eligible for consecutive periods of parole ineligibility.

[26] It is the position of the Crown attorney, Mr. Harper that in light of the violent and brutal
nature of the killings, the degradation of the victims, and the number of victims, the principles of
denunciation, retribution, and general deterrence require at least some of the periods of parole
ineligibility to run consecutively. It is the position of the Crown that the accused should be
subject to 50 years of parole ineligibility. In other words, the accused would be 116 before he
may apply for parole.

[27] It is the position of Mr. Miglin on behalf of his client that in light of the accused?s age,
the fact the accused waived the preliminary hearing, and the fact that he pleaded guilty at an
early stage of proceedings at the Superior Court of Justice, that the periods of parole ineligibility
should run concurrently. If I acted on this submission, the accused would be 91 years of age
when he could ?rst apply for parole.

Page: 5

[28] The accused will serve a sentence of life imprisonment for his crimes. The issue to be
determined distills down to whether the accused should be eligible to apply for parole at 91 years
of age or 116 years of age. This may be a distinction without a difference. Even if the accused is
still alive at 91, due to the savage nature of the killings, it is highly unlikely that the accused will
ever be granted parole, irrespective of the period of parole ineligibility imposed.

[29] I recognize pursuant to the provisions of s. 745.51, the issue of whether to make the
periods of parole ineligibility run concurrently or consecutively is discretionary. In exercising
my discretion, I must consider four potential factors as set out in the section:

1. The character of the accused.

2. The nature of the offences.

3. The circumstances surrounding the commission of the offences.
4. Any recommendation of the jury.

[30] Obviously, in this case, the fourth factor is not relevant since the accused pleaded guilty
to the offences.

[31] In examining these factors, I must also consider the principles of sentencing set out in s.
718 of the Code. Section 718 reads as follows:

[32] The ?mdamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and to contribute, along with
crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and
safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives:

to denounce unlawful conduct and the harm done to victims or to the community that
is caused by unlawful conduct;

to deter the offender and other persons ?om committing offences;

to separate offenders from society, where necessary;

to assist in rehabilitating offenders;

to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and

to promote a sense of responsibility 1n offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm
done to victims or to the community.

[33] I am also mindful of the fundamental principle of sentencing set out in s. 718.1, which
states a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of
responsibility of the offender. There is no argument these eight counts of ?rst degree murder are
at the highest end of gravity of the offence. Further, the accused has a very high degree of moral
culpability in relation to the killings. The accused committed murders that were planned and

Page: 6

deliberate, and included dimensions of sexual assault and con?nement. To add to this, the
accused brutally dismembered the bodies of the eight deceased victims.

[34] I am also required pursuant to section 718.2 to look at any further aggravating or
mitigating factors as well as the other considerations articulated in this section.

[35] Upon reviewing the various factors I am required to consider pursuant to s. 745.51, I
must also look at the case law interpreting this provision. To date, there is no appellate authority
in Canada providing insight into how trial judges should exercise their discretion under this
section.

[36] Counsel have quite helpfully provided me with all of the reported cases (as well as one
unreported case) at the trial level courts across Canada dealing with multiple murders since the
2011 amendments. Of the approximate 26 cases where courts have had to consider consecutive
periods of parole ineligibility, courts have imposed consecutive parole ineligibility periods in 15
of those cases and a concurrent period in 11. Understandably, since each case involves the
exercise of discretion in sentencing, the judge must take guidance from the general principles
that govern sentencing. These include considering the gravity of the offence, the accused?s
degree of moral culpability, and any aggravating or mitigating circumstances.

[37] It is nevertheless helpful to brie?y examine some of the case law. Of the 15 cases where
the Court has imposed consecutive parole ineligibility, 10 of those cases involved the accused
exercising his right to proceed trial, and being found guilty by either the jury or a judge. That is
different than the case at bar.

[38] There are, however, ?ve cases where the accused elected to plead guilty to multiple
murders and received consecutive periods of parole ineligibility.

[39] In R. v. Vuozzo, 2015 PESC 14, 1138 APR. 181, the Justice of the Prince Edward Island
Supreme Court dealt with an individual who was 46 years of age .He pleaded guilty to one count
of ?rst degree murder and one count of second degree murder. In 2014, the accused drove to the
apartment of relatives of a deceased impaired driver who had killed the accused?s sister back in
1970. The accused went to the apartment for the speci?c purpose of killing one of those
relatives. When he encountered a second male in the apartment, he also intentionally shot and
killed the second man. The accused pleaded guilty to one count of ?rst degree murder and one
count of second degree murder. The Crown suggested that the court should impose 25 year
periods of parole ineligibility, to be served consecutively for a global period of 50 years. This
would make the accused 96 years of age when he could apply for parole. The defence submitted
the periods should run concurrently.

[40] The sentencing judge stated the following at para. 114:

I have considered whether a 50 year period of parole ineligibility, until the offender is age
96, would be unduly long or harsh. Apart from the unlikelihood the offender will live to
that age, in my opinion, the prohibition on even applying for parole until then virtually

Page: 7

eliminates any hope. Such a sentence would go beyond retribution and become vengeful,
and that would not be just. In my view, it would be unduly long or harsh.

[41] The judge imposed a total period of parole ineligibility of 35 years, which would allow
the accused to apply for parole at age 81.

[42] In R. v. Ostamas, 2016 MBQB 136, 329 Man. R. (2d) 203, the Manitoba Court of
Queen?s Bench sentenced an accused who, over a two week period, killed three homeless people
for no apparent reason. The ?rst two victims died of blunt force trauma, and the last victim died
of blunt force trauma and ligature strangulation. There was evidence that the accused had mental
health problems. He was charged with three counts of second degree murder. There was a joint
submission that the accused should not only receive the maximum period of parole ineligibility
of 25 years on each count, but also that the three counts should run consecutive, hence equaling
75 years. The accused was 40 years of age when he committed these offences.

[43] In R. v. W.G.C., 2015 ABQB 252, the Alberta Court of Queen?s Bench was dealing with
a 26 year old accused who was initially facing two counts of ?rst degree murder and a count of
unlawful sexual touching. When he was 22 years of age, he started having repeated sexual
intercourse and oral sex with a young child right through until she became pregnant with his
child at age 15. The accused then decided that he would kill the 15 year olds mother. He planned
in a deliberate fashion to go over to the residence one morning after obtaining a key from the
child he sexually abused. He hunted down the mother and repeatedly stabbed her in the presence
of one of her other children, who was only ?ve years of age. He then hunted down the ?ve year
old and killed him as well. The accused then staged the entire scene to make it look like there
had been a struggle with others. He then took the victim?s car. He came up with an elaborate
plan to set up a third person as the potential killer.

[44] The accused pleaded guilty to the ?rst degree murder of the mother, the included offence
of second degree murder of the ?ve year old child and the third count of sexual touching in
relation to the child victim. There was a joint submission put before the court of making the
parole ineligibility on the count of second degree murder ten years, and having the periods run
consecutively. Hence, the joint submission, which was accepted, resulted in a period of 35 years
of parole ineligibility, which would allow the accused to apply for parole at 61 years of age.

[45] In R. v. Bourque, 2014 NBQB 237, 15 CR. (7th) 52, of the New Brunswick Queen?s
Bench, the accused pleaded guilty to three counts of ?rst degree murder and two counts of
attempted murder using a ?rearm. In June of 2014, the 24 year old accused planned on killing
RCMP police of?cers. He armed himself with two ?rearms and a supply of ammunition. The
court found that there was strong pre-meditation. The three killings and two attempted killings
took place in a little over 20 minutes. The Crown sought three consecutive 25 year periods of
parole ineligibility. The defence also submitted that there should be two consecutive periods of
parole ineligibility totaling 50 years. The Court found that general deterrence and denunciation
must be paramount to deter others from seeking to kill law of?cers in the execution of their duty.
The accused received 75 year parole ineligibility. He could apply at 99 years of age.

Page: 8

[46] In R. v. Baumgarmer, 2013 ABQB 761, 578 AR. 87, of the Alberta Court of Queen?s
Bench, the accused had been employed with an armoured car company. He planned a robbery to
steal over $400,000, and part of his plan would be the deliberate execution of some of his fellow
armed security guards. The accused was initially charged with three counts of ?rst degree
murder and one count of attempted murder. With the consent of the Crown, the accused pleaded
guilty to the one count of ?rst degree murder and two counts of second degree murder and lastly,
a count of attempted murder. The accused, taking advantage of the trust of his fellow security
guards, took his pistol and shot two of them in the back of the head. A third was also shot. He
then proceeded to approach the driver and shoot him dead as well. There was a joint submission
by experienced counsel that a total period of parole ineligibility of 40 years would be
appropriate. The court accepted the joint submission.

[47] As such, on a count of ?rst degree murder parole ineligibility was set at 25 years, on one
count of second it was 15 years consecutive on the second count of ?rst degree the 15 year
parole ineligibility was concurrent. On the attempted murder, the accused received a determinate
sentence that ran concurrently. The accused was eligible for parole on the life sentences after 40
years.

[48] In examining the Ontario case law, all of the reported cases wherein consecutive parole
ineligibility periods were imposed for multiple murders saw the accused electing to exercise his
rights and proceed to trial. There is only one Ontario case involving a guilty plea to multiple
counts of ?rst degree murder: R. v. Wettlaufer (2017, unreported).

[49] In R. v. Wettlau?r, the accused pleaded guilty to eight counts of ?rst degree murder, four
counts of attempted murder, and two counts of aggravated assault.

[50] In essence, the facts are as follows. The accused worked as a registered nurse and over a
nine year period from 2007 to 2016, she elected to kill or attempt to kill her elderly patients by
injecting them with excessive amounts of insulin, thereby causing their deaths. It is clear from
the agreed statement of facts that was read in and ?led, these were not mercy killings. It would
appear from the material before me that the judge of that case observed: ?she was far from an
angel of mercy. Instead she was the shadow of death that passed over [her victims]?.

[51] Ms. Wettlaufer was detected because of her own admissions to individuals and she was
truly remorseful for her actions, unlike Mr. McArthur.

[52] There was a joint submission put before the court that in light of Ms. Wettlaufer?s true
remorse, and the fact that she was saving the necessity of a trial for the families to re-live the
nightmare of what happened, she was sentenced on the eight counts of ?rst degree murder to a
period of parole ineligibility of 25 years, concurrent on each count. On each count of attempted
murder she received a sentence of 10 years concurrent and on the counts of aggravated assault,
she received a sentence of seven years concurrent.

Page: 9

[53] The accused, Ms. Wettlaufer, was 50 years of age at the time of sentencing and will be
able to apply for parole when she turns 75. The justice did note that in light of the nature of her
offences, he indicated as follows: ?it must also be remembered that while she is eligible to apply
for parole in late 2041, she may, in fact never be paroled considering the number and nature of
her crimes and that, in fact seems likely?.

[54] In examining the existing case law, it becomes apparent that each case is different and
each result must be tailored to the particular circumstances of the individual accused, their
degree of moral culpability and any mitigating or aggravating factors. No two cases are the
same.

[55] In examining the jurisprudence, the case that is closest on its facts is Wettlaufer. The
offences disclose a high degree of planning, and the killings go on for nine years. There are eight
deceased and six other potential victims who survived. The accused pleaded guilty and avoided
the families the hardship of a drawn-out trial.

[56] There are also important differences. There was a joint submission. Ms. Wettlaufer came
forward and was remorseful. Although Mr. McArthur has taken responsibility for his actions by
pleading guilty, there has been no evidence of remorse. Mr. McArthur no doubt would have
continued killing innocent victims if not apprehended. The other important difference is age. By
imposing 25 years of total parole ineligibility, Ms. Wettlaufer will be age 75 when she will be
eligible to apply for parole. By contrast, upon 25 years of parole ineligibility, Mr. McArthur will
be 91. When examining the protection of the public and the need to separate the accused form
society, there is a signi?cant difference between a woman of 75 years years. As Mr. Miglin pointed out, actuarially, most males are dead before their 9lst year. By
contrast, it is more likely that Ms. Wettlaufer will become eligible for parole during her lifetime.

[57] Understandably, although some similarities exist, none of the cases are on all fours with
this case.

[58] Based upon this review of the case law and the principles of sentencing, I will now
examine the speci?c criteria set out in s. 745.51 of the Code, namely, the nature of the killing,
the circumstances surrounding its commission, and the character of the accused.

The Nature of the Offences and the Circumstances Surrounding the Commission of the
Offences

[59] On examining the totality of the admitted facts, and the admitted evidence before me, the
only reasonable inference that I can draw is that the accused is a sexual predator and killer who
lured his victims on the pretext of consensual sex and he ended up killing them for his own
warped and sick grati?cation. In the photographic evidence, six of the victims are shown in
states of undress on beds, many in Mr. McArthur?s apartment. Many are staged after death, with
cigars placed in their mouth and fur coats or fur hats placed on or near their bodies. Several had
ligatures around their necks. Many of the victims had their beards shaved and also later their
heads. The accused kept much of the hair. The fact that I ?nd the killings are at least in part
sexually motivated is an aggravating factor.

Page: 10

[60] The evidence discloses a signi?cant amount of pre-planning, as well as plans for the
subsequent dismemberment and the concealment of the bodies. The degree of forethought and
planning is also extremely aggravating.

The Nature of the Killings

[61] The eight men did not die a quick and painless death. Since the bodies had been
dismembered and were susceptible to the passage of time and decomposition, the pathologists
were unable to reach the de?nitive conclusion on the cause of death but for the last two victims.
Both Mr. Esen and Mr. Kinsman were victims of ligature strangulation. The photographs depict
the manner in which they were brutally strangled to death. The use of a ligature and then a pipe,
no doubt to tighten the ligature, thereby cutting off the airway, resulted in these people dying a
slow and horri?c death.

[62] Based on the described evidence, many of the victims had ligatures around their necks in
the staged photographs. Dr. Pollanen found there were also fractures to many of the victims?
thyroid bones, which is usually consistent with ligature or manual strangulation. The only reason
that the pathologists could not de?nitively call it strangulation by ligature was because of the
heads? decapitation and decomposition postmortem. I am satis?ed, beyond a reasonable doubt,
that these men died a slow and painful death by ligature strangulation for the sexual grati?cation
of Mr. McArthur. This is a signi?cant aggravating factor.

The number of killings and the seven year time line

[63] The accused took eight innocent persons? lives over a seven year period. I am also
satis?ed beyond a reasonable doubt that on January 18, 2018 John was about to become the ninth
victim. The male in 2016 may also have become a victim. The accused obviously has and
continues to be a highly dangerous serial killer. He is clearly morally bankrupt and the
paramount concern of sentencing in these circumstances must be the protection of the
community and the separation of the accused from society.

The Nature of the Victims

[64] All or most of the victims were vulnerable individuals who were lured to their deaths, no
doubt on the promise of consensual sexual activity. The accused exploited his victims?
vulnerabilities, whether they involved immigration concerns, mental health challenges, or people
living a secretive double life. He also exploited others through a belief he was their ?iend. He
had a prior relationship with some of his victims. They were persons with whom he shared a
meal or a beer. They placed their trust in him, which he manipulated and used to his advantage.
He exploited his victims? vulnerability and need for companionship. I ?nd this fact to be
extremely aggravating.

The degradation and indignity to the deceased

[65] The victims were not only used for the accused?s grati?cation in life but also in death.
He staged six of his victims in perverse and degrading fashions, and then photographed them.
The victims? bodies were manipulated, positioned with ligatures around their necks, and dressed

Page: 11

with fur clothing and cigars in some of their mouths. Some victims? beards were shaved post
mortem, and they were subjected to more photographs.

[66] His digital ?le folder for each victim allowed the accused to keep, revisit, and enjoy the
brutality of the killings. Some of his victims never even got a name for the ?le, and are simply
referred to as 4 or 

[67] Even after their brutal deaths the accused continued to victimize these men through the
use of his digital photo array of many of the victims.

[68] These eight innocent victims then faced the greatest post mortem indignity. Each was
systematically cut up in pieces and buried in planters or in the ground in an unsuspecting
person?s property in Leaside. The ability to decapitate and dismember his victims and do it
repeatedly is pure evil. The accused was motivated simply by self-preservation and avoiding
detection. This degradation and indignity of the victims shows a complete lack of humanity and
is exceptionally aggravating.

[69] The owners of the home in Leaside where the bodies were buried were are also victims of
the accused?s depravity. Obviously not on the scale of the victims family or friends, but
nevertheless they must live with the nightmare of the murdered victims being concealed on their
property for up to eight years. I have read the victim impact statement as to how that family has
struggled with the nightmare. The accused exploited their trust, much like he exploited the trust
of his victims.

The impact on the victims? families, friends and loved ones

[70] One of the most aggravating factors is the impact on the victims? families. Each of these
innocent men died a horrible death and the victims? families, ?'iends and the community have
been victimized twice. First, when their loved one went missing. No doubt over the weeks,
months or years, the victims? families, the ?'iends and the entire community went through
excruciating pain worrying about their loved one. In many of the victim impact statements,
friends and families recount searching for months on end ?'uitlessly, holding on to the hope their
loved one was alive and well. Being worried anytime there was a press report of an unidenti?ed
male person being found dead. All of the victims? families and friends suffered this for years or
months. And through all that time, the time the killer was socializing within the community.

[71] They were victimized again when they learned the horri?c truth. Their loved one not
only was brutally murdered within a day or two of their disappearance, but was then
dismembered and hidden in planters.

[72] The number of victim impact statements ?led does not re?ect the fact that each of the
eight families and friends all share a collective nightmare. They may each grieve and deal with
the loss differently, but everyone will deal with this for the rest of their lives. Mothers, fathers,
spouses, partners and innocent children some of whom were unaware of their dad?s other life.

Page: 12

[73] Today hopefully brings a ?nal end to the criminal justice process without a and
graphic public trial. I recognize for the families, friends and the community the end of the
criminal case process does not bring closure to their loss. This is just the closure of one chapter,
the criminal process of justice. Unfortunately, they will live with this nightmare the rest of their
lives. This court cannot give them what they want most, to have their loved one back.

[74] Yesterday, I carefully re-read each victim and community impact statement. There were
many poignant victim impact statements. Each family and each friend and the community have
and will continue to deal with the grief and loss for the rest of their lives.

[75] I don?t think I can capture the impact that Mr. McArthur?s actions have had better than
one of the friends of Mr. Kinsman. In his statement, he wrote:

I will never forget that day [that I learned of my friend?s death] because it was the day my
heart fractured. Doctors always say it is better to break something over fracturing it.
Fractures never really heal as well as a break and tend to bother you for the rest of your
life. My life has been truly fractured. My heart, soul and spirit have been fractured. They
may heal in time but it will never be the same and it will never go away, and it will be
with me for the rest of my life. I think of Andrew every day when I wake up, through my
day, and he is usually my last thought at night. People say that time will heal it or you

just have to push through. But it won?t heal. You have to learn to accept, adapt, and find a
new path. I will have those thoughts with me for the rest of my life. Did I fail you my
friend? Could I have done more? The only things that keep these thoughts from eating
away at me are the support of a great family, partner and ?iends, and all of the amazing
memories that Andrew and I made and shared together. The disappearance and discovery
of Andrew?s body has put a great deal of stress on me and has changed my life forever,
from my relationship with my family, my partner, my friends and even my job.

[76] Each family member, each loved one, and the members of the community will live with
this nightmare forever. The devastating impact Mr. McArthur?s brutal crimes have caused, and
will continue to cause to so many people, is a signi?cant aggravating factor.

The Impact on the Communim

[77] I have carefully read the impact statements of members of the community. Many
different communities have been affected by the accused?s crimes. I must first recognize the
acute pain that Mr. McArthur?s actions have in?icted on the community. In this respect,
the pernicious effects of Mr. McArthur?s predation are dif?cult to capture. In a community that
works to foster feelings of openness and belonging, Mr. McArthur?s crimes have instilled fear
and distrust. Worries about entering relationships, and fear of becoming a victim. Emotional
trauma and grief.

Page: 13

[78] The terrible impact the accused?s actions have had on the community is re?ected in
Reverend Deana Dudley?s victim impact statement. She stated the following:

It is impossible to over-state the impact these murders have had on Toronto?s 
community. Much of the community has been mourning these senseless and horri?c
deaths since word began to leak out about the murders, and even before then, when the
men were ?merely? missing. Obviously, to people who were friends, co?workers and
acquaintances of the victims, that grief is immediate and deeply painful.

But grief is also a reality for many in the community who may have been only
peripherally involved in this case. The men who were killed were our brothers. And
for many people within the community, their murders have changed the way we
look at the community forever. Even with the Defendant in custody, it feels less safe. It
feels less trustworthy. It feels less like home and family. Home is the place where you
can exhale and let your guard down, and for many of his victims, this place was missing
in their lives. Many in our community have lost the ability to feel that sense of safety
even in the places we used to think of as home. We are angry, and that will persist
for a long time, and I just pray that we will not let the anger eat us alive and cause any of
us to lash out in unproductive ways, as so often happens with anger born of grief. I
cannot count the number of people within our community who have come to me to
express their anger, and even more who have expressed their fear and loss of trust in
humanity. I have Spoken to people who knew the Defendant through work, or who lived
near him. To various degrees, they are all still scared. Some are ten'i?ed. Some have had
to take time off from work because they have been haunted by nightmares. Some have
been utterly disabled by their fear and depression.

There will ALWAYS be the dreadful memories, the horrendous grief, the fears, the
Toronto?s community is also strong and resilient, and we too will
survive, but has been changed forever.

[79] The accused?s brutal killings have devastated the community. The community
will never be the same. However, there are harbingers that the community is both strong
and resilient and will overcome this terrible chapter. Various support groups have come together
to help members of the community deal with grief and trauma. Hopefully, with the support of
various groups, many of whom we have heard from during the victim impact process, the
community can begin to heal; however, I recognize that the healing will never completely end
the damage Mr. McArthur has caused.

[80] In addition to the community, I want to recognize the effects that these crimes
have had on our immigrant and refugee communities, in' particular the South Asian Middle
Eastern community. The accused disproportionately targeted victims from these
communities. Vulnerable members have been exploited and murdered. The fear, anger and
distrust has and continues to be felt in these communities.

Page: 14

[81] The accused?s actions not only impacted these communities. They impacted our
community, our city as a whole. The outrage and upset and the fear caused by the accused, is
felt by all. Distrust, fear is something that Mr. McArthur?s actions have caused and continue to
cause today. I ?nd that the impact the accused?s actions have had on our city, and to a greater
extent within the community, is a signi?cant aggravating factor.

Character of the accused

[82] The accused is presently 67 years of age. He committed these offences when he was
between 58 and 66 years of age. The accused will be 91 years of age when he would ?rst be able
to apply for parole if I make the parole ineligibilities concurrent.

[83] It would appear the accused has been gainfully employed for most of his life. He had no
prior criminal record until a conviction when he was in his 50?s.

[84] The accused?s prior criminal record is ?'om 2002. He received a suspension, or What
used to be referred to as a pardon, in 2013. By the operation of the law based on his convictions
for ?rst degree murder, I am entitled to consider his record, as the suspension is lifted based on
the conviction. The accused assaulted another male by striking him in the head with a bar,
causing a gash needing ?ve stitches. The accused received a conditional sentence of two years
less a day followed by three years? probation. It is an admitted fact that he complied with the
court supervision which ended in 2008. Two years later, the accused committed his ?rst two
murders.

[85] The accused also has health challenges and suffers from type 2 diabetes.
The Mitigation of Sentence and the Pleas of Guilty

[86] There is, however, one signi?cant mitigating factor and that is his actions after the time
of his arrest. After retaining Mr. Miglin and reviewing the disclosure, he made the important
decision to waive his preliminary hearing. By doing so, the families, ?iends and the community
did not have to sit through a preliminary hearing to determine if there is suf?cient evidence to
commit him for trial. Upon his arrival in Superior Court in November, efforts were commenced
almost immediately to work towards a possible resolution without the necessity of a trial. Now,
less than 13 months from the time of his arrest, he has taken full responsibility for his actions and
pleaded guilty to eight counts of ?rst degree murder, the most serious offence in the Criminal
Code.

[87] By pleading guilty and taking responsibility for his actions, he has provided certainty of
result to both the court and to the Crown. He has also avoidedthe necessity of a three to four
month trial. More importantly, the accused has saved the victims? families, friends and the
community at large from enduring a graphic public trial which would have been a nightmare for
everyone.

[8 8] While the accused has taken responsibility for his actions. He has not exhibited remorse
and as is his right declined he declined an opportunity to provide an elocution to the court.

Page: 15

[89] Mr. Cantlon read out for three hours a summary of much of the evidence. Prior to
reviewing the evidence, he quite warned the people sitting in the public gallery that
because of the graphic content, people should consider whether they wanted to remain in the
court room. The trial with a jury would have had to hear months of very graphic and disturbing
evidence. The trial would have traumatized many.

[90] As part of my responsibilities, I have had to review much of the proposed evidence. I
am absolutely convinced that should this matter have proceeded to trial, because of the graphic
nature of much of the evidence, it would have a terrible impact on the family and friends, and the
community. Graphic digital photos staged of victim?s post mortem and disturbing forensic
pathology evidence. Four months of gruesome evidence. I have no doubt some, if not all of the
jury and court staff, would be in need of counselling deal with it. The
community impact statements talk about ongoing counselling costs and challenges caused by this
case. Members of the community coming in when the case is in the media seeking help.

[91] The fact that the accused has taken responsibility for his actions and avoided any court
hearing on the merits, is an extremely mitigating factor. It is an important factor that he certainly
is entitled to credit for.

[92] Though the Crown?s case was overwhehning, Mr. McArthur had the right to put the
Crown to the proof. He had the right to have the victims? families? friends and community sit
through four months of graphic brutal physical evidence. At the end of the day, I would still
have to sentence him to the same sentence of life imprisonment on each of the eight counts. The
accused?s actions of taking responsibility for his brutal killing and saving the families and the
community the nightmare of a trial is extremely mitigating. This mitigation must be re?ected if
feasible in the sentence.

[93] In balancing all of the factors, the most important sentencing consideration when dealing
with a person who has perpetrated multiple murders must be the protection of the public, and the
need to separate the accused from society for that purpose. Whatever sentence is imposed and
whatever parole ineligibility that is set must protect the public from a serial killer. I also
recognize that general deterrence, retribution and denunciation must also play a paramount role.
The sentence must re?ect society?s revulsion for such depravity and violence. I also realize when
dealing with a multiple murder who is neither youthful or a ?rst offender, rehabilitation need not
play as an important role.

[94] In examining the paramount sentencing consideration, protection of the community, I
note the accused?s age of 67. If Mr. McArthur is still alive, the ?rst time by operation of law he
can apply for parole he will be 91 years of age. So it is clear that even at 91 he does not see
freedom. The parole board can consider the nature of the offences, his physical and mental health
and his risk to the community. The Parole Board is required to also examine the brutal nature of
the multiple killings and the accused?s failure to exhibit remorse. Much like Justice Thomas?
observation in in R. v. Wettlaufer, I note that the chances of the accused being paroled are very
remote at best.

Page: 16

[95] Due to the accused?s age, I am satis?ed that when dealing with the protection of the
public, concurrent periods of parole ineligibility can adequately address the protection of the
public. It would not be until Mr. McArthur is 91 years of age that he could apply for
consideration for parole.

[96] The next question is whether concurrent parole ineligibility can adequately re?ect the
principles of general deterrence, retribution and denunciation. In considering the importance of
symbolism in this regard, the remarks of Macklin J. of the Court of Queen?s Bench of Alberta in
R. v. Klaus supra provide some guidance. At para. 110, he notes,

A denunciatory sentence is necessarily symbolic: CAM at para 81. However, it must also
be recognized that symbolism in and of itself is not a sentencing objective or principle in
the Criminal Code. Sentences that exceed a person?s foreseeable life serve no functional
purpose; they are purely symbolic. When a sentence exceeds a reasonable estimate of an
offender?s remaining natural life span, ?the utilitarian and normative goals of sentencing
will eventually begin to exhaust themselves?: CAM at para 74.

[97] Sentencing the accused to parole ineligibility until he is 116 years of age is symbolic.
There is a ?ne line between retribution which is an appropriate sentencing principle and
vengeance.

[98] Mr. Harper makes the submission that these killings are so brutal and so horri?c a 25
year period of parole ineligibility cannot adequately re?ect denunciation, retribution and
deterrence. I have already reviewed the case law, but in most cases, the consecutive period was
imposed after trial, not a guilty plea. When consecutive term was imposed, it was a combination
of ?rst and second degree murder. The position taken by Mr. Harper in this case on behalf of the
Crown is not an unreasonable position.

[99] On most fact scenarios, 1 would agree with the position of Mr. Harper but there are two
factors unique to this case which combined lead me to a different conclusion. Neither on its own
would be suf?cient.

[100] The law is clear, a guilty plea is a mitigating factor. In this case, the plea must be
considered as an early guilty plea since he waived the preliminary hearing and pleaded guilty
shortly after his arrival in the Superior Court. An early guilty plea must be considered a
mitigating factor when addressing a fair and ?t sentence. Second, the age when the accused
would be eligible to apply will be 91. If the accused either had a trial or would have been
younger, I would have had no hesitation in imposing consecutive parole ineligibility terms to
protect the public and address general deterrence, retribution and denunciation.

[101] I am satis?ed that these important principles can be addressed by setting the earliest date
for an application when the accused is 91. It is for these reasons in exercising my discretion I am
satis?ed that the interests of justice can be best served by having the accused receive concurrent
periods of parole ineligibility.

Page: 17

[102] The accused is sentenced to life imprisonment with no chance for parole on each of the
eight counts for 25 years. The sentences on each count and the parole ineligibility will run
concurrently. There will be a Section 109 order for life, a DNA order a non-contact order for the
families of all eight victims and a SOIRA order for life.



McMahon J.

Released: February 8, 2019